Park North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (calls may be recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6 www.horsham.gov.uk
Chief Executive - Tom Crowley
Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North
E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line: 01403 215465
Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 2ND OCTOBER 2012 AT 5.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM
Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman) Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey Ian Howard Andrew Baldwin David Jenkins Peter Burgess Christian Mitchell John Chidlow Josh Murphy Christine Costin Godfrey Newman Helena Croft Jim Rae Leonard Crosbie Stuart Ritchie Malcolm Curnock David Sheldon Laurence Deakins David Skipp Duncan England Simon Torn Frances Haigh Claire Vickers David Holmes Tricia Youtan
You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business
Tom Crowley Chief Executive
AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence
2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4th September 2012 (attached)
3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee – any clarification on whether a Member has an interest should be sought before attending the meeting.
4. To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive
5. To consider the reports of the following officers and to take such action thereon as may be necessary:
Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation Applications for determination by Committee – Appendix A
Item Ward Reference Site No. Number A1 Broadbridge DC/12/0814 Land South of Broadbridge Heath Old Wickhurst Heath Lane Broadbridge Heath A2 Denne DC/12/1259 Land East of A24 Worthing Road Horsham A3 Itchingfield, DC/12/0298 Greenfield Farm Valewood Lane Barns Green Slinfold and Warnham A4 Forest DC/10/1974 Deer Park Farm Hampers Lane Horsham A5 Rusper and DC/10/1921 Northside Farm Rusper Road Ifield Crawley Colgate A6 Rusper and DC/12/1345 Dial Post Farmhouse Horsham Road Rusper Colgate A7 Forest DC/11/2136 60A Queen Street Horsham A8 Horsham Park DC/12/0578 Collyers School 82 Hurst Road Horsham A9 Denne DC/12/0906 26 Carfax Horsham A10 Rusper and DC/12/1301 Curtis Farm Green Lane Horsham Colgate A11 Denne DC/12/1277 27 East Street Horsham
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.
DCN120904
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2012
Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, Christine Costin, Helena Croft, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, David Holmes, Ian Howard, David Jenkins, Christian Mitchell, Josh Murphy, Godfrey Newman, Stuart Ritchie, Simon Torn, Claire Vickers, Tricia Youtan
Apologies: Councillors: John Chidlow, Laurence Deakins, Jim Rae, David Sheldon, David Skipp
DCN/38 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7th August 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DCN/39 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS
Member Item Nature of Interest
Councillor Malcolm DC/12/1172 Personal – member of Broadbridge Curnock Heath Parish Council Councillor Claire DC/12/1168 Personal – member of Southwater Vickers Parish Council Councillor Peter DC/12/1075 Personal – member of North Burgess DC/12/0865 Horsham Parish Council Councillor John DC/12/1339 Personal and prejudicial – he is the Bailey applicant Councillor Peter DC/12/1077 Personal – member of North Burgess Horsham Parish Council
DCN/40 ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
DCN/41 APPEALS
Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:
Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service
Ref No Site Appellant(s) DC/12/0436 Ghyll House Farm, Broadwater Mr J A C Hyatt Lane, Copsale
Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/41 Appeals (cont.)
DC/12/0435 Ghyll House Farm, Broadwater Mr J A C Hyatt Lane, Copsale DC/12/0501 Ashwins, Sedgwick Lane, Mr & Mrs D Assassi Horsham DC/12/0650 Grey Walls, North Heath Lane, Duaris Development Horsham Ltd DC/11/2426 Land South East of Benacre, Mr C Brooks Hammerpond Road, Plummers Plain
Appeal Decisions:
Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision
DC/11/2097 Rossbank, Worthing Mr J Isbister Allowed Road, Horsham DC/11/1553 Kings Farm, Coltstaple Mr R Good Part Allowed Lane, Horsham DC/11/1554 Kings Farm, Coltstaple Mr R Good Part Allowed Lane, Horsham DC/11/2127 Lierre, Lambs Green, Mr & Mrs Dismissed Rusper B Wells
DCN/42 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1172 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FARMHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED OUTBUILDINGS AND THE ERECTION OF 34 DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY WORKS AND LANDSCAPING SITE: HEATH BARN FARMHOUSE, BILLINGSHURST ROAD, BROADBRIDGE HEATH, HORSHAM APPLICANT: STEVE COGGINS (Councillor Malcolm Curnock declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of Broadbridge Heath Parish Council.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of an existing farmhouse and associated buildings and the erection of 34 dwellings together with associated highway works and landscaping. The proposed dwellings comprised a block of 7 x 2-bedroom flats, 22 x 3-bedroom houses and 5 x 4- bedroom houses. The proposed parking provision on site would include the provision of 58 parking spaces together with 11 visitor spaces.
The application site was located within the built-up area boundary of Broadbridge Heath, although separated from the main settlement of Broadbridge Heath by the existing A264. The site was adjacent to and north of the larger area of the West of Horsham strategic land allocation.
2 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/42 Planning Application DC/12/1172 (cont.)
National Planning Policy Framework; the South East Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP7, CP12, CP13 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC2, DC5, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history in respect of the application site included:
BB/22/03 Demolition of existing dwelling and Refused and erection of 6x1-bed, 16x2-bed flats, 13x2- Appeal bed, 12x3-bed houses associated parking, Dismissed access (outline) DC/11/0372 Demolition of existing farmhouse and Withdrawn associated outbuildings and erection of 40 No. dwellings (7 x 2-bed, 15 x 3-bed, 2 x 4-bed houses and 13 x 2-bed, 3 x 3-bed flats/maisonettes) with associated highway works and landscaping.
Other relevant planning history within the West of Horsham strategic land allocation adjacent to the application site included:
DC/08/2446 Mixed use development comprising up to Withdrawn 1,013 residential units (Class C3), a primary school (Class D1); a neighbourhood centre including doctors surgery (Class D1), 6no. flexible business/retail units (Class B1/A2/A1), a parish office (Class B1), a public house/restaurant (Class A4/A3) and associated car parking; open space including sports pitches and changing facilities (Class D2); allotments; and associated landscaping and infrastructure works.(Outline). DC/08/2447 Highway infrastructure work incorporating Withdrawn new grade separated junction on A24 south of Farthings Hill; new east-west link road between Five Oaks Road and the A24; and realignment and downgrading of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass (Outline).
3 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/42 Planning Application DC/12/1172 (cont.)
DC/09/2101 Erection of 963 residential units, Granted community facility including land for a primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to Five- Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (Outline). DC/11/2059 First phase infrastructure works pursuant Granted to outline DC/09/2101, comprising details of new roundabout on Five Oaks Road, western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from Five Oaks Road to the new A24 junction, on site development roads to serve the first residential phases, Pegasus crossing and pedestrian/cycle crossings, new access to Newbridge Nurseries, access to Heath Barn Farm site, bus stops, foul pumping station and surface water drainage (Approval of Reserved Matters). DC/11/2074 Development of 105 residential units, Granted including 21 affordable housing units, open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works pursuant to outline permission DC/09/2101 (Approval of Reserved Matters).
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to certain elements of the application.
It was noted that amended plans had been received addressing issues raised in respect of the Drainage Strategy and reducing the number of solar panels.
Having regard to the location of the site within a Category 1 settlement and an identified Strategic Allocation, its development was, in principle, acceptable in terms of planning policy.
4 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/42 Planning Application DC/12/1172 (cont.)
The proposed development would result in a density of 38.2 dwellings per hectare, which was considered to be an efficient use of land and consistent with the density requirement as set out within the SPD.
It was also considered that the tenure split and mix of house size, both within the affordable provision and overall, was acceptable.
The buildings within the site had been orientated to avoid direct overlooking and were set away from the boundaries, so as to avoid potential overlooking into the adjacent site.
The boundary treatment to the west and south of the site was of particular importance and the applicant proposed the retention of the existing hedgerows and trees to these boundaries, which would be supplemented by additional tree planting. Further planting was also proposed within the development.
Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable in principle, subject to the completion of a planning agreement to secure the necessary financial contributions and highway improvements.
RESOLVED
(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure the required financial contributions and highway improvement and resolution of drainage strategy.
(ii) That, subject to (i) above, and the resolution of drainage strategy, finalisation of conditions, refuse storage points within rear gardens, in particular terraces, lighting to be consistent with adjacent countryside, application DC/12/1172 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services in consultation with the local member and the Chairman of the Committee. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
5 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/43 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/12/0778 – DEMOLITION OF FORMER AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS AND THE ERECTION OF 4 X 5 BEDROOM HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PARKING DC/12/1516 – CONVERSION OF REDUNDANT STABLE BUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL USE (3 DWELLINGS) SITE: GHYLL HOUSE FARM, BROADWATER LANE, COPSALE APPLICANT: MR JAMES HYATT
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that application DC/12/0778 related to the main farmyard area of Ghyll House Farm and sought permission for the demolition of former agricultural buildings and the erection of 4 x 5 bed detached houses with associated parking.
Application DC/12/1516 related to an area to the south of the farmyard area and sought permission for the conversion of disused stable buildings into three residential units and associated works.
The application sites were located outside any defined built-up area, with vehicular access from Broadwater Lane, having the characteristics of a country lane. The buildings within the farmyard area had all previously been in use for non-agricultural commercial purposes without the benefit of planning permission or a Certificate of Lawful Development. The immediate vicinity of the site consisted of agricultural land and woodland. Land to the north of the farmyard fell within the Garden of Historic Interest associated with Sedgwick Park.
The National Planning Policy Framework; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP8, CP11, CP13, CP15 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC8, DC9, DC18, DC24 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
DC/08/2187 Demolition of grain silos and farm Withdrawn buildings, conversion of remaining farm buildings for commercial (B1) use, conversion of 2 former stable buildings for residential use, creation of new access track, the removal of 4 x 4 track and construction of ponds for small scale commercial recreational fishing and the restoration of woodlands damaged by 4 x 4 racing
6 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/43 Planning Application DC/12/0778 (cont.)
DC/10/0807 Conversion of disused stable buildings to 3 Withdrawn residential units, the demolition of former agricultural buildings and the erection of 4 x 5 bed detached houses with associated parking and screen planting (total 7 dwellings). DC/10/2592 Conversion of former stable buildings Delegated for into 3 dwellings and the erection of 4 x 5 refusal – as yet bed dwellings. undetermined DC/12/0435 Conversion of redundant stable buildings Subject to to residential use (3 residential units in Appeal for non- total). determination DC/12/0436 Demolition of existing buildings and Subject to conversion of former agricultural buildings Appeal for non- to B1 (Business) use. determination
The site had an extensive enforcement history, principally related to unauthorised tipping activity, creation of hardstandings and unauthorised commercial uses and associated works, all of which pre-dated the applicant's acquisition of the site.
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objections to the applications. Twelve letters of objection, one of support and one of comment had been received. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.
Whilst the site was located outside any defined built-up area, and therefore subject to the countryside protection policies of the Local Development Framework, it was considered that in this case there was justification for a departure from normal restrictive Development Plan policies because of the potential environmental improvements. These would include securely precluding future commercial use of the existing substantial buildings and addressing any potential contamination of the site from previous uses.
Whist the dwellings proposed under DC/12/0778 would be approximately two metres higher than the existing agricultural buildings on the site, their footprint would be less and the amount of hardstanding on the site would also be significantly reduced. Matters such as surface water drainage, potential contamination investigation and remediation could be addressed by way of condition and appropriate infrastructure contributions could be obtained through a planning agreement, which could also deliver the overall aims of securing the cessation of future commercial use of land and buildings in the farmyard area.
7 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/43 Planning Application DC/12/0778 (cont.)
Due to the rural location and distance to neighbouring properties, it was considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties with regard to overlooking or loss of privacy and that the design of the proposed dwellings would be appropriate for that location.
It was acknowledged that the site was in a relatively unsustainable location. However, it was considered that the sustainability considerations associated with the proposal were not of such weight to justify refusal, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case.
With regard to application DC/12/1516, whilst the conversion of equestrian buildings to non-equestrian use was normally resisted and preference given to conversion of other rural buildings to commercial use, similar considerations with regard to the principle of the development applied as in the case of application DC/12/0778. It was therefore considered that, exceptionally, the principle of residential conversion in this case, as part of a comprehensive solution to the future of the site could be supported.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle, provided that the appeal against the decision to refuse permission for commercial use (DC/12/0436) was withdrawn by the applicant, and subject to the completion of a planning agreement to secure the required contributions towards infrastructure.
RESOLVED
(i) That application DC/12/0778 be advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.
(ii) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure the required financial contributions and the whole package of development.
(iii) That, subject to (i) and (ii) above, and the receipt of satisfactory comments from consultees, applications DC/12/0778 and DC/12/1516 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the applications should be granted.
8 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/44 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0784 – REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDERS YARD AND ERECTION OF ONE DETATCHED 4- BED DWELLING SITE: BUILDERS YARD, MEAD FARM, STANE STREET, SLINFOLD APPLICANT: SLINFOLD LLP
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for redevelopment of the site, used for the storage of builders materials, by the erection of 1 x 4-bedroom dwelling and a detached 3-bay garage.
The application also proposed the stopping up of the existing vehicular access to the site from Stane Street and the use of a secondary vehicular access from Maydwell Avenue.
The application site was located on the eastern side of the A29 Stane Street and to the south-west of Slinfold village.
The National Planning Policy Framework; South East Plan Policies CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, H1, NRM7 and C4; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP13 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
DC/10/2688 Change of use of builders yard and Refused erection of 1 x 4-bed dwelling DC/10/2690 Erection of 2 stable buildings and 4 field Granted shelters together with the creation of new access from Maydwell Avenue DC/11/1631 Use of the land as a builders yard for the Granted with storage of plant, machinery and building modified materials (Certificate of Lawful description Development - Existing)
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to the application. Ten letters of support or no objection had been received. Two members of the public and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.
9 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/44 Planning Application DC/12/0784 (cont.)
It was noted that the site was located outside any defined built-up area, where residential development was not normally permitted unless there was an essential need for a countryside location. It was considered that the limited independent commercial use of the site for the storage of builders’ materials would not justify the residential development of the site.
The loss of a commercial use and the substitution of a residential use, which might create a more harmonious relationship with the other two adjacent residential properties, was an insufficient argument to set aside strong policy objections to the principle of the scheme. The storage of builders’ materials on this site had not given rise to complaints of disturbance and there was no history of any unneighbourly relationship occurring between the site and the adjacent residential properties. In addition, the development of a dwelling in this location would result in further visual encroachment of built form beyond the defined built up area of Slinfold, contrary to policies which aimed to protect the visual amenities of rural areas.
The site, whilst on the periphery of Slinfold (a Category 2 settlement with limited services) and within close proximity to a bus stop, was in a relatively isolated location. It was therefore considered that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on the car for access purposes, reinforcing unsustainable patterns of development.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.
RESOLVED
That application DC/12/0784 be refused for the following reasons:
01 The proposed development which is situated outside of any built-up area boundary would represent an unacceptable intensification of residential development in this countryside location to the detriment of the rural character and visual amenities of the area. Furthermore, it has not been shown to require an essential countryside location or that it meets an identified local need and therefore would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development having particular regard to the poor access to services and facilities reinforcing unsustainable patterns of development. The proposed development would thus be contrary in particular to policies CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007)
10 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/44 Planning Application DC/12/0784 (cont.)
and policies DC1, DC9 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
02 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport, community facilities, libraries and fire services infrastructure and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs for the development would be met.
DCN/45 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1168 – DEMOLITION OF KIRBY’S AND REPLACEMENT WITH SINGLE STOREY 3 – 4 BEDROOM HOUSE SITE: KIRBY’S, TWO MILE ASH, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR AND MRS J KNIGHTLEY (Councillor Claire Vickers declared a personal interest in this application as she was a member of Southwater Parish Council.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the replacement of the existing bungalow with a single storey, timber clad dwelling. The proposal would involve large- scale re-siting, with the dwelling approximately nine metres closer to the public road.
The application site was located outside any defined built-up area in a location where countryside policies applied. The surrounding area comprised, in the main, residential properties, typically characterised by two- storey traditional designs within different sized plots. Agricultural land adjoined the site to the north and west, most noticeably an agricultural yard, Praters Farm, to the north.
The National Planning Policy Framework; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC8, DC9, DC28 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
HR/86/63 Bungalow and garage Granted HR/188/63 Bungalow and garage Granted DC/12/0186 Demolition of existing dwelling and Refused replacement with single storey dwelling
11 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/45 Planning Application DC/12/1168 (cont.)
West Sussex County Council Highways and the Parish Council raised no objections to the proposal. Five letters of support had been received. The applicant and one member of the public spoke in support of the application.
The application was a revised proposal following the refusal of application DC/12/0186, reducing the scale of the replacement dwelling and making some minor cosmetic alterations, to address the concerns expressed in respect of the earlier application.
Members considered that the current proposal satisfactorily addressed the concerns previously expressed in relation to application DC/12/0186, subject to consultation with local Members in respect of materials.
RESOLVED
That application DC/12/1168 be granted, subject to the following conditions:
01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
02 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
03 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, D, E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.
12 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/45 Planning Application DC/12/1168 (cont.)
04 The dwelling shall achieve a minimum of Code Level 4 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.
05 The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
06 Before development commences, details of the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.
07 No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
08 No development shall take place until details of screen walls and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details.
13 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/45 Planning Application DC/12/1168 (cont.)
09 No development shall take place until details of the proposed external materials and planted Sedum roof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved details shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.
10 The building hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development].
REASON
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
DCN/46 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0643 – THE REMOVAL OF A BLOCK OF 5 NO. EXISTING SINGLE STOREY GARAGES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING 3 NO. GARAGES WITH 1 NO. 2-BEDROOM FLAT ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND 4 NO. 2-BEDROOM FLATS ABOVE (TOTAL 5 FLATS) AND A ONE- STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING 3 NO. GARAGES SITE: 32-48A BISHOPRIC, HORSHAM APPLICANT: WARNER ESTATE HOLDINGS
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the removal of a block of single storey garages and the construction of a three storey building comprising three garages with a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor and four 2-bedroom flats above and a one-storey building comprising a further three garages. In addition to the six garages, seven car parking spaces were proposed.
The application site was located to the rear of 32 - 48A Bishopric and was approached via an existing access from the south eastern corner of the site.
14 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/46 Planning Application DC/12/0643 (cont.)
The site was bounded by development to all boundaries and was located within a sustainable location within the category 1 settlement area. To the north was 5a Springfield Crescent, a bungalow with planning permission for a first floor extension and sub-division to create a pair of semi detached houses (DC/09/2189). To the east of the application site was 26 -28 Bishopric, a retail storage building, subject to a current application (DC/12/0418) for residential development for 5 flats (2 x 1 bedroom and 3 x 5 bedroom) with associated car parking with access from the Bishopric. A similar application had previously been allowed on appeal (DC/12/0418).
The National Planning Policy Framework; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC13, DC18, DC19 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4 were relevant to the determination of this application.
An earlier application (DC/11/1514) had been withdrawn in August 2011, following concerns raised by the West Sussex County Council Highways Department regarding parking and highways safety matters in respect of access for refuse and fire appliance vehicles. The current application sought to address these concerns.
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Horsham Society objected to the application. Five letters of objection had been received, including one signed by the occupiers of five properties. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application.
In endeavouring to overcome the difficulties resulting from this tightly constrained site, the scale of the proposed development had been reduced from eight units as previously proposed to five units. The proposed total coverage of the site area had also been reduced and the new development had been sited so as to result in the least significant impact on the private and visual amenities of the existing adjacent residential development to the north, south and west of the site.
However, Members were concerned that the proposal would result in the overdevelopment of this site. Other areas of concern included the potential impact on parking and the close proximity of the development to the boundaries, resulting in an unacceptable relationship with neighbouring properties.
Members therefore considered that the application was unacceptable.
15 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/46 Planning Application DC/12/0643 (cont.)
RESOLVED
That application DC/12/0643 be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposal would result in a cramped form of overdevelopment by virtue of the poor relationship between the development as a whole and the site boundaries with inadequate parking facilities to serve both the existing and proposed dwellings/use. The proposed development is also considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site having a poor relationship with neighbouring residential dwelling to the north of the site. It would therefore cause undue harm to the amenity of adjacent dwelling and be detriment to the visual amenities of the surrounding area, contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and to policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).
2. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport and community facilities infrastructure and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).
DCN/47 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1075 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MARTYN LONG CENTRE BUILDING AND ERECTION OF A NEW BUILD 24-BED SPECIALIST REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY FACILITY SITE: THE MARTYN LONG CENTRE, CRAWLEY ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR NEIL JACKSON (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of North Horsham Parish Council.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the replacement the existing Martyn Long Centre building with a new 24-bed Extra Care Rehabilitation Facility comprising eight high-dependency beds with support in a central hub, together with 16 extra-care bed spaces. The proposal was for three buildings including a mix of single and two storey elements set around a central courtyard with landscaped grounds.
Vehicular access was proposed from Oak Tree Way, with pedestrian access via Crawley Road and the existing vehicular access to the front being permanently closed. 16 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/47 Planning Application DC/12/1075 (cont.)
The application site was located on the south west side of Crawley Road (A264) within the defined Built up Area Boundary of Horsham.
The National Planning Policy Framework; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP11, CP12, CP13, CP14, CP16 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC8, DC9, DC13, DC20, DC31 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4 were relevant to the consideration of this matter.
Relevant planning history included:
NH/87/89 Amendments to previously approved No objection assessment unit (circular 18/84 consultation) NH/48/92 Erection of two summerhouses Granted NH/64/00 Erection of a building to provide adult Withdrawn mental health facilities and parking area
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application.
A Statement of Need had been submitted with the application which set out the element of need for such accommodation providing specialist care for service users. In particular, the applicant advised that, with regard to mental health services, there was a planned shift towards support which actively promoted independence and social inclusion.
It was noted that the site was located in a sustainable location, with good access to local facilities and a range of services within the town centre and good links to public transport.
Local Development Framework Policy CP5 indicated that appropriate development within built up areas and on previously developed would be permitted, including infilling, redevelopment and conversion, provided that the impact on the character of the area and the environment, resources and assets of the District was considered to be acceptable.
Given the single storey design of the proposed development, it was considered that there would be no concerns regarding overlooking or loss of private residential amenity to nearby residential occupiers, particularly those to the south of the site accessed off Oak Tree Way.
It was also considered that there would be no appreciable harm caused to the street scene and that there was an adequate area around the site perimeter to allow for appropriate planting and screening measures. 17 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/47 Planning Application DC/12/1075 (cont.)
Local Members raised some concerns about potential parking and access issues connected with the proposed use of Oak Tree Way for vehicular access.
Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable in principle, subject to the receipt of the comments of Environmental Health and the County Council’s Ecology officer and further clarification in respect of parking and access.
RESOLVED
That application DC/12/1075 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, following the receipt of the comments of Environmental Health and the County Council’s Ecology Officer and further clarification regarding access and parking. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCN/48 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1104 – CHANGE OF USE TO MIXED USE OF THE WHOLE SITE AND ALTERATIONS TO ONE BUILDING (USE OF THE SITE AS A BASE FOR CARRYING ON FENCING CONTRACTORS AND TREE SURGEONS BUSINESSES, AS WELL AS FOR THE STORAGE, MANUFACTURING AND ADAPTION FOR SALE OF VARIOUS FENCING PRODUCTS AND THE SALE OF THESE PRODUCTS, AND THE RETAIL SALE OF VARIOUS SPECIFIED GOODS INCLUDING THE REPAIR OF LAWN MOWERS AS DESCRIBED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT SITE: ATS TREE SURGEONS AND HORSHAM FENCING, SELEHURST FARM, BRIGHTON ROAD, LOWER BEEDING APPLICANT: MR STEVE MILLS
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for a change of use from a Tree Surgeon and Fencing business to the mixed use of the site as a base for carrying on fencing contractors’ and tree surgeons’ businesses as well as for the storage, manufacturing and adaption for sale of various fencing products, and the retail sale of various specified goods. The application also included alterations to a building.
The site was located on the western side of the Brighton Road, with the entrance sited approximately 200 metres to the north of the junction of the A281 and B2110. It comprised a number of buildings placed sporadically around the site. An area currently used for burning of materials was located to the south.
18 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/48 Planning Application DC/12/1104 (cont.)
The remainder of the site was used for the storage of materials in association with the fencing and tree surgeon businesses operating from the site.
National Planning Policy Framework; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP15 and CP17; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC9, DC25, DC35 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1 and CC4 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
LB/45/87 Erection of tree surgery premises Granted
LB/24/89 Temporary workshop & maintenance Granted building LB/9/94 Continued use of site & buildings as tree Granted surgeons & retention of workshop & timber building, burning of timber, use for fencing contractors & portakabin
LB/29/94 Single-storey extension to provide a store Granted
LB/7/95 Single-story extension Granted
LB/27/99 Single-storey store for gates and vehicles Granted
LB/14/01 Erection of storage buildings for vehicles, Granted plant & equipment
DC/05/0487 2-storey extension and alterations Granted
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council supported the application and their comments were noted. One letter of objection had been received. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.
The site was well established in terms of its use by ATS fencing, which sold fencing and associated products, and as a tree surgery business, which also involved the ancillary sales of materials in association with this use. The applicant had indicated that conditions imposed on previous permissions (LB/45/87 and LB/9/94), controlling the items that could be sold from the
19 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/48 Planning Application DC/12/1104 (cont.)
site, had not been complied with for an extended period of time. The current application had therefore been submitted both to regularise the current situation and to extend the range of products that could be sold from the site.
The application originally had also included the burning of materials on site, but this element had now been removed from the application.
Members considered that there was insufficient information available to enable the determination of the application.
RESOLVED
That consideration of application DC/12/1104 be deferred for the submission of further information, including clarification as to the proposed uses and activities on the site, all in consultation with the local Member.
DCN/49 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0865 – SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND RE-SITING OF GARDEN FENCE SITE: 5 COLERIDGE CLOSE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR ROBERT PLINSTON (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of North Horsham Parish Council.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a single storey pitched roof rear extension, internal alterations, including two external windows at ground floor level and the re-siting of the garden fence (retaining wall to be retained) to the south, incorporating an open area of land into the rear garden.
The application site was located within the built up area of Horsham and comprised a two-storey linked detached house located on the east side of the road, in a corner plot.
National Planning Policy Framework; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC3 and DC9; and South East Plan Policy CC6 were relevant to the determination of this application.
There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site.
The Parish Council and the Horsham Society objected to the original plans. One letter of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent spoke in support.
20 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/49 Planning Application DC/12/0865 (cont.)
Amended plans had been received showing the rear extension set back from the northern side boundary and re-siting the garden fence by setting it back from the back edge of the footpath by 0.7metre to allow for landscaping. No comments had been received from the Parish Council or Horsham Society in respect of the amended plans.
It was acknowledged that there would be a degree of change between the application site and the adjoining occupiers to the north. The amended plans indicated that the proposal would be set back from the common side (north) boundary, by 0.15 metre.
Members expressed concern regarding the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property. It was also considered that a clearer plan was required to confirm that the re-sited fence would be set back sufficiently from the highway boundary and that any condition requiring planted landscaping should apply in perpetuity.
RESOLVED
That application DC/12/0865 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, following the receipt of amended plans showing a 0.3 metre gap from the boundary of the adjoining property for the single storey rear extension and the siting of the fence 0.7 metre from the highway boundary and the amendment of the landscaping condition to require planting in perpetuity. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCN/50 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1339 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT AGRICULTURAL BUILDING SITE: WINDACRES FARM, CHURCH STREET, RUDGWICK APPLICANT: JOHN BAILEY (Councillor John Bailey 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 consideration of this application.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services advised members that this application sought prior approval for the erection of an agricultural storage barn measuring 30.5 metres by 15.2 metres to a maximum height of 8.2 metres. Whilst a barn of this size and use was classed permitted development provided it was reasonably required for the purposes of agriculture, under the terms of the General Permitted Development Order, prior approval had to be sought from the Local Planning Authority for the siting, design and external appearance of the building. 21 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/50 Planning Application DC/12/1339 (cont.)
The proposed building would replace an existing agricultural barn sited within the complex of buildings at Windacres Farm. Windacres Farm was situated to the north of Rudgwick and to the south and east of Cox Green and consisted of open fields of varying sizes, with mature tree boundaries.
The Town & Country Planning Act and Town and Country Planning Order; agricultural policies contained within the Development Plan; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2 and DC9 were relevant to the determination of this application.
A previous Prior Notification (DC/09/1231) for a similarly shaped barn on the site had been permitted, subject to three conditions.
One letter of objection had been received.
The current proposal was for essentially the same agricultural building as that previously approved (DC/09/1231) except that the building would be re- orientated onto an east/west axis to reduce the amount of excavation required; ameliorate the visual impact from residential properties to the northwest and southwest; and increase opportunities to benefit from rainwater harvesting and green energy.
In these circumstances, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable.
RESOLVED
That Prior Approval, under Class A, Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), be granted provided all the relevant criteria therein are complied with, in particular, that the proposal is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit, as defined in the Planning Acts and subject to the following conditions:
01 M1 – Approval of Materials. 02 Within six months of the completion of the agricultural building hereby approved, the existing agricultural building indicated on the submitted location plan received on the 17th July 2012 shall be demolished and removed from the site. 03 D6 Finished Floor Levels
22 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/51 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1077 – SURGERY TO ONE SYCAMORE TREE SITE: LAND WEST OF 2 AND 3 BELLOC COURT, HORSHAM APPLICANT: HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of North Horsham Parish Council.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission to carry out surgery to a mature sycamore tree.
The tree was part of a line of protected specimens on the northern side of the old trackway running from Harwood Road to Comptons Brow Lane and was protected under Tree Preservation Order number 496, confirmed on 15th September 1987.
Members were advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).
The tree had previously been lightly trimmed (NH/196/99 and DC/07/0384).
The Parish Council raised no objections to the proposal.
The tree was a tall multi-stemmed specimen, not of especial individual merit, but contributing collectively with other neighbouring trees in the same area to the character and amenities of the locality.
The tree was located in close proximity to the nearest residential dwelling and the lower trunk was exhibiting numerous forks which were tightly compressive and were showing reaction growth in response. One specific area of concern represented a weak point in the tree’s structure. Additionally, the longest branches were starting to foul the roof and first floor of the adjacent dwelling, causing a nuisance.
In order to reduce mechanical loading on the potentially weak point in the stem, it was proposed to reduce the northern and central stems by approximately 30% of their height and the remainder of the canopy would be reduced just enough to produce a balanced crown profile equating to an approximate 20% overall reduction. The northern canopy would also be lightly lifted away from the building to five metres above ground level.
23 Development Control (North) Committee 4th September 2012
DCN/51 Planning Application DC/12/1077 (cont.)
Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable.
RESOLVED
That planning application DC/12/1077 be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. TR2 Time limit 2. TR3 Treeworks limit - Undertake tree surgery works exactly as set out in specification submitted as part of application. 3. TR4 Surgery standards
The meeting closed at 8.47pm having commenced at 5.30pm.
CHAIRMAN
24 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 2ND OCTOBER 2012 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
APPEALS LODGED
I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-
1. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service
DC/12/0701 New brick wall topped with iron railings 56 Keats Close, Horsham, RH12 5PL For: Mr M Wingate
Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012 Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates
DC/12/0916 – Maple Apartment, Maple Farm, Marches Road, Warnham
A Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for the use of the old Groom’s flat as an independent unit of residential accommodation. The applicant had proved four years use.
DC/12/0972 - 2, Bensons Farm Cottages, Wimlands Road, Faygate
A Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for the development of an accessway and track. The applicant proved on the balance of probabilities that these structures had existed for more than ten years.
DC/12/ 0677 - Kingsfold Nursery, Dorking Road, Kingsfold
A certificate was refused. The applicant had applied for the use of a mobile home as an independent unit of accommodation to be declared lawful. It was felt that insufficient proof had been submitted. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 2nd October 2012 Part A - Reserved Matters approval for residential development of 135 houses (consisting of 37 x 2-bed, 36 x- 3-bed and 62 x 4-bed) and DEVELOPMENT: landscaping and: Part B - Temporary approval for sales and marketing suite comprising plots 1, 2 and 3 Land South of Broadbridge Heath Old Wickhurst Lane Broadbridge Heath SITE: West Sussex WARD: Broadbridge Heath APPLICATION: DC/12/0814 APPLICANT: Mr Simon Kirk
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to receipt of confirmation from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer of the acceptability of the townhouses (house type Q1 and L1) along the Primary Street East-West; further consideration of the landscape interface with adjacent highway along the Primary Street East-West outside of the defined site boundary; and resolution of conditions.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 In October 2011 Outline Planning Permission was granted for the development of 57 hectares of land to the South of Broadbridge Heath which forms part of the strategic development of land as set out in the Horsham District Council: Land West of Horsham Masterplan. The Outline permission is for a development of 963 residential units, community facilities including land for primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to Five Oaks roundabout,
Contact Officer: Karen Tipper Tel: 01403 215180 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2
realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (application reference DC/09/2101). The Outline permission is subject to a legal agreement which secures a range of benefits associated with the development, including the delivery of 20% affordable housing across the development site (193 units) together with a £7.73 million commuted sum for off site affordable housing provision. The £7.73million would be subject to indexation and payable in tranches and equates to 10% (96 units). The scheme is intended to be delivered over a 7 year period completing in 2017.
1.2 The current application was submitted in May 2012 and is a ‘hybrid’ application. Part A of the application seeks Reserved Matters approval for the second residential phase of this wider development and comprises 135 dwellings, including 27 affordable units, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works. Part B of the application seeks full planning permission for a sales and marketing suite on plots 1, 2 and 3 within this phase for a temporary period.
1.3 Part A, the reserved matters application, seeks approval for all matters, these being access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and is supported by the following technical reports:
Design And Access Statement Planning Statement And Statement Of Conformity Noise Assessment Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-assessment - Including Water Reduction Strategy Site Investigation Report Ecology Report Arboricultural Method Statement for No Dig Construction Landscape Installation, Establishment, and Management Plan Plot Schedule
1.4 A number of plans have been submitted to accompany this application which illustrates the site layout, street scenes and floor plans and elevations of the proposed dwellings together with access and parking provision on site to include the provision of 315 allocated car parking spaces are proposed together with 14 visitor parking spaces, a total of 329 spaces across the site. 21 disabled parking spaces are being provided as part of the development. The parking for all of the dwellings is provided either on-curtilage, with garages, car-barns or within small parking courts. The application also indicates the provision of refuse and recycling storage together with indicative collection points as well as indicative details of the strategy for hard and soft landscaping.
1.5 The residential element of the application includes the following:
Private Units: Affordable Units: 62 x 4 bed houses 5 x 2 bed FOGs 23 x 3 bed houses 9 x 2 bed houses 20 x 2 bed houses 13 x 3 bed houses 3 x 2 bed Flats/ FOGs Total: 27 Total: 108 ITEM A1 - 3
1.6 Moat Housing has been chosen as the intended partner for the delivery of these 27 affordable units. In order to meet the affordable housing price set out in the Section 106 Agreement, Moat Housing Association has agreed with the Housing Strategy and Development Manager to vary the mix, representing a 52%/48% split between affordable rent and shared ownership:
Affordable Rent: Shared Ownership: 8 x 3-bed houses 5 x 3 bed houses 6 x 2-bed houses 3 x 2 bed houses Total: 14 5 x 2 bed FOGs Total: 13
1.7 This phase of the Land South of Broadbridge Heath does not include the provision of any open space although open space is being provided adjacent to the site by Countryside Properties PLC. The internal circulation routes comprise the Primary Street East-West (although this street is to be provided by Countryside Properties PLC and falls within the scope of the approved Phase 1 Infrastructure application DC/11/2059), Secondary Street together with Community Streets and Green Lanes on the periphery of the site and have been designed to Manual for Streets standards.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.8 The strategic allocation of land south of Broadbridge Heath comprises an area of approximately 57ha located to the west of the A24 bounded by the A264 to the northwest, the River Arun to the south west and High Wood Hill to the south east. The balance of the strategic allocation of Land West of Horsham is to the east of the A24 currently under construction by Berkeley Homes (Southern) Ltd.
1.9 The land immediately to the south of Broadbridge Heath is predominately flat and gently undulating with the notable exception of High Wood Hill within the south- eastern corner and which is the location of a species rich designated woodland and Site of Nature Conservation Interest. With the exception of High Wood Hill, the area South of Broadbridge Heath is arable farm land with a small number of residential properties. Mill Lane, a public bridleway (BW1630) and Old Wickhurst Lane provide the key routes linking Broadbridge Heath to the countryside to the south. Part of the Mill Lane public bridleway runs north of the existing Broadbridge Heath by-pass to Thelton Avenue and provides a key link to the village. The trees and hedgerow on the edge of Mill Lane provide an important wildlife corridor which along with the field boundaries in the northern half of the site and on its edges, coupled with existing tree cover, are important to the landscape character of the area.
1.10 The site the subject of this application is located to the east of the first phase residential development already granted Reserved Matters under DC/11/2074 and forms the second phase of development. The southern boundary of this site links with the new East-West link road which forms part of the infrastructure being delivered. The eastern boundary is adjacent to the Mill Lane public bridleway but which falls outside of the application site boundary.
Contact Officer: Karen Tipper Tel: 01403 215180 ITEM A1 - 4
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Currently the South East Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England, (May 2009) forms part of the development plan and is relevant to the determination of the application.
2.3 National policy can now be found in the National Planning Policy Framework published March 2012.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.4 The following Development Plan Documents (DPDs) also form part of the development plan and are relevant to the determination of the application, the adopted Core Strategy DPD (2007), the General Development Control Policies DPD (2007) and the adopted Proposals Map (2007).
Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007): CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character CP2 – Environmental Quality CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development CP4 – Housing Provision CP5 – Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land CP7 – Strategic Allocation – West of Horsham CP12 – Meeting Housing Need CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements CP19 – Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport
Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007): DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement DC2 – Landscape Character DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology DC6 – Woodland and Trees DC7 – Flooding DC8 – Renewable Energy and Climate Change DC9 – Development Principles DC18 – Smaller Homes/ Housing Mix DC40 – Transport and Access
2.5 Whist Policy CP7 sets the key principles, specific guidance on the ‘visions’ for the development is provided in the Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document SPD (2008) and the Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas SPD (2009) which provides guidance on design matters for developers and others preparing planning applications and for those considering applications.
ITEM A1 - 5
2.6 The Masterplan sets out the ‘visions’ for the Strategic Development West of Horsham which are:
An approach based on partnership with the local community who, through their involvement, will be in a position to be actively involved helping to ensure the long term success of this development beyond just buildings, bricks and mortar. An extension to the communities of both Horsham and Broadbridge Heath that reflects their differing needs, retains their characteristics and gives the expanded communities a sense of identity, which will include innovative design. A development that delivers a sustainable and balanced community through the provision of a wide range of housing types and tenures including affordable homes that meet housing need and demand in the District, alongside a range of business and employment opportunities. A development in which leisure and recreation acts as a focal point for both the new and wider communities of Horsham and Broadbridge Heath, encompassing a wide range of facilities and activities from formal sports uses to informal walks. A development with the minimum impact on the environment which recognises the existing pressures on the natural environment, the need to conserve resources and includes strong links between the communities, biodiversity, heritage, the natural features of the site and its surroundings. A development that is an exemplar in terms of the use of sustainable construction techniques, renewable and low-carbon energy supply. A development in which good public transport, pedestrian and cycle facilities provide a realistic alternative to the car and where roads do not present a significant barrier to the integration of communities, the access to services / facilities and the wider countryside. A development which provides for the needs of the new communities without detriment to the existing, through the inclusion of education, health, infrastructure and community facilities and in which the location of such services and facilities provides lively focal points.
PLANNING HISTORY
DC/08/2446 Mixed use development comprising up to 1,013 residential units WDN (Class C3), a primary school (Class D1); a neighbourhood centre including doctors surgery (Class D1), 6 No.flexible business/retail units (Class B1/A2/A1), a parish office (Class B1), a public house/restaurant (Class A4/A3) and associated car parking; open space including sports pitches and changing facilities (Class D2); allotments; and associated landscaping and infrastructure works.(Outline)
DC/08/2447 Highway infrastructure work incorporating new grade separated WDN junction on A24 south of Farthings Hill; new east-west link road between Five Oaks Road and the A24; and realignment and downgrading of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass (Outline)
DC/09/2101 Erection of 963 residential units, community facility including land for PER a primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational ITEM A1 - 6
facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east- west link road, improvements to Five-Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (Outline)
DC/11/0079 Application to construct 3 No. ponds for Great Crested Newt PER habitat, a bat house and a reptile site in connection with application DC/09/2101
DC/11/2059 Details of the first phase infrastructure works pursuant to outline PER DC/09/2101, comprising details of new roundabout on Five Oaks Road, western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from Five Oaks Road to the new A24 junction, on site development roads to serve the first residential phases, Pegasus crossing and pedestrian/cycle crossings, new access to Newbridge Nurseries, access to Heath Barn Farm site, bus stops, foul pumping station and surface water drainage (Approval of Reserved Matters)
DC/11/2074 Development of 105 residential units, including 21 affordable housing PER units, open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works pursuant to outline permission DC/09/2101 (Approval of Reserved Matters)
DC/11/2561 Removal of Condition 7 (European Protected Species Licence) of PER DC/11/0079 (Construction of 3 No. ponds for Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site)
DC/12/1255 Approval of reserved matters pursuant to approval of application Ref. PCO DC/09/2101
DC/12/1651 Development of 101 residential units, including 20 affordable housing PCO units (20%), the creation of public and private amenity space, incidental public open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works (Approval of Reserved Matters)
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Arboricultural Officer: Further to your instructions, I visited the site on 3rd August 2012 and report accordingly. I have also examined the response from Matthew Bright, as he focuses on a number of arboricultural issues in his report. I note the following:
None of the proposed buildings on the site have been located within the RPA's of any of the retained trees, which is laudable. In terms of overhang and shading, plots 107 and 108 are suspect, though after careful on-site measurement and analysis, I feel that, despite facing north, the gardens to these two properties will receive sufficient daylight and direct sunshine - just - not to provide an unacceptable level of shading from the trees likely to result in post development pressure for lopping/removal. This is on account not only of the distance set between the northern facades and the trees, which will leave an 'open sky' area of around 5m in depth, but also in regard to the height of the overhanging limbs across what will become the gardens. In future times, it may be necessary to protect these trees by way of a ITEM A1 - 7
TPO, but although this possibly suggests that future resident pressure may occur, I remain of the view that the relationship between the two large trees and the dwellings is not unacceptable in principle, satisfying the provisions of BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' [2012]. Further to the severance of the north/south hedgerows which border the site (which I objected to at outline stage and indeed will have already caused significant ill-effect on the wildlife of the area), it is all the more important that these and the tree specimens within are protected from further harm. Three areas are of note: o Matthew makes comment in regard to the parking court attendant to plots 98 - 104, which is in close proximity to the western boundary hedge. Around 1.5m allowance has been given, but at the 1:500 scale of the latest site layout plan provided (drawing number: C1415/P002 revision H, dated 24 July 2012), it is not really possible to accurately assess what effect this proximity might have on the hedge. I therefore agree that a drawing at a far more detailed scale should be provided to clarify this. o He comments similarly in regard to the space allowed to the rear of the garage blocks on plots 110, 111 and 112. I do not necessarily agree that as much as 2.5m clearance from the face of the hedge is necessary, but again feel that a closer scale drawing clarifying this should be provided. In neither of these cases do I have an outright objection. o The eastern site boundary is of greater importance, and contains a number of large - and one very large - trees, principally oaks. Far from objecting to the proposal to abut this hedgeline with a 'green lane' access road (far better than the rear gardens of houses!), clearly there is a concern as to whether this might harm the larger trees. This is a matter also raised by Matthew, though after careful examination of the RPA's of the larger specimen trees, it is clear that a good effort has been taken to limit the proximity of the lane to either fully outside the RPA's, or limit ingress to 20% of the RPA's in line with the principles of BS 5837.Four trees have their RPA's invaded, T408, T413, T415 and T421. In all cases the degree of ingress is around 20% maximum. o I would take pains to point out, however, that the ingress as permitted under the BS relies on the principle that such root area lost to encroachment "can be compensated for elsewhere, contiguous with its RPA". This is of importance principally in the case of the very large T408 (which has a trunk diameter of over 1400mm) as the 'compensation' will need to be taken account of on the eastern side within the next parcel of land to be developed. o In terms of overhang, even the largest trees have a reasonable existing crown base height, around 3.5m on average, and hence the degree of pruning required to improve this to statutory levels is acceptable and, on principle, unobjectionable. However, given that these trees remain unprotected, it is necessary that an arboricultural schedule is submitted to specify exactly what works are proposed.
Subject to the provision of the additional information set out above (underlined), I register NO OBJECTION to these proposals in arboricultural terms.
ITEM A1 - 8
3.2 Design and Conservation Officer: (original comments 13/07/2012) The application details should respect the outline parameter plans in terms of use, landscape, access, density and character areas and building heights, as well as the principles in the Design and Access Statement for the outline application (DAS outline).
The applicants for the current application have sought to explain further their design approach and a meeting has been held between officers and representatives of the applicants to give initial feedback.
Although the application broadly corresponds and is compliant with the parameter plans; especially in relation to the density, storey heights, access including primary and secondary streets within the phase. The landscaping generally corresponds with the locations of green space and tree/ hedge belts, however the Councils’ Landscape Architect is best placed to comment on this aspect. The general layout offers mostly good surveillance over street; the block concept is supported.
Principle Street Turning to the specifics of the scheme, the proposed built form relates well to the primary and secondary streets, creating a hierarchy of streets within the phase which should connect well with both phase 1 and 3. The tree storey townhouse development along the principle street is considered to be a sensible treatment to lead into (or out of) the further higher density (and storey height) development of phase three.
There is concern that the engineering and detailed design of the primary street lies outside the application red line; in that the phase two infrastructure is being submitted by another designer; the buildings and the spaces along this street need to work together to ensure a successful design and as such it is strongly recommended that the designers work together on this aspect. I am especially concerned about the “square” element shown on the plans in the centre of the primary street, it does not seem at present this element works in tandem with the buildings (and as we do not have the phase two infrastructure detail as yet, this element is yet to be brought together). It’s in the applicants and the Council’s interest to do so.
In the meeting with the applicant’s designers, concern regarding they style of architecture of the three storey townhouses was expressed; the plans show a traditional urban townhouse, with its cues taken from Georgian/ early Victorian London street. This style of architectural detail is not considered appropriate for this development in Horsham and the designers requested to revise the design. Some use of local stone could be incorporated into this aspect of the development as it would be traditional for stone to be used on the “grander” buildings in the district. Front gardens and boundary treatments can help create a strong sense of character and with the street elevations and infrastructure design should also work in harmony with each other. I’m not convinced at present they do but expect the designers to revise this aspect of the scheme.
Secondary Street The secondary street character is less formal, reflecting the step down in hierarchy and adopts a more vernacular sense of place with detached houses and a retained ITEM A1 - 9 hedge on the north side of the street. Again, the principle “square” where the north/south community street crosses over the secondary street requires more thought to create character.
Community Street and Green Lanes The principles of the community street and green lane are supported, however at the meeting officers expressed concern that the architectural details of the green lane, including boundary treatments and garage designs could do more to reflect the “lane” character the designers wanted them to express and as such barn hips, timber fences, car barns etc would help soften the style and character of these streets.
Parking courts and FOGs The parking courts, with their Flats Above Garages (FOGs) create a problem for officers. Although the size of the courtyards are below best practice in Manual for Street 2 and By Design (serving 10 dwellings or less), they are nevertheless presented in a urban context, leaving the FOG isolated and lacking in amenity. The courtyards themselves need to have a character, just like the streets as they are importance spaces also. This requires demonstration in the Design and Access statement, perhaps as a character area supplementary to those already proposed for other areas. It is further recommended that the architectural treatment of the FOGs are enlivened to include balconies and windows. On a detailed matter, the FOG in plot 9 is surrounding on three sides by parking and is considered to be of poor design and context; this is totally unacceptable and requires revision.
Architectural design and detailing The general architectural design of Sussex vernacular for the buildings other than the principle street is acceptable. Some minor revisions to the details of the buildings have been discussed with the designers. These briefly comprise recommended alteration to: Windows: where sash style is proposed, they should be vertical sliding sashes; casements should be side hung. Electricity (etc) boxes to be placed internally/side elevations/ in porches hidden from view where possible. Changes to plot 107 to include front entrance facing street and window surveillance over path instead Architectural revisions to half dormers; coach house (underpass) designs Greater variety of garage designs
In conclusion, there are a number of elements which require revision before a recommendation for approval on design matters can be given. I am confident after the meeting with the designers that this can be achieved, however await further details until advising compliance on this aspect of the scheme
(further comments received 20/08/2012 following receipt of amended information) Part A: A meeting was held in July to discuss design matters relating to this development, and from this a number of amendments have been made by the application. These comments are based on the drawings submitted 30th July 2012.
ITEM A1 - 10
Primary Street: The Master plan SPD and the outline application both showed three storeys fronting the primary street, leading towards the new village centre to the east. This hierarchy is supported and three storeys in this context, with the previously approved applications in considered to be acceptable.
The design of the three storey townhouses has been revised to incorporate local brick with stone detailing. Horsham Town does not have a large amount of three storey townhouse type dwellings, and although some have been approved on the Berkeley’s east A24 site, the architectural detailing was contemporary in style. The designers for the applications for this site wish to take a traditional architectural approach and officers directed them towards other local examples where design references could be drawn from. This included three storey buildings Park House and Springfield Park constructed from local brick with slate roofs, stone detailing and traditional sliding sashes.
As the above examples show, local brick and stone in this form is appropriate for a three storey building, however attention to detail is the key to a successful, locally derived design. The proposed three storey buildings from plot 62-65, plot 89-97 and 98-131 require greater emphasis at eaves and roof height, as currently the plans appear a lacking in strength in this area. A mansard roof set behind a parapet, or a stronger eaves detailing, perhaps in local stone is likely to resolve this issue.
There is also a need for some uniform vertical emphasis on the townhouses, especially at roof level. This could be in the form of roof fire walls, downpipes with a decorative hopper dividing each townhouse, or larger chimneys, reflecting the status of the terrace.
It is also considered again to emphasise hierarchy and status, as well to aid legibility, that a feature should be made out of the under croft areas. Although a small band of stone has been added to plot 94, a central keystone detailing would be a welcome relief, again emphasising the hierarchy and quality of this primary street.
There is still concern regarding the character of the spaces along the primary street, where the community street and green lanes intersect. These spaces should be of quality and be design/landscape led, creating appropriate nodes within the development. It is noted that the details of these spaces form part of Countryside’s’ Infrastructure application. Both application need to demonstrate design co- ordination to reflect an appropriate character for the street. Currently neither application demonstrates this coordination and the 6th August plans only enlarge the detail previously submitted. I am not convinced this solution is design-led or appropriate for the street.
Secondary Street The two storey character of the secondary street is acceptable in principle, however the lack of variation, other than materials and fenestration is disappointing. The house types are double fronted dwellings with pitched roofs and uniform garages set back; further variation including gable ends, feature chimneys on side elevations, bay windows etc would help provide character and variety to the street. ITEM A1 - 11
The squares in the street again should be designed in collaboration with the infrastructure application; this needs to be demonstrated clearly in both applications.
Community Street The amendments to the community streets are welcome, incorporating more detailing to the garages and adding some further weatherboarding etc. As suggested at the meeting, please reorganise the plot 107 to face the street.
Green Lanes Turning to the two and a half storey terrace at plots 30 – 37, there are similar designs in the area, however where the style is derived from the local vernacular (rather than a formal Georgian inspired terrace) most usually incorporate dormers into the roof when the dwellings are two storeys, rather than bisecting the eaves detailing, such as the example below at Warnham. Appropriate brick detailing is also required above the under croft at plot 33 to help define this feature of the street.
It is noted that the garage in some locations have not been amended. In order to ensure continuity with previous phases of the development, and appropriate detailing and hierarchy, it is suggested that car barns or timber framed garages are substituted for the garages in the green lanes. These areas are designed to have a rural and soft edge treatment, and urban style garages erode this character. Furthermore, banding and stringcourses also play a part in appropriate detailing, and creating a sense of place and quality within a development, especially where the principle streets are concerned. It is suggested appropriate detail such as these are added to the buildings to ensure continuity of quality and detailing throughout the development.
The green lanes facing the public open space require an appropriate design solution to demonstrate how this will still remain public open space. I am not convinced that a block paving in this area is a proper solution to this issue. A reorganisation of the access to the properties may retain the public open space area, without having vehicular access on this land also. There is a good example at 41, 43, 45 Fawn Rise, Henfield, although the situation has changed slightly recently with the approval of further phases of the Parsonage Farm development.
Courtyards/Flats above garages At the previous design meeting, officers expressed concern regarding the isolation of some plots in the courtyards the character of the courtyards not being treated with the same care as the streets. This has been partially addressed by the introduction of planting and pergolas in the parking courts and the reorganisation of the number and locations of dwellings. Detailing, including balconies and gables have been added to the FOGs to given them a presence in the space also. However there is still concern regarding plot 34 which appears from the site layout plan not to have been altered. Please can this be clarified.
Landscaping Although a matter of detail for the landscape architect, please ensure continuity of quality and hierarchy throughout the site; railings for the formal Georgian terraces; ITEM A1 - 12
picket fences/informal planting character for the community streets and green lanes etc. Hard landscaping should also reflect this hierarchy.
Although the amendments are a step in the right direction, for the reasons above, I am not convinced that the detailing and quality of the architectural design and the hierarchy reflects the policy requirements of DC9, nor the agreed principles in the outline application. Please seek amendments to rectify this for part A before granting permission.
Part B The proposed sales area is prominently located adjacent to the main public open space. Although there is no particular concern regarding the plot to be used, the sales suite is utilitarian in character, and will impact negatively on the street scene and the open space, it is suggested that the proposed house to be constructed on this plot is used instead of the suite.
3.3 Housing Strategy and Development Manager: (original comments 19/07/2012) The Section 106 Agreement definition of the affordable housing unit or units states:
…20% of the total number of Dwellings to be constructed on the Site of which 62.5% shall be Affordable Rented Units, and 37.5% shall be Shared Ownership Units (if housing grant is available) (or such other tenure mix as shall be approved by the District Council in writing) and which shall be of such size and type as is set out in the Affordable Housing Scheme
I confirm that the Council is prepared to vary the mix as follows:
Rent 6 x 2 bed houses 8 x 3 bed houses Total: 14
Shared Ownership 6 x 2 bed flats 3 x 2 bed houses 4 x 3 bed houses Total: 13
This represents a 52/48 split between rent and shared ownership.
3.4 Landscape Architect: (original comments 20/07/2012) Summary 1. It is disappointing to find that a quite a number of my pre-application comments appear to have been ignored. So my comments below do now need to be taken seriously and addressed as otherwise this could result in an eventual objection to the application. 2. There are key concerns about the retention of important hedgerows and trees 3. There are issues about creating adequate, attractive pedestrian routes to the open spaces 4. The proposed squares and rear courtyards within the development need further consideration of their design ITEM A1 - 13
5. I am concerned that the number, location and form of the accesses to the development from the primary access road, together with visitor car parking may prevent the delivery of important avenue tree planting 6. There are other more detailed concerns and issues to be addressed in relation to the hard and soft landscape design proposals
Some of the problems appear to emanate from the number of dwellings and associated garaging and parking that are proposed on the site ie they are resulting in ‘’over development’’. However it may well be possible to overcome the problems identified through re-consideration of the detailed design of specific areas.
Trees and Hedgerows The trees and hedgerows on the site are very important landscape features whose long term retention, along with new planting, is vital to a satisfactory integration of new development in the local landscape. The retention of these features was secured in principle at the outline planning stage as part of the landscape and open space parameter plan and furthermore through the plans appended to the section 106 legal agreement.
In this regard I am very concerned about and consider layout amendments are needed in respect of the following: The proximity of the hard surfacing of the parking court for plots 98-104 to the existing north-south running hedgerow which could result in root damage and does not allow any buffer to the hedgerow. A detailed 1:50 plan using the topographical survey as a base and 1:20 cross section should be provided for this area clearly showing existing and proposed levels. In my view the edge of the parking court should be set back further an additional 2m from the hedge both in terms of avoiding root damage and providing a grass verge as a proper buffer/setting for the retained hedge. The proximity of mature trees to houses and overhanging gardens to plots 107, 108, and 109. It looks like there could be problems with future resident pressure to fell or for substantial pruning to the long term detriment of the landscape character of the area and the quality of the development. There should be reconsideration of the relationship of houses, trees and gardens, setting back the houses to minimise the risk I have identified Garage type 2 on plot 110 and garage type 5 on plot 111 will either be right up against the northern site boundary hedgerow or very close to it. Construction of the garages will be either impossible or there will be insufficient space to do this without damage to the hedgerow. The garages should be set back at least 2.5m from the outer face of the hedge. The retention of the Mill lane hedgerow and hedgerow trees is vital. These features are intended to be conserved and enhanced as part of the Mill Lane open space as part of Countryside’s infrastructure proposals. Whilst the boundary of the housing and open space appears to be very broadly in line with that shown on the Design Proposals along Mill Lane Corridor North drawing submitted at the Outline planning stage I am concerned that we need to be satisfied that the root protection areas of the major hedgerow oaks will not be damaged/significantly adversely affected by the precise position of the kerb line of the green lane. In addition the tracking of bin lorries and fire tenders etc down this road might have the potential to affect the outer extent of the crowns of these trees. At the moment the inset ITEM A1 - 14
tracking plans only cover the green lane in north-west corner of the Mill Lane corridor. Therefore tracking plans should be provided for the whole length of the corridor within the application site. This may result in the road needing to be set back further in certain places or appropriate sensitive mitigation measures identified.
Now that a detailed layout has been prepared for this parcel I would highlight the precise position of the red line leaves a number of areas of verge of varying sizes within the red line of the development but which will nonetheless form part of the Mill Lane Open Space to be eventually be adopted by the HDC (under the terms of the S106 legal agreement), except for any margin that might be within the adopted highway. It would simplify things in terms of subsequently agreeing a comprehensive landscape scheme and management plan for the Mill Lane open space and in terms of the subsequent land transfer to HDC if the position of the red line was amended to follow the adoptable highway margin, rather than potentially ending up with indeterminate areas of responsibility.
I would also highlight that the survey plan of this area is not very clear on the position of the existing footpath and the hedgerow which runs both sides of the footpath in places. It is recommended that the survey plan and the layout plan should reflect more accurately the actual position on the ground. This has a bearing on comments on the need for improved footpath and cycle linkages connecting with the site.
Clearly there is a need for the technical views of the Arboricultural officer to be obtained in respect of the detailed layout and the Arboricultural Implications Statement.
Nevertheless, as set out above, I would register my concern about long term retention of landscape features both in physical and in visual setting terms and request the further information I have identified is provided, together with amendments to the layout as necessary.
Broad Landscape/Public Realm layout considerations and Detailed hard and soft landscape design and appearance Issues The principles of development facing onto Mill Lane, onto the Primary Access road and onto the open spaces as shown, providing natural surveillance, rather than backing onto them are fully supported.
Footpath connections There need to be improved footpath connections to provide safe, attractively landscaped routes to the open spaces as follows: The house on plot 56 needs to be set back further from the existing hedgerow to achieve a 1.5-2m width footpath connection into the open space, allowing for protective planting and low rail as well. The provision of the entrance to the house on the western elevation, ie accessed from the green Lane instead could help to facilitate this connection. Similarly a surfaced footpath connection is needed from plot 81 eastwards to the Green Lane. ITEM A1 - 15
Footpath connections should also be provided to the Mill Lane bridleway and open space from the Community street in the north east corner of the development and from the Green Lane in the south east corner.
I note WSCC have requested short cycle links in these locations to Mill Lane- however I would query whether the Mill Lane is being designated as a cycleway in terms of the outline permission and conditions in which case just 2m width footpath connections would be sufficient
I am concerned the 3M footpath and cycleway connecting from Phase 1 will be very close to the house on plot 107 and could create secure by design problems. As well as the location of the entrance needing to be modified the house may need to be set back further with appropriate defensive planting and provision of a low protective timber rail I note the position of the proposed footpath connection to the Pegasus crossing on the Eat-West Link road. This position may be a legacy of when a noise bund was proposed along the east-west road, providing a ramped route over and down it but a noise fence is now proposed instead. It would seem sensible therefore for this connection to follow a more obvious desire line linking directly from the junction of the two Green Lanes in the south east corner to the crossing. If there is still an issue over levels in this area ie the link road is on embankment then we need an illustrative cross section to be provided.
I would expect a written commitment now to the footpath/cycleway surfacing being a resin bound gravel on a dbm base –precise colours and details to be agreed through conditions, and in discussion with the WSCC adoption team.
Primary Access Road The detailed landscape design of the road, square and pedestrian routes, outside the red line of this application, will be dealt with through reserve matters/conditions relating to Countryside’s Phase 1 infrastructure scheme.
However the quality of design of this area has a direct relationship to the acceptability/appropriateness of the town houses being located close to the back edge of the footpath, with just railings and a narrow band of groundcover planting. If this is combined with avenue tree planting providing the main structural planting in the road verges I can fully support this approach and indeed avenue tree planting along the primary access road was a key proposal in the Design and Access Statement.
However I would caveat my comments above at this stage because I am very concerned about the potential impact of required visibility splays associated with the proposed six access points off this road, the tracking requirements of the bin lorry and of any potential requirements for additional visitor bays being considered that that could significantly erode or prevent the delivery of the avenue tree design concept. Therefore the applicants, perhaps in discussion with Countryside, need to submit an illustrative layout for this area tied into the any amended application layout. This needs to demonstrate how the avenue tree and square planting will be successfully delivered in this area. This needs to take account of, in respect of ITEM A1 - 16 visibility splay requirements, whether the tree trunks themselves would be a significant problem or its just a case of ensuring they are planted with the right crown lifting (visibility splays to be marked on the drawing). Contact with WSCC may be needed and this might need discussion on whether any dispensation on the extent of the visibility slays is possible or not.
I note we already have Bourne Landscape Consultants drawing but it looks like this does not fully take into consideration visibility splays. In addition the Sept 2011 Countryside drawing is out of date in relation to the current application layout and was not one of the approved phase 1 infrastructure drawings, being subject to a further condition. Hence the request for the illustrative drawing to be submitted above.
I would not support the use of Betula Jacquemontii as the avenue tree species for the primary access road as I do not consider it will provide a sufficiently strong long term green structure for this key route (The other point to bear in mind in terms of a future planting details submission for this area that it will be for Countryside to submit this for approval – it is likely that the specific tree species for the primary access road will be discussed at a meeting next week)
There will need to be coordination between the engineers and the architects and landscape architects in respect of the drainage strategy. This worries me at present in terms of the manhole junctions within the square – this needs to be amended to demonstrate that these connections are located a sufficient distance from trees and/or provision will be being made for root barriers.
Secondary Street Any problems with achieving avenue tree planting in relation to visibility splays, lorry tracking look less severe on this street compared with the Primary Access Road but again I would recommend this is properly demonstrated on the plans
With regard to the secondary street in three locations ‘Squares‘ are proposed. The design and appearance of the hard and soft landscape of these areas will make a key contribution to creating a legible character and identity to this street and influence whether they function successfully as shared space. The 1:500 site layout plan does not provide sufficient detail. Therefore a more detailed layout should be submitted for these areas at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100, together with cross sections of at least 1:20 and 1:50, all be it there may still subsequently be a finer level of detail discharged by conditions. Indicative proposals for hard surfacing materials should be provided.
The same issues arise as above in respect of the drainage strategy and the location of the sewer
Confirmation should be provided that all the other underground services will be located in the footpath not in the verge with avenue trees.
There should be a written commitment to use of semi-mature tree stock for the main avenue trees
ITEM A1 - 17
I would question the use of steel railings on the southern side of the street. In recognition of the semi rural character that will be provide by the retention of the hedgerow on the northern side the use of timber picket fences would be much better and a written commitment should be provided for this now.
Community Streets Hedge planting should be a key feature defining the front gardens of these streets wherever possible and it is also important as far as possible to develop a theme to the front garden tree planting to give these areas a clear character and identity. I am concerned at present about a lack of clarity about the location and extent of the 2m service strips on the landscape drawings and the extent to which they will prevent planting already shown or otherwise.
There should be a written commitment to use of semi-mature size nursery tree stock at key locations within the street eg particularly at the entrances/gateways, or on road bends
The use of a 1m width, narrow shrub planting and tree beds between parking spaces is not acceptable. These areas typically often get eroded by trampling and become unsightly. These areas need to be rationalised providing 2m strips.
Green Lane I think it is very important that we do not have overly ornamental, horticultural amenity shrub planting in these areas adjoining the more natural hedgerow and open space areas. The planting should be more naturalistic, if not necessarily using purely native species.
The use of blacktop or block paving in these areas will tend to urbanise the lanes. In this regard I would seek the use of a embedded gravel chippings or a bonded gravel surface dressing to soften these areas, within the parameters of what is acceptable to the highways authority. A written commitment should be provided.
Rear Gardens The provision of some rear garden tree planting is supported. However I would also expect the use of hedge planting with post and rail fences to provide the garden boundaries to the larger gardens, with 2m close board fences if necessary for greater initial security/privacy just restricted to a few m distance close to the house. The notes to the applicant on the outline planning permission highlighted the need to consider this provision. It can provide a vital way of strengthening the green infrastructure of the site.
Rear Parking Courts It is vital these areas have a clear identity and attractive character of their own if we are to encourage their use .The main problems at present with the areas are lack of provision of softening planting at the entrances, reliance on tree planting in rear gardens to provide softening which will be of limited effectiveness, narrow shrub planting beds and the use of fencing rather than walls in key locations more visible from the street. The illustrative sketches submitted the other day by IDP are encouraging showing tree planting actually within the courts. The use of pergolas with climbing plants would also be supported but clearly provision of pits in which the climbers can grow with raised protected edges will be important ITEM A1 - 18
Sustainable Planting Design There should be a written commitment to a more sustainable planting design for areas of shrub/groundcover planting incorporating a matrix of drought resistant ornamental grasses and herbaceous perennials as well as small shrubs
Landscape Design Information There seems to be some misunderstanding about what was required to be submitted.
I did not ask for a fully detailed planting plan as provided but instead expected to see a coloured landscape masterplan that more simply and clearly distinguished the character, type and structure of the proposed planting eg large/small/medium size tree planting, ornamental, native species hedges, shrub/groundcover/perennial planting with any species list just being indicative. This is consistent with our validation requirements. It would also be helpful if it showed the main types of different hard surfacing treatments
In this regard I would seek the withdrawal of the 2 submitted detailed planting plans and its replacement with an A1 1:500 landscape masterplan instead. We would then deal with the final planting and hard surfacing details and plans through discharge of landscape conditions
The landscape masterplan needs to take account of the comments made above.
The Design and Access Statement does not cover soft landscape design objectives at all. This should be rectified by an Addendum, which should also include the written commitments sought above in respect of a number of specific hard and soft landscape design issues.
I would also suggest withdrawal of the boundary treatments plan and details as I would not agree at this stage to the specific design details without further detailed consideration through conditions or a condition would need to be framed in terms of notwithstanding those details submitted already.
(further comments received following receipt of amended plans 12/08/2012) Trees and Hedgerows I am happy with the amendments shown on a larger scale plan to parking area rear of plots 108 -104 to provide a buffer/grassland setting to the hedgerow. Please note however these do assume a more complicated turning movement reversing out of parking spaces. I hope on balance this will be acceptable to protect the hedgerow.
I am happy with the amendments to plots 107-109 giving better clearance from the large trees and change to the building ensuring secure by design principles are met in terms of the relationship between house 107 and the footpath and cycleway
I am happy with the garage amendments to plots 110-112 to move them away from the hedge. Although not involving as much as 2.5m clearance it is an improvement from the previous proposals
ITEM A1 - 19
With regard to the eastern green lane boundary I am happy that Will Jones has been able to confirm that the ingress on root protection areas is no more than 20% but as Will Jones has advised the 20% ingress on T408 will need to be compensated for on the Bovis parcel in respect of the relationship between the green lane location and this tree on this side
With regard to preventing damage to the oak trees from lorry/fire tender movements as Will Jones has advised the necessary crown lifting needs to be clearly specified on an arboricultural schedule. We must avoid accidental damage to very important trees.
With regard to the red line boundary along Mill Lane I am pleased to hear this will be rationalised once the extent of adoptable verge has been determined
Footpath Connections I am happy with the amendments made but note the position of the connections to the east-west Pegasus crossing is still to be resolved
Primary Access Road The applicants have acknowledged that Countryside’s infrastructure plan is out of date in that David Wilson Homes community street, green lane and parking court access arrangements and suggested location of visitor car parking spaces is different. Whilst Countryside are responsible for implementation of avenue tree planting it is incumbent on David Wilson Homes to demonstrate that the visibility splay requirements of their access locations and their revised position of visitor car park spaces does not prevent altogether the provision of a reasonably effective, legible avenue of trees. In this regard it is strongly recommended that David Wilson homes Landscape Consultant and Architect liaise directly with Countryside's Landscape Architect to produce a an illustrative plan that demonstrates how such a provision can be achieved. As advised in my previous comments there may need to be a compromise reached with WSCC on the size/extent of the visibility splays and consideration whether they are necessary at all for parking court accesses. In the worst case scenario if compromises to the visibility splays are not possible then the parking court access locations may need to be reconsidered.
In addition I have not seen any amended drainage plan submitted that demonstrates the drainage runs and the manhole junctions do not prevent/adversely affect the proposed location of trees within the square. An amended drawing should be supplied
Secondary Access Road Squares I am satisfied with the amended details to the secondary street squares ( as can be seen on line on info at work) in so far as they avoid cutting into grass verges etc , The drawings just establish that these areas can be paved. However I have not seen any amended drainage drawings that demonstrate drainage routes and associated manhole covers do not prevent the tree planting shown on the landscape masterplan so I do need to see these. I had expected to see more detailed design input as requested in these squares- certainly more consideration will now need to be given at the conditions discharge stage
ITEM A1 - 20
Rear Parking Courts I am happy that these areas have been softened by proposed planting of trees and shrubs and planting strips have been rationalised from 1-2m as well as by some replacement of garages with pergolas
Green Lane surface treatment This can be subject of further discussion when the conditions are dealt with. At present I am not prepared to accept that embedded chippings would not be possible to use.
1: 500 Landscape Masterplan I am happy with this plan. The indicative species list is broadly ok but I would reserve the right to seek changes to species choices when detailed planting plans are submitted, should that be necessary
Conclusion It is strongly recommended that the problems with the primary access road tree planting should be resolved and further information on the position of drainage runs and manholes in relation to tree planting in the square should be provided before this application is taken to committee.
(further comments received 19/09/2012 following receipt of amended plans)
Relationship of the Development to the Primary East-West St being delivered by Countryside
Further to my previous comments it is extremely disappointing that there has been a failure to effectively address my concerns about the provision of proper, effective avenue tree planting along this street. The provision of this was a key proposal in the approved Design and Access Statement and in the approved Landscape Strategy and is very important to the design quality of the development. It is very clear that the proposed David Wilson homes layout by virtue of creating two parking court accesses off the primary street ( additional to the Green Lane and Community street accesses) is leading to a configuration of visibility splays that severely restrict tree planting. As a result the landscape scheme submitted by Countryside for the primary street has very limited, disjointed arrangement of tree planting. It is my view that if these parking court accesses had been provided instead from the community street and green lanes there would have been much better opportunity for tree planting on the primary street. Whilst I appreciate the planning officer has to balance a number of issues in deciding what is an acceptable layout and the parcel is a relatively constrained site in this case I am not convinced that it is not possible to secure proper avenue tree planting. It has been suggested that to relocate these accesses could restrict the number of units achievable on the site. However I have not seen any demonstration that this would be the case.
Having said this I would be willing to work in any potential delegation period on the basis of the currently proposed layout
ITEM A1 - 21
1. See whether there is any potential with West Sussex CC for relaxing the visibility splay requirements from the parking court accesses, although at present I am not all that convinced this will be achievable, or 2. Discuss and agree principles for an alternative landscape strategy whereby groundcover shrub planting ( at a height of no more than 600mm) is provided along the full length of the road verges to give some more structure combined with the more limited tree planting already proposed. I would advise that this would be a sub -standard solution but better than the currently proposed scheme.
Indicative Boundary treatments and Indicative Surface treatments
As previously advised approval of boundary treatments and surface treatments needs to be considered in more detail through discharge of conditions. Although the word Indicative has now been used I was looking to have reference to these removed altogether from the layout drawing. If the latest layout drawing is now approved I would advise an informative should be attached to any decision to the effect that the fact that these on the drawing in no way implies any acceptance of choice of boundary treatments or hard surfacing,
Please apply the comprehensive landscape conditions and informatives as already advised.
3.5 Leisure Services: I am aware of this development and happy development to proceed
3.6 Public Health and Licensing: I would offer the following comments in respect of this application: CEMP The CEMP submitted was prepared for the whole of the South of Broadbridge Heath development. A CEMP specific to the application should be provided.
Noise assessment The recommendations given in section 5 to the amended WSP Noise Assessment Report reference 31450-DWH Report-RMA should be fully implemented before the residential units are occupied.
3.7 Technical Services (Drainage): With reference to the revised drainage details submitted, I have no further comments to make on the application and require no further amendments or additional information with regards the drainage conditions. The Drainage Planning Conditions on EA’s consultation response letter dated 3rd July 2012 are sufficient.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.8 Broadbridge Heath Parish Council: Affordable Housing (OBJECTION): Whilst 20% has been achieved it concentrates on 2 and 3 bedrooms. There should be an element of 4 beds too. The distribution of affordable housing is being concentrated in certain areas and consideration should be given as to whether this should be spread more evenly, not only during this phase, but throughout the development. Streetscene Sheet 1 (OBJECTION): R1 - 3 storey is overbearing ITEM A1 - 22
AF1 - too many terrace, row too long (looks institutionalised, break up with features). The palette is too dark/oppressive with red and brown brick, lighter colours needed. The break/gaps looks very strange, ends and roof angles should match as in plots 98-102 Remove the steel fence railings There should be more planting of trees, as on the Northern aspect Windows – prefer those as detailed in amended plans 30/7 Streetscene Sheet 2 (OBJECTION): Grey tiles with brown brick is not attractive Streetscene Sheet 3 (OBJECTION): As above Flats over Garages (FOGS) (OBJECTION): There should be NONE. Objection to these being built Plots 107/108/109 (OBJECTION): Houses too close to trees Street lighting (Observation): The lights should be in keeping with a village setting and not urban in design. This requirement is as quoted in the Master Plan and should be in keeping with the rural location. The Parish Council would like to be consulted on the types of streetlight used throughout the development. Density (Observation): There is concern that the density is too low for this phase and that this will have a knock on effect on later phases. It does not appear that this phase actually meets outline planning density i.e. 45 dwellings per hectare? Garages (Observation): There should be top windows in garages and garage doors should match rendering or be in a lighter colour Landscaping (Observation): The on-going management of landscaping should be carefully controlled Car Parking (OBJECTION): The Parish Council would like to see the number of parking spaces maximised to prevent on street parking as there are so many narrow roads. Also practically all affordable houses have parking court spaces (not an appropriate split). More car parking is required. Site boundary (red line) (OBJECTION): The red site boundary should border the green lane so that any grass verges can be incorporated in Mill Lane as part of the green corridor. As currently stands Mill Lane would have dual ownership in terms of maintenance and any element of shared ownership should be avoided Picket Fences (Observation): These should go to the boundary to prevent people parking on grass verges Trees (Observation): There is concern that there is a lack of formal street trees
3.9 Gatwick Airport: The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. We, therefore, have no objection to this proposal.
3.10 Environment Agency: (original comments 03/07/2012) The proposed velopment will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed requiring the following drainage details. Planning Condition Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed The scheme shall also include: 1) Full details of the drainage network ITEM A1 - 23
2) How the site specific surface water system links to the site wide Masterplan 3) The peak discharge rates together with associated control structures and their position. 4) Details of the drainage system capacity (e.g. 1:30 year). 5) Safe management of critical storm water storage up to the 1:100year event. 6) Overland flow routes for events in excess of the 1:100 ( 20% Climate change). 7) Details of agreed adoption, monitoring and maintenance of the drainage and suds features.
The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local LPA. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these.
This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
(further comments received 07/08/2012 following receipt of additional drainage information)
I can confirm that we are satisfied with the drainage details and can recommend the discharge of the planning condition requested in our letter dated 3July 2012
3.11 Highways Agency: offers no objection
3.12 Natural England: This proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development. It appears that Natural England has been consulted on this proposal to offer advice on the impact on a protected species. Natural England’s advice is as follows:
We have adopted national standing advice for protected species. As standing advice, it is a material consideration in the determination of the proposed development in this application in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation and should therefore be fully considered before a formal decision on the planning application is made. The protected species survey has identified that bats, and great crested newt, European protected species, may be affected by this application.
We used the flowchart on page 10 of our Standing Advice Species Sheet: Bats beginning at box (i) and came to the following conclusion: Working through the flowchart we reached Box (xiv). Box (xiv) advises the authority that permission may be granted subject to appropriate conditions including a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy for bats.
In regard to great crested newt, we used the flowchart on page 8 of our Standing Advice Species Sheet: Great crested newts beginning at box (i). Working through the flowchart we reached Box (xiii). Box (xiii) advises the authority that permission ITEM A1 - 24
may be granted subject to a condition requiring a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy for great crested newts.
On the basis of the supporting information available with the planning application, particularly the ecological mitigation proposals as set out in the Reserved Matters Ecology Report: Broadbridge Heath (AECOM Ltd, May 2012) and the Framework Biodiversity and Landscape Management Plan (AECOM Ltd, 2011), Natural England is broadly satisfied that the mitigation proposals, if implemented, are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the local population of bats and great crested newts, and therefore avoid affecting favourable conservation status. Consequently, we recommend that the mitigation measures as outlined are secured by an appropriately worded condition(s) on grant of planning permission.
3.13 Southern Water: (original comments received 16/07/2012) All existing infrastructure, including protective coatings and cathodic protection, should be protected during the course of construction works. No excavation, mounding or tree planting should be carried out within 3 metres of the public water main without the consent from Southern Water.
Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested (by the developer) and provided to drain to a specific location.
Should this application received planning approval, please include, as an informative to the permission, the following requirement: “The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development […]”
Our initial investigations indicate that Southern Water can provide surface water disposal to service the proposed development. 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 received 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 […]”
We request that should this application received planning approval, the following condition is attached to the consent: “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.” ITEM A1 - 25
Following initial investigations, Southern Water can provide a water supply to the site. Southern Water requires a formal application for connection and on-site mains to be made by the applicant or development. We request that should this application received planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent:
“A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service this development […]”
Furthermore due to changes I legislation that came in to 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 site.
(further comments received 30/07/2012) Whilst there is currently inadequate foul sewer capacity, the WSP strategy for the whole development will provide adequate capacity to serve the site. The overall strategy is dependent upon off site improvements, for which a formal agreement for the provision of the necessary works is not yet in place. We would therefore seek a condition requiring approval of the foul and surface water drainage details, prior to commencement of the proposed development and the development not to commence until adequate capacity is available to serve the development.
3.14 Sussex Police: I was pleased to note that there are very good details of the crime prevention measures and methods to be incorporated into the design and layout listed in the Design and Access statement, submitted in support of this application. Guidance on Information Requirements and Validation (CLG 2010), Section 6, Paragraph 132, states, “PPS1 makes clear that a key objective for new development should be that they create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Design and access statements for outline and detailed applications should therefore demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the design of the proposal and how the design reflects the attributes of safe, sustainable places set out in Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention”.
The design and layout of the development seeks to keep the road layout free and unobstructed by using a combination of rear parking courts, in-curtilage and on- street parking. Nearly half of the car parking is given to rear parking courts and of these, in the main the only overlooking active dwelling providing surveillance is a flat over garage. This over reliance on rear parking courses that are devoid of natural surveillance could result in the residents losing confidence in the parking area’s ability to protect their vehicles, and result in them being rejected by the residents who will park closest to their dwellings as possible. This will obstruct the road layout, reduce entry to emergency and refuse vehicle and cause disharmony amongst residents.
ITEM A1 - 26
A large number of the parking courts encourage entry into the property from the rear garden. This will reduce natural surveillance upon the active frontage of the development as its removes the footfall as the front of the dwellings.
The affordable housing will require Secured by Design accreditation and as a result I direct the applicant’s attention to our website at www.securedbydesign.com Particular attention should be taken with garage door requirements.
It is important to avoid the creation of windowless elevations and blank walls adjacent to space to which the public have access; these area tend to attract graffiti and inappropriate loitering. Where blank gable walls are avoidable, one of the following methods should be used to protect them, either a 1 metre buffer zone such as a railing or a hedge/ defensible planting.
Vulnerable ground floor windows should have defensible planting to discourage opportunist theft.
Lighting throughout the development should conform to BS5489.
Where there are rear garden fences overlooking car parking courts and rear alleyway access to rear gardens, I recommend that the fences concerned are 1.5metres high close board fencing topped with 30mm of trellis and the gates are of palisade design. This arrangement allows for a security fence of 1.8metre high with facility to provide surveillance into what was previously an unobserved area and provides observation from both sides of the gate regardless whether entering or exiting. Side gates should be brought forward to as far as possible on the building line.
The Safer Places document from the ODPM, (2004) offers a good practice guide for the creation of well designed and safe places through the planning system. The Crime & Disorder Act 1998 heightens the importance of taking crime prevention into account when planning decisions are made. Section 17 of the Act places a clear duty on both police and local authorities to exercise their various functions with due regard to the likely effect on the prevention of crime and disorder. You are asked to accord due weight to the advice offered in this letter which would demonstrate your authority’s commitment to work in partnership and comply with the spirit of The Crime & Disorder Act.
3.15 WSCC (Archaeology): Raise no objection on archaeological grounds to the proposals, subject to continuing compliance with the previously approved Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management for Phases 1 and 2 residential development.
Summary of comments There is a previously approved methodology for archaeological recoding within the proposal area, including Plots 1, 2 and 3. This methodology (Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management) should continue to apply to ground works arising from the proposed residential development.
Comments (Part A) ITEM A1 - 27
Archaeological monitoring and recording works are currently taking place within the site, in accordance with the approved document, Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management and Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for Phases 1 and 2 with Revised Haul Road and Construction Compound (RPS, February 2012).
This document provides an approved methodology both for Phase 1 infrastructure and residential development within the current proposal site. No amendments to this document are considered necessary.
Within the boundary of the proposal area, topsoil stripping within the alignment of the primary Street East-West has been monitored by an archaeologist(s), resulting in the discovery of part of an Iron Age settlement site. Recoding of this site is proceeding satisfactorily.
Ground excavations within proposed residential development, to north and south of the Primary Street East-West, remain to be monitored in due course, once carried out.
West Sussex County Council have previously recommended that Condition 27 of the Outline permission DC/09/2101 may be partially discharged, with the approved Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management in place, in respect of Phase 2 residential development (this current proposal)
Compliance with the approved Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management, should continue on-site, in respect of the reporting of the findings of the archaeological recording work.
Part B The land and access road to be occupier by Plots 1, 2 and 3 have not yet been the subject of archaeological monitoring.
It is recommended that the general strategy being followed in the approved Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management for this part of the site should continue to be followed. This work should involve initially the monitoring of topsoil stripping within a representative part of the access road fronting Plots 1, 2 and 3 followed, depending on the findings of the initial strip, by any necessary archaeological monitoring of foundation and landscaping excavations for construction of Plot 1, 2 and 3 houses and curtilages themselves.
3.16 WSCC (Ecology) There is no ecological objection to this application. With reference to the submitted Reserved Matters Ecology Report (as amended) and the Framework Biodiversity and Landscape Management Plan, and additional reference conditions 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 & 19 to DC/09/2101. The ecological surveys referred to are adequate and in date. The ecological mitigation and enhancement relates appropriately to the basic principles laid down for DC/09/2101 and complying with Ch10 of the ES. I am broadly satisfied that the mitigation proposals, if implemented, are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the local population of bats, great crested newts and reptiles, and therefore avoid affecting favourable conservation status. ITEM A1 - 28
3.17 WSCC (Highways) (original comments 01/06/2012) This reserved matters application for 135 houses is pursuant to outline planning approval DC/09/2101 for 963 dwellings on Land south of Broadbridge Heath. As part of this outline approval, an access strategy for the development was developed and highway improvements or contributions were secured in the supporting Section 106 agreement or by planning condition. Therefore, no highway or transport objections are raised in principle to this reserved matters application with the following comments being related to the proposed internal access and parking layout of the development only. I confirm that no pre-application advice was sought from WSCC on the planning layout prior to the application being submitted.
It is understood that the applicants, David Wilson Homes (DWH), either have or are purchasing this part of the site from Countryside Properties. Countryside secured the outline planning permission for the whole development and recently obtained reserved matters consent for their Phase 1. Countryside have also secured reserved matters consent for the necessary supporting infrastructure to serve the David Wilson site and will be responsible for its delivery. In this respect, the red line of the David Wilson application excludes the access route to the site from the A264 Billingshurst Road and the primary east/west street that passes through their development and which provides direct access to it.
In terms of access, my initial comment is to ask whether the red line of the application site is contiguous with the Phase 1 infrastructure consent recently given to Countryside? Whilst the new western roundabout, the western part of the east- west link, and the first section of the primary east-west street now all have reserved matters approval, the red line of this application would not appear to include that section of the access road passing through the public open space to join the primary east/west street. I understand, however, that the primary east-west street was given reserved matters consent up to Mill Lane in which case access to this road is secured as shown.
As I understand it, Countryside will be responsible for constructing the primary east-west street through the development to Mill Lane and DWH will be responsible for constructing the secondary street to Mill Lane and the internal community streets and green lanes.
As you will appreciate, when the design of the primary east-west street was under consideration, the layout for the DWH site was unknown. It is noted that the proposed access from this street to the northern part of the development is from three access points with two of these access points serving as a community street in the form of an open-ended loop. A pedestrian and cycle link has also been shown through to the Countryside Phase 1 in the north west corner which corresponds with the requirements for that phase. In terms of the access and parking arrangements serving this part of the development, I have the following comments:
There needs to be a short tarmac cycle link from the north east corner of the development eastwards to the Mill Lane public bridleway as this will provide one of the main pedestrian and cycle routes to Broadbridge Heath village, particularly during the early phases of development. ITEM A1 - 29
Although the principle of the community street loop would be acceptable, no sightlines have been shown at its junctions onto the primary east-west street and I am concerned that visibility appears restricted at the eastern access point. Minimum sightlines of 2.4m x 25m are required in both directions corresponding to a 20mph speed limit. The access and swept paths for service and emergency access will only work if the new streets are kept relatively clear of on-street parking and obstruction. There are several rows of terrace houses fronting the east-west street with parking primarily to the rear. I have concerns that this will lead to a fairly high demand for on-street parking in front of these dwellings. Whilst some layby provision has been indicated, a further layby should be provided in front of Plots 98-102. The main problem is that residents will normally want to enter and leave from their front door rather than the back door. Some of the parking is fairly remote from the dwelling and whilst there would appear rear access to each properties, this is less likely to be used from the point of convenience. The parking court to the rear of Plots 115-117 looks particularly tight with lack of adequate turning for the spaces at the end. This needs to be amended as failure to provide adequate reversing distances will lead to excessive reversing and may encourage on-street parking. The design of the street lighting of the community street adjoining Mill Lane must be done sensitively as Mill Lane is a bat and wildlife corridor.
As regards the central part of the development between the primary east-west street and secondary street, I have the following comments :
Minimum sightlines of 2.4m x 25m are required at all junctions in both directions corresponding to a 20mph speed limit. The access and swept paths for service and emergency access will only work if the new streets are kept relatively clear of on-street parking and obstruction. The parking court to the rear of Plots 66-69 looks particularly tight with lack of adequate turning for the spaces at the end. This needs to be amended as failure to provide adequate reversing distances will lead to excessive reversing and may encourage on-street parking. Some of the parking is fairly remote to the dwelling and whilst there would appear rear access to each properties, this is less likely to be used from a point of convenience. The design of the street lighting of the green lane adjoining Mill Lane must be done sensitively as Mill Lane is a bat and wildlife corridor.
My comments on the southern part of the development between the secondary street and east-west link road, are as follows
Minimum sightlines of 2.4m x 25m are required at all junctions in both directions corresponding to a 20mph speed limit. The access and swept paths for service and emergency access will only work if the new streets are kept relatively clear of on-street parking and obstruction. ITEM A1 - 30
There are several dwellings fronting the green lane running adjacent to the east-west link with parking primarily to the rear. I have concerns that this will lead to a fairly high demand for on-street parking on the green lane in front of these dwellings. Whilst a couple of laybys have been indicated, any on- street parking here could restrict emergency/service access. As mentioned above, the main problem is that residents will normally want to enter and leave from their front door rather than the back door. Some of the parking is fairly remote from the dwelling and whilst there would appear rear access to each properties, this is less likely to be used by residents and visitors from the point of convenience. The parking court to the rear of Plots 16-21 looks particularly tight with lack of adequate turning for the spaces at the end. This needs to be amended as failure to provide adequate reversing distances will lead to excessive reversing and may encourage on-street parking. Some of the parking is fairly remote to the dwelling and whilst there would appear rear access to each properties, this is less likely to be used from a point of convenience. I would require a short cycle link from the development to Mill Lane in the south east corner of the site. The design of the street lighting of the green lane adjoining Mill Lane must be done sensitively as Mill Lane is a bat and wildlife corridor.
In summary, some aspects of the access and parking arrangements submitted will require further consideration. In general terms, although the development layout broadly meets the design philosophy of Manual for Streets, in reality and from experience elsewhere, I do have fears that parking may not actually take place as shown and that more on-street parking may actually take place on the community streets and green lanes out of convenience.
(further comments received 02/08/2012 following receipt of amended plans) The applicants have subsequently produced an amended site layout drawing C1415/P002.H together with additional supporting information including the proposed refuse vehicle routes and a swept path analysis.
In terms of access, I would again ask whether the red line of the application is contiguous with the red line of the Phase 1 infrastructure consent recently given to Countryside? It would appear that the red line of the Phase 1 infrastructure application did not include that section of the access road passing through the public open space to join the east-west primary street, so who will be applying for reserved matters consent for this short section of road ? I understand, though, that the primary east-west primary street that passes through the development has received reserved matters consent up to Mill Lane and is to be delivered by Countryside. I assume therefore that the applicants will be responsible for delivering all the roads within the red line of their application.
In terms of the access and parking arrangements serving the northern part of the development, I note as follows: A short cycle link has now been provided from the community street on the northern part of the site to Mill Lane. Sightlines of 2.4m x 25m have now been shown at the junctions onto the primary east-west street indicating that they are achievable. ITEM A1 - 31
A swept path analysis of the service routes has been submitted which indicates that the road alignment is adequate. However, I would reiterate that these routes could become obstructed if not kept clear of on-street parking. A layby has now been provided in front of Plots 98-102. The parking issues raised at the rear of Plots 115-117 have now been resolved by redesign. The exact location and type of street lighting columns adjoining Mill Lane will be determined as part of the S38 road agreement.
In terms of the access and parking arrangements serving the central part of the development, I note as follows: Sightlines of 2.4m x 25m have now been shown at the junctions onto the primary east-west street and secondary street indicating that they are achievable. A swept path analysis of the service routes has been submitted which indicates that the road alignment is adequate. However, I would reiterate that these routes could become obstructed if not kept clear of on-street parking. The parking court to the rear of Plots 66-69 is still rather tight but not sufficiently so as to warrant an objection. The exact location and type of street lighting columns adjoining Mill Lane will be determined as part of the S38 road agreement.
In terms of the access and parking arrangements serving the southern part of the development, I note as follows:
Sightlines of 2.4m x 25m have now been shown at the junctions onto the secondary street indicating that they are achievable. A swept path analysis of the service routes has been submitted which indicates that the road alignment is adequate. However, I would reiterate that these routes could become obstructed if not kept clear of on-street parking. The parking court to the rear of Plots 16-21 is still rather tight but not sufficiently so as to warrant an objection. The exact location and type of street lighting columns adjoining Mill Lane will be determined as part of the S38 road agreement.
In summary, I am now generally satisfied that the amended layout satisfactorily addresses all the issues raised in my previous consultation comments
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.18 1 letter of objection received from Broadbridge Farm, Old Wickhurst Lane on the grounds that the development will create issues on design, overdevelopment, privacy, light and noise together with impact on trees and landscaping. The work to create the development has already started and resulted in a significant loss of trees in the area adjacent to Old Wickhurst Lane and has caused a spoiling in an area of natural beauty. Works traffic being used to remove trees and prepare for the new road has created significant road side mess and small potholes on Old ITEM A1 - 32
Wickhurst Lane causing residents a significant incremental dirt and mud issue and nuisance to access.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that the proposed development would have any impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
Part A: Reserved Matters approval for residential development of 135 houses (consisting of 37 x 2-bed, 36 x- 3-bed and 62 x 4-bed) and landscaping
6.1 The key issues presented by this application are:
a) Compliance with the principles established through the parameter plans approved by virtue of the outline application. b) Linkages with the ‘parent’ S106 legal agreement. c) The design approach and compliance with advice within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document. d) The site layout, appearance, access and highway safety including car parking provision and servicing together with temporary construction arrangements. e) The landscape strategy, open space provision and drainage f) Issues arising from public consultation.
Each of these issues is addressed below:
a) Compliance with the principles established through the parameter plans approved by virtue of the Outline application
6.2 The Outline planning application, approved at Committee, established through the parameter plans and supporting technical information the key principles relating to the location and scale of the main land uses, vehicular access and primary circulation routes, density and character area, building heights and landscape strategy. The proposed development for this second phase of residential development adheres to the key principles established by these parameter plans including links to later phases of development coming forward.
b) Linkages with the ‘parent’ S106 legal agreement
6.3 As a Reserved Matters application, the infrastructure and other contributions are linked to the ‘parent’ legal agreement secured in connection with the Outline planning application DC/09/2101. The S106 secures amongst other requirements, ITEM A1 - 33
the delivery of 20% affordable housing across the development site (193 units) together with a £7.73 million commuted sum for off site affordable housing provision. The £7.73million would be subject to indexation and payable in tranches and equates to 10% (96 units) as set out within the relevant Schedules of the legal agreement. Similarly, the legal agreement secured the delivery of open space as shown on Plan 2 (Open Space and Structural Landscape Plan) contained within the legal agreement.
6.4 It is your Officers view that the application as shown on the submitted plans and supported by the technical information for the provision of 135 dwellings which includes the delivery of 27 affordable units (equating to 20% on this phase) and landscaping is in compliance with the provisions set out within the legal agreement. The tenure split has been amended from that as set out within the S106. The S106 required 62.5% to be Affordable Rented Units, and 37.5% to be Shared Ownership unless otherwise agreed. The applicant proposes a 52% Affordable Rent and 48% Shared Ownership tenure split. The principle of this change is not objected to by the Council’s Housing Strategy and Development Manager.
6.5 The size of unit proposed to be provided as part of the affordable housing for this site has been amended during the course of considering the application resulting in a reduction of the number of Flats Over Garages (FOGs). In order to achieve the agreed tenure split of 52%/48%, the number of 3 bedroom shared ownership properties was increased.
c) The design approach and compliance with advice within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Ares Supplementary Planning Document
6.6 The site forms part of Character Area 5 ‘Land West of Mill Lane’ as defined within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Areas SPD, the balance of Character Area 5 has already been considered separately under planning permission reference DC/11/2074. The principle of density and building heights, in respect of this particular Character Area, agreed as part of the outline planning permission vary slightly from the SPD however this was fully considered as part of the Outline application and were a reflection of the schemes viability and overarching design principles. The building height for Character Area 5 as agreed in the Outline permission is for 1-3 storey dwellings where the SPD advised of 2-2½ storey dwellings. Additionally, the density for this character area as agreed in the Outline is for a maximum of 60 dwellings per hectare, whereas the SPD advises of 40-45dph with lower densities of 30-35 on the western edge. The specific design guidance for Character Area 5 incorporating the agreed changes is reproduced below and has been annotated to demonstrate how the current application is in general conformity
DESIGN GUIDANCE COMMENT Densities of up to 60 dwelling per ha (max). The developable site area for this second Lower densities (30-35 dwellings per ha) on phase residential application is 3.51ha the western edge including the ‘gateways’ which equates to a development of 39dph. from the A264 to provide visual transition from countryside to village Transition in design and scale from The Neighbourhood Centre falls within Neighbourhood Centre Character Area Character Area 3. Not applicable to this phase. ITEM A1 - 34
DESIGN GUIDANCE COMMENT 1-3 storey dwellings The proposed development incorporates a mix of 2, 2 ½ and 3 storey dwellings. Streets of varying width including narrower The internal circulation routes include the residential streets to create intimate character Primary Street East-West which runs through the northern section of the site but is being delivered by Countryside Properties PLC; the Secondary Street of a more conventional design leading into Community Streets and Green Lanes. A sense of direction is created through the provision of surface treatments (including shared surfaces), landscaping and key focal buildings. Retention and enhancement of mature trees There are no trees within this phase and hedges on field boundaries to provide although the mature trees and important soft setting and focus for new development hedgerows which run along the northern, western and eastern boundaries (primarily outside of the applications site) are to be retained and enhanced. Any development of land adjoining southern Not applicable to this phase of edge of village should achieve enhanced development. visual integration e.g. ‘back to back’ orientation with existing dwellings and spacing between buildings Sensitive setting of development in vicinity of The eastern boundary of the development Mill Lane to maintain/ enhance its character which abuts the Mill Lane public bridleway has been designed with Green Lanes meandering on a north-south axis to avoid private curtilages adjoining this sensitive boundary. The Green Lanes have been laid out to avoid tree RPAs. Open spaces could be designed around There is an area of Public Open Space existing trees to ensure their long term being delivered by Countryside Properties retention is feasible and so that they PLC which partially overlaps the western contribute to the local amenity boundary of the site. There are no other areas of open space being brought forward as part of this development. New east/west link road to be set down into The first phase of the east/ west link road the topography to help mitigate impact has already been considered under separate planning application (reference DC/11/2059). The interface of the new link road with the surrounding residential phases forms part of the consideration of this separate application. This character area is reasonably low lying The application includes 3 storey buildings and provided the character of the countryside along the primary street with 2 and 2 ½ edge is strictly controlled, it may have the storey buildings on the more minor streets. capacity to absorb slightly taller buildings and This phase of development does not abut higher densities in less sensitive parts of the the countryside edge. area. Sections of the development abutting countryside edges would need to have planting buffers, tapering roof heights and a ‘softer’ balance between the architecture.
ITEM A1 - 35
d) The site layout, appearance, access and highway safety including car parking provision and servicing together with temporary construction arrangements.
Layout, Scale and Appearance
6.7 During the course of considering the current application amendments have been sought to address concerns raised by your Officers and consultees. The principle amendments include changes to the Green Lane on the western boundary of the site and its interface with the adjacent Public Open Space which is required to be delivered in accordance with the specification within the S106 legal agreement. The buildings fronting onto this Green Lane together with the lane itself have been set further eastwards to provide a greater area of POS.
6.8 Amendments have also been sought to the Flats over Garages provided within the parking courts. The number of FOGs has been reduced to allow for greater areas of landscaping within the parking courts. Additionally, plots 6 and 34 now benefit from private amenity space. It is important that where FOGs are to be provided that the spaces in which they are located have a sense of identity and are not solely used as a means of surveillance for parking courts. It is considered that the amendments to the FOGs which include the provision of balconies and gable detail to provide more visual interest and definition within this space together with the additional landscaping are an improvement. It is also considered that the 6no FOGs proposed are an acceptable alternative form of accommodation for a development of this nature.
6.9 Other amendments sought during the course of considering the application relate to the design of a number of dwellings and garages to reflect the varying street hierarchy across the site, in particular the Green Lanes and Community Streets. Amendments to house type Q1 and L1 which form the 3-storey terrace townhouses along the Primary Street East- West were sought to provide more vertical interest as well as to emphasise the status and hierarchy of this primary street. Similarly, amendments to house type Q2 forming the terrace in the south of the site were sought to reflect the Green Lane status being less urban in character. The provision of car barns and pergolas in place solely of hardstanding within parking courts was also sought to reflect the identity of these spaces.
6.10 The parish council has objected to the terraced townhouses along the primary street, however it is considered that the most recent amendments received which provide a more vertical emphasis together with quoin detailing to the end plots, horizontal stone banding above ground floor, and key stone feature to the windows have overcome previous concerns about these dwellings. The parameter plan advises that the dwellings along the Primary Street should be of 2, 2 ½ and 3 storey with generally continuous frontage. It is considered that the proposal meets this policy requirement. However in terms of the bulk and mass of this terrace, at the time of writing further comments from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer have not been received advising of the acceptability in this respect. Any further comments can be reported verbally.
6.11 The scale of the buildings are considered to respect the character as set out within the Land West of Horsham Masterplan SPD and the Land West of Horsham Design ITEM A1 - 36
Principles and Character Areas SPD, with a mix of detached, semi-detached and runs of terraces providing a varying pattern across the site. Consideration has also been given to the massing of the groups of buildings along the community streets and green lanes.
6.12 The design of the buildings has regard to the Sussex vernacular and includes such features as tile hanging, weatherboarding, render and decorative chimney to provide a variation across the site. It is considered that the character of this proposed development has had regard to the character established by the first phase development (application DC/11/2074 refers) whilst providing its own individual character. The applicant has also provided within the Design and Access Statement an indicative materials palette together with a materials dispersal plan. To ensure the high quality finish of these dwellings it is recommended that a condition be attached to secure details and samples of these materials.
6.13 The proposed dwellings have been designed to meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 and the affordable dwellings have also been designed to meet Lifetime Homes standard. The application has been supported by a pre-assessment calculation to demonstrate Code Level 3 can be achieved.
Access and Highway Safety
6.14 In respect of access and highway safety, a comprehensive Transport Assessment was submitted in support of the outline planning application which included this site and which is linked to the first phase infrastructure application (and which was considered separately under planning reference DC/11/2059). The main access to the site is provided from the new east-west link road along the Primary Street East- West. This provides the main route through to the next phase of development and is being delivered by Countryside Properties PLC. A secondary street is provided from the primary street, and will also feed to the later phase however this will take on a different character area. The development also proposes Community Streets and Green Lanes which reflect the different street hierarchies through the development.
6.15 The proposed development provides 329 car parking spaces which includes 14 visitor spaces. The parking is provided to all homes either in garages, which meet WSCC standards, car ports and area of hardstanding to the front of these structures as well as within small rear parking courts. The application also provides 21 disabled car parking spaces.
6.16 The County Council as highways authority provide guidance on the provision of parking within new residential developments to ensure the number of parking spaces provided is appropriate to the location and characteristics of the development. The guidance provided by WSCC includes a ‘car parking demand calculator’. The calculator is based on expected levels of car ownership and demand based on local ward data. The proposed level of parking is in accordance with the anticipated level of demand.
6.17 However, the County Council have advised that whilst the applicant has provided off-street parking and a swept path analysis of the service routes, there is the possibility that the roads could become obstructed if not kept clear of on-street ITEM A1 - 37
parking. It is your Officer’s view that based on the swept path analysis and the level of parking proposed to be provided, that it would be difficult to object to the proposed development on the basis alone.
6.18 Shared surfaces are proposed as part of this development. The Manual for Streets advises that where such surfaces are to be provided, it is important that streets are designed for the blind or partially-sighted because conventional kerbs are commonly used to aid their navigation. It further advises that tactile paving at crossing points and other tactile paraphernalia can compensate for kerb removal. The applicant within the Design and Access Statement advises that variations in road material and delineation are to be included.
6.19 The proposal also includes the provision of cycle parking. Cycle parking for houses with garages is located within the associated garages, of which single garages are 3x6m which is of a standard suitable for the storage of car and cycle. Where houses do not have a garage, cycle parking will be located within the carports and stores within rear gardens.
6.20 As mentioned earlier within this report, consideration has been given to the relationship of this development to the neighbouring residential phases. The applicant has also included as part of the development pedestrian and cycle linkages with these adjacent phases together with connections with the Mill Lane bridleway and the East-West link road to the south of the site to ensure permeability of the development as each phase comes forward.
Temporary construction arrangements
6.21 The applicant has submitted a copy of the site wide Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) however this is not specific to the proposed development and therefore the applicant will be required to submit a site specific CEMP which sets out the site practices in accordance with the over-arching CEMP and which can be secured by condition.
e) The landscape strategy, open space provision and drainage
6.22 An indicative soft landscape strategy has been submitted in support of the current application which sets out the general principles for the development. The Council’s Landscape Architect has advised that the principles across the site are broadly acceptably, however concern remains regarding the interface of the residential properties along the Primary Street East-West with the highway being delivered by Countryside Properties, and in particular securing an appropriate level of avenue tree planting or shrub planting. It is requested that this further negotiation form part of the delegation of this application.
6.23 Concern was raised to the proximity of the Green Lanes and the RPAs of mature trees to be retained adjacent to Mill Lane bridleway together with the potential for future pressure to remove trees directly to the north of the site. These issues were investigated by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer who has advised that in respect of the former, the Green Lanes do not intrude into the RPAs to an unacceptable level. In respect of the latter issue, the Arboricultural Officer is satisfied that the distance between the trees to the north of the site and the rear elevation of the ITEM A1 - 38
dwellings within this section of the development allows for sufficient levels of ‘open sky’.
6.24 In respect of the hard landscaping across the site, whilst the applicant has provided an indicative schedule, your Officers would wish to consider the details of boundary treatments and hard surfacing in more detail specific to the individual streets and plots. This could be controlled by an appropriately worded condition. Surface Water and Water Reduction Strategy
6.25 In respect of drainage, the applicant has submitted information demonstrating how this development will meet the principles set out within the over-arching site wide Surface Water and Water Reduction Strategy which has been approved pursuant to the condition 7 of Outline planning permission DC/09/2101 which has also been submitted in support of the current application.
6.26 The strategy considers the overall surface water and foul sewerage strategy for the wider development site and is supported by a number of drawings. The Environment Agency together with the Council’s drainage specialist has considered the content of this strategy together with the supporting drawings and considers the detail acceptable.
f) Issues arising from public consultation.
6.27 Objections to the proposal received from a third party relate to over-development, design, privacy, light and noise. The principle of this strategic development and it’s impact on the properties within the land allocation were fully considered as part of the Outline planning application. The considerations of design are set out within this report. Furthermore, the outline planning permission requires the applicant to submit information pursuant to a number of conditions prior to the commencement of development, including a CEMP.
Conclusion
6.28 It is your Officers view that the proposed development accords with the policies within the Development Plan, the principles as set out within the approved outline parameter plans together with the provisions within the S106. Furthermore, it is considered that the delivery of the proposed 135 dwellings, including the provision of 27 affordable units together with the balance of ensuring appropriate landscaping along the Primary Street East-West is acceptable and delegation for approval of this application is recommended.
Part B - Temporary approval for sales and marketing suite comprising plots 1, 2 and 3.
Part B of this application seeks temporary planning permission for a sales and marketing suite in connection with the residential development of 135 dwellings being considered under Part A of this planning application DC/12/0814.
The applicant proposes to construct a single storey detached sales and marketing building which would be located on Plot 1 of the development. The applicant also ITEM A1 - 39
proposes that Plots 2 and 3 would be constructed (as proposed in Part A of this application) and would be used as ‘show homes’. The application also includes the provision of parking associated with the sales and marketing suite together with landscaping.
The proposed temporary building will measure approximately 9.5m by 6.m with a simple hipped roof. The building is to be of brick construction with a tiled roof. The details of these materials can be secured by condition.
The design of the ‘show homes’, as mentioned above, are being considered as part of Part A of this application. It is noted that the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has concerns regarding the utilitarian nature of the marketing suite, however it is considered that given the temporary nature of the proposal and the wider development context that refusal on this basis would be difficult to uphold.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Part A It is recommended that Planning Permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to receipt of confirmation from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer of the acceptability of the townhouses (house type Q1 and L1) along the Primary Street East-West; further consideration of the landscape interface with adjacent highway along the Primary Street East- West outside of the defined site boundary; and resolution of conditions.
1. Notwithstanding the submitted information, prior to the commencement of development (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2. Prior to the commencement of development (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) details of all windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development must be constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3. D6 - Finished Floor levels
4. E3 - Fencing ITEM A1 - 40
5. L1(b) Hard and Soft Landscaping (Major Development):
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) Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, 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).
6. L4 (b) Landscape Management and Maintenance plan (Major Development):
Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The plan shall include:
Aims and Objectives A description of Landscape Components Management Prescriptions Details of maintenance operations and their timing Details of the parties/organisations who will be maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for ITEM A1 - 41
The plan shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of planting shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan, unless any variation is approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and nature conservation in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
7. L2a - Protection of trees
8. L3(A) – Trenches and Underground services (details to be submitted):
Prior to the commencement of development details of all underground trenching requirements for services, including the positions of soakaways, service ducts, foul, grey and storm water systems and all other underground service facilities, and required ground excavations there for, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the landscape scheme submitted pursuant to condition [5], and with existing trees on the site. All such underground services shall be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
9. The buildings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking, turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking, turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development]. Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
10. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with the hereby approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).
11. Notwithstanding the submitted drawing C1415/P004 ‘Bin Collection Point Plan’, prior to commencement of works, a refuse strategy shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include details of collection points for each dwelling and shall demonstrate effective coordination with the landscape scheme submitted pursuant to condition [5]. ITEM A1 - 42
Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).
12. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles has been made within the site in accordance with the hereby approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13. J12 – Removal of permitted development – enclosures
14. J13 – Removal of permitted development – windows
15. V5 – No extensions
16. No trenches or pipe runs for services, drains, or any other reason shall be excavated anywhere within the root protection area of any tree or hedge targeted for retention on or off the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
17. O1 – Hours of working
18. The hereby approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the Surface Water Drainage Strategy submitted pursuant to condition 7 of Outline planning permission DC/09/2101 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to prevent flooding in accordance with Policy DC7 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
19. The hereby approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Reserved Matters Ecology Report: Broadbridge Heath May 2012 (as amended and received 12/06/2012) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.
20. The hereby approved development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the South Broadbridge Heath Noise Assessment 28 May 2012 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first ITEM A1 - 43
occupation of any dwelling, the recommendations given in section 5 of this report shall be fully implemented. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
21. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented and maintained throughout the construction period, unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall demonstrate compliance with the site wide CEMP submitted pursuant to condition 39 of DC/09/2101 and include details and a plan including: Contractor’s buildings and parking, including areas for the loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the building or other operations on the site Storage of materials, construction plant and equipment; provision Vehicle movements (including site clearance works) Details of demolition works Protective fencing Details of site construction and demolition access Scheme of works for the control and mitigation of noise and dust An effective wheel cleaning facility
Reason: In the interests of road safety and/or in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
22. Prior to the commencement of development (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) an Arboricultural Schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall specify all proposed arboricultural works to trees within or directly adjacent to the application site. Reason: To protect roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
23. Notwithstanding submitted plans, a further plan shall be submitted clarifying distance between parking to plots 98-104 and 110-112 and the hedgerow to ensure sufficient space is provided for protective fencing and grassland buffer)
24. The hereby approved development shall be carried out in continued compliance with the Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management for Phases 1 and 2 submitted pursuant to condition 27 of Outline planning permission DC/09/2101 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The site is potentially of archaeological interest and therefore the safeguards indicated in policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) should be implemented.
ITEM A1 - 44
25. 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.
26. The dwelling(s) shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such national measures of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling(s) shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved. Reason: To ensure the dwelling makes the most efficient use of renewable energy and to comply with policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
27. No burning of materials shall take place on the site. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Notes to applicant:
1. The applicant is reminded that the current application is to be read in the context of the conditions attached to the outline planning permission DC/09/2101 and obligations as contained within the Legal Agreement dated 3 October 2011. 2. The detailed planting plan to be submitted for approval in respect of condition no 1 shall demonstrate consideration of sustainable planting design i.e. the use of a mix of shrubs, perennials and grasses, including drought resistant species (adapted to climate change) rather than single species blocks of amenity horticulture shrub planting 3. The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (Tel 01962 858688) , or www.southernwater.co.uk 4. 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 Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (Tel 01962 858688) , or www.southernwater.co.uk 5. A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (Tel 01962 858688) , or www.southernwater.co.uk
Part B It is recommended that Planning Permission be granted, subject to the resolution of Part A and the following conditions:
ITEM A1 - 45
1. The use of the land, building, and hard and soft landscaping hereby permitted shall be permanently discontinued and shall revert to the use and details approved as Part A of Reserved Matters permission DC/12/0814 on or before the occupation of the 133rd dwelling within this phase or 3 years from the date of this permission whichever is the sooner. Reason: The proposed development is not considered satisfactory as a permanent measure.
2. L2a Protection of trees – not inspected.
3. Notwithstanding the submitted information details of hardsurfacing for the parking, turning and access area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. The use of the land and building hereby approved shall not commence until the parking turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the layout hereby approved, and the materials approved by condition 3 above. The parking turning and access facilities shall be retained solely for that purpose in accordance with the approved details [and solely in connection with the development] until the cessation of this permission. Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5. Details of any external lighting within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity and the character of the area in accordance with policies DC9 and DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6. The use of the land and building hereby permitted shall be used for a sales and marketing suite and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Use Class A2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: Changes of use as permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 are not considered appropriate in this case under policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Part 42, Classes A and C or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, no extension or alteration to the building or hard surfacing within its curtilage shall be constructed without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an ITEM A1 - 46
application for the purpose. Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties and the character of the area in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
The proposal includes satisfactory provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and would not impinge upon the safety and convenience of other highway users.
The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
Background Papers: DC/09/2101, DC/11/2059, DC/11/2074 and DC/12/0814 Case Officer: Karen Tipper APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2nd October 2012
DEVELOPMENT: Retention of parking of 4 skip vehicles and storage of empty skips
SITE: Curtis Farm, Green Lane, Horsham.
WARD: Rusper
APPLICATION: DC/12/1301
APPLICANT: Mr David Turner
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer referral
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks retention of the use of land for the purposes of parking of four skip vehicles and storage of empty skips. The application follows approval of application DC/09/1818, which granted a two-year temporary permission for the parking of four skip vehicles and storage of empty skips for the period up to 1st June 2012.
1.2 According to the application documents, the applicant would store 80 skips on the land, with none stored above 3m in height.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 Curtis Farm is located to the north of Green Lane, to the west of Horsham Road and to the south-west of Rusper village. There are two entrances to the farm, one at the intersection of Green Lane and Old Holbrook, with the other access directly from Rusper Road.
1.4 The area subject of the current application is a small section of land, measuring approximately 1000sq.m, situated in the northern corner of the farm yard, adjacent
Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2
to a large cattle shed (used at the time of inspection for the parking of private motor vehicles).
1.5 There are a large number of agricultural buildings in the yard, with the planning history of the site indicating permission has been granted for the use of buildings for parking of motor vehicles for part of the year.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant South East Plan (2009) policies are: CC1, CC4, CC6.
2.4 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy (2007) are: CP1, CP3, CP5, CP15.
2.5 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) are: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC9, DC23, DC40.
2.6 PLANNING HISTORY
RS/44/00 Parking of cars within farm buildings from April to October. Refused 07/09/2000
RS/56/02 Temporary use of livestock buildings from 1st April to 30th September for parking of cars/vans. Refused 28/11/2002, allowed on Appeal.
DC/04/2667 Retention of farm track. Permitted 25/01/2005
DC/09/1818 Retention of parking of 4 skip lorries and storage of empty skips to be stored at no more than 3m. Permitted 26/5/2010.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Public Health and Licensing – No objections. Also confirms no complaints have been received since 2009. Conditions are suggested.
3.2 Rusper Parish Council – Objects to the application on the grounds of an inadequate access and over intensification of the use of the site.
APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.3 West Sussex Highways – No objections. Conditions suggested, in particular that the access directly onto the Rusper Road be used as the sole entrance.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.4 None received.
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 is an integral part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact on safety and security issues.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the proposed land use in this location and the effect of the development on the character of the area and the visual amenities of the locality; the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property and highway safety.
6.2 The application seeks retention and continued use of the site for the parking of 4 lorries and storage of skips, following expiry of the two year temporary period which was approved pursuant to approval of application DC/09/1818.
Principle
6.3 Policy DC1 states that outside the defined built-up area, development will not be permitted unless it is essential to its countryside location. It continues, any development should be of a scale appropriate to its location, and must not lead individually or cumulatively to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside.
6.4 Policies CP15 and DC23 are also relevant to this application, as they relate to the rural strategy for the district and sustainable farm diversification in general. These policies are generally supportive of farm diversification, provided the development forms part of a comprehensive diversification scheme and the development can be contained appropriately within existing buildings.
6.5 The previous officer report on this proposal (DC/09/1818) outlined concerns with the piece-meal fashion of farm diversification being undertaken on the site, and considered the development would fail to contribute to the diverse and sustainable APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4
farming enterprises or the wider rural economy. These concerns were not shared by members, when the file was discussed at the committee meeting on 5th January 2010, and the application was delegated for approval, for a temporary period of 2 years, in consultation with the local member. The decision notice was then issued on 26th May 2010.
6.6 In the intervening period since temporary permission was approved the application site has not been the subject of any complaints, as confirmed by Public Health and Licensing.
6.7 The applicant has essentially sought permission for permanent retention of the use of the land. In the circumstances, where members previously favourably considered the proposal, and where there have been no complaints in relation to its operation, it is considered the continued use of the land is acceptable.
Amenities
6.8 The application site is situated a considerable distance from adjoining properties. Having regard to the limited movement of vehicles and the established use of the yard, together with the applicant’s confirmation the common entrance from Green Lane will not be used by lorries associated with this use, it is considered the retained use of the land would not have any adverse impacts on adjoining properties.
6.9 It is noted permission has been granted for the erection of a shepherds dwelling adjacent to the farmyard, in a close proximity to the lands subject of the current application. Whilst this site does sit quite close to the application site, it is on land in the same ownership as that of the current application and relates to the continued operation of the farm and, in any case, the level of noise associated with the retained use would not be over and above that produced in conjunction with the use of the wider farmyard complex.
Highway safety
6.10 The applicant has proposed to continue the use of the access direct from Rusper Road. Use of this access removes any impacts for nearby residents along Green Lane. West Sussex Highways has provided comments, expressing no objections to the retained use subject to conditions.
6.11 It is noted the suggested conditions include a requirement to use the access from Rusper Road solely, together with provision of a passing bay for two lorries along the access track. In the circumstances, it is considered the use of these suggested conditions is considered acceptable in order to remove any possible impacts on highway safety in the area.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that permission be approved, subject to conditions as set out below:
1. The skips to be stored on the site as shown edged in red on the submitted plan (Plan Ref/ 49-1 received 11/7/12), shall at no time be stored at a height exceeding 3 metres and the number of skips stored on site shown edged in red on the APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5
submitted plan (Plan Ref/ 49-1 received 11/7/12) shall at no time exceed 80 at any given time. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2 Access to the site shall be solely from Horsham Road across the private access shown edged in red on the submitted plan (Plan Ref/ 49-1 received 11/7/12) and shall at no time be taken from Green Lane. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and in the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with policy DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3 Within 3 months of the date of this decision the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority details relating to the private access from Rusper Road, to include a two-way passing bay for two lorries along the said access. Within 3 months of receipt of written approval the applicant shall undertake all works as necessary to provide the agreed passing bay, and this shall be retained for the approved use thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. The development, hereby approved, shall not involve the movement of any more than two heavy goods vehicles under control of the applicant at any one time within a 24hr period. A planning application shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority should the applicant at any time in the future wish any increase in the above number of movements. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and in the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with policy DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Note to Applicant The applicant is advised that in so far as is practicable to ensure that vehicles access and exit the site from the south toward Horsham and the A264 bypass and not via Rusper Village in light of comments made by Planning Committee 5 January 2010 and correspondence from the agent received 17 February 2010.
Background Papers: DC/12/1301 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2nd October 2012 Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Financial and DEVELOPMENT: Professional Services) SITE: 27 East Street Horsham West Sussex RH12 1HH
WARD: Denne
APPLICATION: DC/12/1277
APPLICANT: Mapp and Company and Weston Lettings
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Applicant request
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for a change of use of the building to Class A2 (Financial Services). The premises were previously used as a retail shop (Use Class A1).
The Applicants state that the business has been active for 20 years employing 5 and people if application is refused it would have potential implications to the business and their livelihood. The applicants understand that the proposal does not satisfy council policy however maintains that this planning application is unique in its circumstances as it would benefit the town centre in terms of creating employment and business.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The site is a vacant retail shop located to the north side of East Street with a floor space of 48m2
Contact Officer: Ravi Rehal Tel: 01403 215258 APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2
1.3 The Property is located within the Horsham Conservation Area and within the town centre boundary. To the east side of the property there a number of listed buildings between 19 and 25 East Street. The premises is also located within the secondary Retail Frontages.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2.2 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
The NPPF Seeks to proactively drive to support sustainable economic development and the government is committed to secure economic growth, paragraph 23 specifically relates to existing vitality of town centres.
2.3 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.4 The relevant Policies of the Core Strategy are CP3 and CP17 document. The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) for the determination of this application are Policies DC36, DC34, DC9 and DC12. Under the Local Development Framework Proposals Map (2007) the application site is identified as being within the town centre boundary as is secondary town centre shopping frontage. .
2.5 Horsham Town Plan Supplementary Planning Document September 2012 is also relevant to the application.
2.6 PLANNING HISTORY
There is no specific planning history relevant to the proposal but a new shop front was approved under HU/155/95
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Strategic and Community Planning – “Policy DC36 sets out that proposals for change of use from A1 (shops) to any other A Class uses at ground floor level within the defined town and village centre boundaries will be permitted provided that the proposal will not result in more than 4 out of 10 units within the Secondary Retail Frontages being in non-retail use. The Policy does not provide a definition for ‘frontage’, but it is generally interpreted as the adjoining units. The secondary frontage adjoining the unit in question runs along East Street to the west of the unit and along East Street and into Park Place to the east of the unit. 1 Park Place, which is included in the adjoining secondary frontage, is currently a nail bar which has a Sui Generis use, and due to this, the result of the change of use of 27 East Street to Class A2 use, would result in 5 out 10 units being in non-retail use. APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3
Therefore, the application is contrary to Policy DC36 of the General Development Control Policies 2007, albeit only marginally i.e. by one unit.
However, in determining this application, the Case Officer needs to be aware of the Council’s aims and aspirations for the future of the town centre. As part of the Council’s overarching drive to proactively maintain and build on the strengths of Horsham town into the future, the Council initiated the Future Prosperity of Horsham Project. This initiative was devised to take a proactive approach to the future development and growth of Horsham town in relation to access enhancements, retail / commercial development and leisure opportunities. The project aims to strike an appropriate balance within the town centre by steering the future development of the town to maximise its economic potential whilst sustaining and enhancing its attractive and historic environment for the optimum benefit of residents and visitors alike. To assist with this aim, Urban Practitioners were commissioned in June 2010 and they produced the ‘Town Framework Report’ which identifies the existing strengths and areas for improvement within the town and also a vision and strategy for the future. This report has been used as the basis to formulate the Horsham Town Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which translates the report findings into planning guidance for future retail, commercial and leisure development in Horsham town centre.
One of the key aims of the Horsham Town Plan SPD, which is set out in the General Development Guidance for retail uses, is to achieve ‘a greater mix of large and small retail units’ within the town centre, to ensure its vitality and viability, by maintaining the historic grain of the town whilst at the same time opening up greater opportunities for modern retailer requirements. The Horsham Town Plan SPD also sets out Site Specific Guidance for seven key areas within the town. One of these areas is The Quarter, which includes East Street. The guidance sets out that ‘The Quarter would benefit from strengthening the quality of independent niche and boutique retail, high quality restaurant and night time economy offer through promoting the historic development pattern and character, to create a more prominent key location for the eastern side of the town centre.’
The Horsham Town Plan SPD has been through two rounds of public and stakeholder consultation and will be adopted on 14th September 2012, and therefore becomes a material consideration in determining any planning application within the town centre. The Horsham Town Plan SPD gives a good indication of the aspirations of the Council in terms of the way forward and the future of Horsham town centre.
The expansion of White Stuff into 6 Middle Street will be a step towards achieving one of the key aims of the Horsham Town Plan SPD i.e. getting a greater mix of retail units within the town centre to ensure the towns vitality and viability into the future, by allowing one of the towns most successful modern retailers the opportunity to fulfil their local potential.
Although the change of use of 27 East Street to Class A2 use is contrary to Policy DC36, albeit only marginally, and does not necessarily meet the Site Specific Guidance for The Quarter set out in the Horsham Town Plan SPD, due to the location of the unit i.e. at the eastern end of East Street, the fact the unit is within the secondary retail frontage where a more diverse mix of retail uses can be APPENDIX A/ 11 - 4
supported, and the unit has been vacant for some time now, Strategic Planning suggest, on this occasion, under these specific circumstances, that the Council takes a more flexible approach to Policy DC36 and allows the change of use of 27 East Street to enable the relocation of a long established, small, local business and to achieve one of the key aims of the Horsham Town Plan SPD.
In conclusion, due to the specific circumstances of this case and the Council’s aspirations and overall vision for the town centre which are established through the Horsham Town Plan SPD, there is no policy objection raised in principle to the change of use of 27 East Street to Class A2 to house a long established, small, local business, however, I suggest the Case Officer seeks the views of the Town Centres Manager and Economic Development department on this matter”
Town centres manager – Supports the change of use of this unit to accommodate A2 unit on East Street, Map and Co intend to release the current unit use class and turn it into A1.
The Access Officer - raises question on the Design and Access statement into this venue to allow easy access for disabled people with mobility issues.
Denne Neighbourhood Council – Objection to the proposal would detrimentally affect the nature, balance and shopping experience of East Street.
Horsham Society – Objection, to the proposal, the premises is within specialist quarter as defined in the councils draft Horsham Town Plan SPD. Therefore proposal should be resisted.
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 is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application are the principle of the proposed use of the application site in relation to the relevant shopping policies and the impact on the vitality of this secondary shopping frontage within the town centre of Horsham.
APPENDIX A/ 11 - 5
6.2 The application seeks planning permission for a change of use (ground floor only) from A1 (Retail) to A2 (Financial & Professional service) at 27 East Street, Horsham.
6.3 The site was previously occupied as a shop and the unit is currently vacant. In the clients viability assessment it states that the property has been vacant since September 2011 and has been marketed from December 2011, with little or no interest. In any event, policy DC36 requires that in determining applications for changes of use from A1 retail, the council should be satisfied that units within a defined primary or secondary frontage should be been marketed for at least 18 months. Therefore, from the applicant’s viability assessment it appears that this site has been marketed for less than a year. The Applicant (Mapp and Co) currently are located at 6 Middle Street and have been since 1992. Their current premises forms part of the Primary Retail Frontage on this focal point of West Street. Whitestuff (Fashion retailer) who are currently in 7 Carfax is intending to expand into the current premises of Mapp and Co. As a result 6 Middle Street is proposed to revert back to ClassA1 (Retail)
6.4 Policy DC36 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 deals with changes of use from A1 shop to allow A1 class uses within defined town and village centres.
6.5 The policy states that proposals for change of use from A1 (Shops) to other A-class uses at ground floor level within the defined Town and Village Centre Boundaries will be permitted provided that the proposal will not result in more than 4 out of 10 units within the Secondary Retail Frontage being in non-retail use or result in more than 4 permitted non-retail uses operating adjacent to each other. Furthermore that the proposal will not result in the loss of local amenity particularly in terms of noise, litter, smell, parking and traffic creation and trading hours.
6.6 A detailed breakdown of the use classes of the relevant units on East Street, demonstrates that the proposed use does not comply with policy DC36 in terms of the number of non retail uses in the frontage
6.7 In this section of secondary frontage, which runs from 17 East Street round to 7-9 Park Place with the application site positioned centrally, there are 10 units. Of these 10 units, there are 3 existing A3 uses (Pizza Express, Chinese’s Takeaway and 7-9 Park Place and 1 sui generis use nail bar.
6.8 Looking at these 10 units in this frontage, as required by policy Dc36, there are thus 4 existing non-retail uses already. Therefore the change of use of this unit would result in 5 non-retail units, contrary to the policy.
6.9 Even if the group of 10 were to be adjusted to exclude the A3 unit at 7-9 Park Place, there would still be 4 existing non-retail uses, as the group of 10 would then include, 1 Stans Way, which is an A3 restaurant (Stans Brassiere)
6.10 It has been noted that Strategic and Community Planning have stated that, although the proposal results 5 out of 10 units being non-retail use i.e. being contrary to policy DC36 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 it is APPENDIX A/ 11 - 6
marginally out by one unit. It is further advised that the council’s aims and aspirations for the future would need to be taken in consideration.
6.11 The Horsham Town Plan SPD refers to having mixed retail use and achieving greater opportunities for modern retailer requirements. One of these areas is the Quarter area. In this guidance it states that “It is essential that the quality of the retail in this area is maintained” In the instance of this application the change of use is not retail, therefore it clearly does not satisfy this part of the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance.
6.12 The applicant states that the premises has been empty for 1 year since September 2011. If the current premises are allowed to change from its A1 use, contrary to policy DC36, concerns are expressed that this could potentially set a precedent for other retail shops to be changed contrary to policy objectives.
6.13 Council policy seeks to retain high quality retail premises within the town centre. East Street is a strategic part of the town centre where there are already a number of bars restaurants and takeaways in addition to the retail shops that provide a varied mix. With the introduction of this additional non retail use, this would impact the vitality and viability of the town centre.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
That planning permission is refused for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed change of use of this retail unit to financial and professional services is unacceptable in this established town centre location in that it would detract from, and cause material harm to, the vitality and economic viability of this secondary shopping frontage contrary to the aims of the Development Plan, in particular Policy DC36 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
Background Papers: HU/155/95 Contact Officer: Ravi Rehal
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 2nd October 2012 Approval of reserved matters for 46 dwellings and associated DEVELOPMENT: works (Phase 2) pursuant to planning permission DC/11/2004 as originally approved under DC/09/2138 SITE: Land East of A24 Worthing Road Horsham West Sussex WARD: Denne APPLICATION: DC/12/1259 APPLICANT: Berkeley Homes (Southern) Ltd
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development
RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Permission delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the resolution of a drainage strategy and any necessary drainage conditions, in consultation with HDC Drainage Officer and the Environment Agency.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 In August 2010 Outline Planning Permission was granted for the development of 48.20 hectares of land to the east of the A24. The Outline permission is for a development of up to 1044 dwellings including provision of employment floorspace, fire station, community centre and expanded school facilities along with associated highway infrastructure, public footpaths, landscaping, recreational and community facilities (application reference DC/09/2138). The Outline permission is subject to a legal agreement which secures a range benefits associated with the development. Planning application DC/11/2004 permitted an amendment to condition 32 (relating to bus stops) of the Outline planning permission DC/09/2138. As this required the re-issuing of the Outline planning application this now forms the most up to date outline planning permission on this site.
1.2 In January 2011 a Reserved Matters application for the first phase of the development was permitted comprising 196 units, including the creation of a new
Contact Officer: Emma Parkes Tel: 01403 215561 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2
vehicular/pedestrian/cycle access from Hills Farm Lane, together with the internal highway network, footpaths, and drainage works; formation of the related landscaping, open space and recreation facilities, including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School.
1.3 In July 2012 committee resolved to approve planning permission for the Reserved Matters application for Phase 1a consisting of 35 affordable dwellings with access from Windrum Close. This is subject to the resolution of conditions and the signing of a Supplemental S106 Agreement.
1.4 The approved Outline planning application set the parameters and principles for the future design stages which were assessed in the supporting Environmental Statement. The current application has been designed to adhere to the general development principles (as they relate to this area) fixed within the approved parameter plans and the provisions contained within the relevant sections of the S106 legal agreement.
1.5 This application seeks Reserved Matters approval for 46 dwellings on land to the west of Phase 1. For the purposes of this report this area will be described as Phase 2 however it should be noted that this area comprises only part of Phase 2 as shown on the approved phasing parameter plan. This application also encompasses the acoustic bund to the west of Phase 1 and 2 adjacent to the A24. This application comprises 17x 2-bed houses, 27x 3-bed houses and 2x 4-bed houses.
1.6 This reserved matters application seeks approval for all matters, these being access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and is supported by the following technical reports:
Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Transport Statement Environmental Impact Assessment – Statement of Conformity Arboricultural Development Report Noise Assessment Water Vole Survey
1.7 A number of plans have been submitted to accompany this application which present the site layout, street scenes, floor plans and the elevations of the proposed dwellings together with open space, access and parking provision on site. A total of 103 car parking spaces are proposed (89 allocated/14 visitor/unallocated) together with refuse vehicle tracking provided within the submitted Transport Statement.
1.8 In accordance with the parent S106 Legal Agreement for the outline planning permission no affordable housing will be delivered in this phase.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3
1.9 The strategic allocated site is located approximately 1.5km from Horsham Town Centre and is bordered by the A24 on its western boundary, the Brighton/ London mainline railway to the south, Tanbridge House School to the north and Hills Farm Lane, Henderson Way and Windrum Close to the east.
1.10 Hills Farm Lane, Henderson Way and Windrum Close to the east of the development site mark the existing built up boundary where a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties of two and to a lesser extent 3 storeys in height are served off a series of cul-de-sacs. The land to the west of the A24 also forms part of the wider strategic allocated site to the West of Horsham and was granted permission for 963 dwellings under planning reference DC/09/2101.
1.11 The site the subject of this application is known for the purposes of this report as Phase 2. This falls within the northern section of the wider development site and sits between the approved Phase 1 Reserved Matters and the A24. The primary vehicular access for this site will be through Phase 1 and onto Hills Farm Lane until such time as the new A24 grade separated junction is constructed. This is required prior to the occupation of the 470th dwelling. The main pedestrian access will also be through Phase 1 and on to Hills Farm Lane together with accessing the northern twitten which follows the footbridge over the A24 to Tesco. This bridge will also be upgraded to a pedestrian and cycle bridge prior to the occupation of the 470th dwelling but in reality this will need to be delivered before the junction.
1.12 This application site provides a relatively small, but key, area of open space which will link to the riverside park area through the provision of a green corridor in Phase 1. Sitting adjacent to the site boundary in the south western corner there is a group of trees and a pond which are shown to be retained on the approved outline parameter plans. Given their proximity and relationship to this phase the treatment of this area is a consideration of this application. The area of open space within this application site, together with the trees adjacent to the site are identified to be transferred to HDC in the approved S106 Legal Agreement. It is therefore considered important that HDC Parks Manager is involved in the consideration of this application and the condition details as they come forward in the event that permission is granted.
1.13 The application site occupies an area of 1.37ha with an area of approximately 1.17ha excluding the bunded area resulting in a density of 41dph.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Currently the South East Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England, (May 2009) forms part of the development plan and is relevant to the determination of the application.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4
2.3 National policy can now be found in the National Planning Policy Framework published March 2012.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and townscape character; CP2 – Environmental Quality; CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development; CP 7 – Strategic Allocation West of Horsham.
2.5 The following policies of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Polices (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement ; DC 2 – Landscape Character; DC3 – Settlement Coalescence; DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology; DC6 – Woodland and Trees; DC9 – Development Principles, and DC40 -Transport and Access.
2.6 The principle of the development has been established by the Outline application and the related report carefully considered the proposal in the context of Core Policy CP7 – Strategic Development West of Horsham.
2.7 Whist Policy CP7 sets the key principles, specific guidance on the ‘visions’ for the development is provided in the Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document SPD (2008) and the Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas SPD (2009) which provides guidance on design matters for developers, others preparing planning applications and for those considering applications.
2.8 The Masterplan sets out the ‘visions’ for the Strategic Development West of Horsham which are:
An approach based on partnership with the local community who, through their involvement, will be in a position to be actively involved helping to ensure the long term success of this development beyond just buildings, bricks and mortar. An extension to the communities of both Horsham and Broadbridge Heath that reflects their differing needs, retains their characteristics and gives the expanded communities a sense of identity, which will include innovative design. A development that delivers a sustainable and balanced community through the provision of a wide range of housing types and tenures including affordable homes that meet housing need and demand in the District, alongside a range of business and employment opportunities. A development in which leisure and recreation acts as a focal point for both the new and wider communities of Horsham and Broadbridge Heath, encompassing a wide range of facilities and activities from formal sports uses to informal walks. A development with the minimum impact on the environment which recognises the existing pressures on the natural environment, the need to conserve resources and includes strong links between the communities, biodiversity, heritage, the natural features of the site and its surroundings. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5
A development that is an exemplar in terms of the use of sustainable construction techniques, renewable and low-carbon energy supply. A development in which good public transport, pedestrian and cycle facilities provide a realistic alternative to the car and where roads do not present a significant barrier to the integration of communities, the access to services / facilities and the wider countryside. A development which provides for the needs of the new communities without detriment to the existing, through the inclusion of education, health, infrastructure and community facilities and in which the location of such services and facilities provides lively focal points.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DC/09/2138 Development primarily of up to 1044 dwellings including PERMITTED provision of employment floor space, fire station, community centre and expanded school facilities. Construction of a principal vehicular access from A24 (southbound) together with secondary bus/cycle/pedestrian accesses from Hills Farm Lane, internal highway network, diversion of existing public footpaths and a replacement footbridge over A24. Formation of associated landscape works including playing fields, allotments, recreation facilities and construction of acoustic bund/fence alongside A24 (Outline)
DC/10/0006 Erection of 196 dwellings, comprising phase 1 of the PERMITTED comprehensive development of Land East of A24, West Horsham, for primarily residential purposes. Creation of a new vehicular/pedestrian/cycle access from Hills Farm Lane, together with the internal highway network, footpaths and drainage works. Formation of the related landscaping, open space and recreation facilities, including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School
DC/11/2004 Variation of Condition 32 of DC/09/2138 (Outline PERMITTED permission for development of up to 1044 dwellings) to be revised as follows: "The provision of a northbound bus stop adjacent to the Hills Farm Lane (north) access, raised kerbing and shelter; provision of a south bound bus stop and raised kerbing together with a scheme for the provision of an additional bus stop and/or shelter to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority"
DC/11/2304 Permission to create 2 No. tennis courts with permeable PERMITTED tarmacadam surface treatment and 1 No. grassed junior football pitch (Approval of Reserved Matters from approved application DC/10/0006 (including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School))
DC/11/2243 Erection of 35 dwellings (27 x 3-bed and 8 x 4-bed) RESOLUTION TO Phase 1A of outline permission DC/09/2138 (1044 GRANT SUBJECT TO PRIOR dwellings) on land West of Windrum Close, Horsham COMPLETION OF (Approval of Reserved Matters) LEGAL AGREEMENT AND APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6
CONDITIONS
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Arboricultural Officer: (First comments) I have examined the submitted plans and documents pertinent to arboricultural matters on the site and report accordingly.
The group of trees to the south-west of the site, all of which bar two are beyond the site boundaries, represent a strong arboricultural feature worthy of retention. Three trees (T2, T12 and T13) show some ingress into their RPA's, but to a minor degree only. Suitable justification for this is found within the Arboricultural Development Report compiled by Tree: fabrik, including the use of ground protection and 'no-dig' construction areas within what are labelled 'Precautionary areas'. The design specification set out on the tree protection plan (drawing number: tf 885/TPP/200, dated June 2012) is in line with existing guidance and is satisfactory. I feel that the level of daylight and direct sunshine available to the closest plot to the trees (plot 242) will be compromised by the proximity of trees T2 and T3 (and to a smaller degree by others immediately to the south), though in my judgement this is within acceptable limits. The proposed tree protective fencing is in line with BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' [2012] and is satisfactory. I am pleased to see that it has been extended along the whole length of the hedgerow H3, for although this is 'only' a standard blackthorn and hawthorn hedge, it is one of the original field boundaries on the site and should be preserved.
In summary the proposal appears to meet with the provisions of policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007) and I therefore record NO OBJECTION to it. However, noting that the bulk of the trees in the group to the immediate south-west of the development area are off the site, I am curious as to plans for the disposal of the parcel of land they stand upon. Has this been decided upon yet? If left undecided, it may be prudent to consider their long-term protection. Can you advise, please?
(Amended comments based on revised layout) - I write further to my previous report (dated 07 Aug 12) pursuant to the latest revisions set out under drawing S822/PH2/01 revision E (dated 20 Aug 2012) which show the addition of a garage block to plot 242. I have also consulted the submitted Arboricultural Development report (dated 29th August 2012) as compiled by tree:fabrik as well as the tree protection plan. I note the following:
Clearly the principal arboricultural concern is the provision of the garage to plot 242, as this sits wholly within the RPA of tree T2, and partially within that of T3. Previously this area was labelled as a 'precautionary area' whereas now an actual building is planned. The concept of a 'root protection area' (RPA) as defined at BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' [2012] in regard to building works is that "the default position should be that structures are APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7
located outside the RPA's of trees to be retained". However, this does not suggest that no building should ever occur, more that it should only happen when it is ascertained that such building can be undertaken without causing unacceptable damage to rooting systems. Paragraph 5.2.4 of the Arboricultural Development report refers to the driveway attendant to the garage to be constructed "using a three dimensional confinement system with a porous surface", which is acceptable. It also specifically states that the garage "will be constructed above ground level with a ventilated air space between the underside of the slab and the existing soil surface". It then suggests that differing methods may be used to achieve this (para. 5.2.5). In my view, this is acceptable given the circumstances, though the test comes with delivery. What guarantee can we obtain to ensure that these principles are complied with? Where I would suggest that standard condition L10 (note: number changes to be adopted shortly) referring to the Arboricultural Method Statement should be used on any consent granted, this should be slightly re-worded to specifically include the submitted Arboricultural Development report (dated 29th August 2012) as this affirms that the above ground construction "will be" used. This I consider most important. Otherwise, I find the content of the submitted report satisfactory, and remain of the view that the construction in this vicinity will not have an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the trees on and off the site, nor lead to intolerable post development pressures for lopping, tree removal, etc.
Subject to the suitable control of construction in this specific locality, I register NO OBJECTION to this amendment.
3.2 Public Health and Licensing: Acoustic Barrier: As discussed the boundary fencing to Plot 242 is required to be acoustic fencing in order to ensure that the target noise levels are reached in the amenity space to this plot and adjoining plots to the north. The integrity of this acoustic fencing is key in maintaining a suitable acoustic environment. Therefore there are concerns that if left to the whim of the future property owner the maintenance or continued provision of this acoustic fencing could not be guaranteed. It is strongly recommended that this acoustic fencing be either adopted or subject to some other enforceable arrangement which will effectively ensure it continues to be maintained.
Land Contamination: It is accepted that the Site Investigation Report has provided sufficient information across the whole of the development site. However both the report and conditions require that a degree of over-watch is maintained in order to ensure that the discovery of any unsuspected contamination is subject to appropriately managed. It is recommended that a letter be obtained from the developer confirming that this arrangement is in place.
With respect to the need to provide a verification plan this should be provided at the end of each phase to show that any contaminated soils have been properly removed (or otherwise dealt with) and any imported soils are clean and fit for purpose. Copies of Consignment notes for all imported soils should be provided so that the origin of the soils can confirmed. Where only site derived soils have been utilised then a letter to that effect is all that’s required as the suitability of the soils have already been examined through the site investigation.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8
Public Health and Licensing have subsequently confirmed they are happy with the contents of the submitted Noise Assessment.
3.3 Landscape Architect: (First comments) 1. No landscape masterplan drawing has been submitted which is not consistent with our validation requirements . Whilst we will condition full planting plans we must have a drawing at this stage (i.e prior to any committee approval) that shows the types, structure and character of the proposed planting and the main types of hard surface treatments
2. I am concerned about the extent to which narrow 1m planting strips appear to be being proposed on this scheme to try and soften the impact of parking bays. Whilst tree pits can extend under parking bays with the right construction shrub planting within them is not likely to establish well and be vulnerable to trampling and erosion. Further consideration needs to be given to this matter. With regard to plots 223- 234 even narrower planting strips seem to being shown adjacent to paved strips between the bays (for bin access?) which are clearly unacceptable.
We need a drawing that shows the bin collection points and these should not result in them being left permanently outside the front doors to the detriment of the street scene.
3. With regard to the two acoustic fences the drawings should clearly show the access routes for maintenance into the area between them and provision should be made for a low timber knee rail with liftable sections across the end of cul de sacs and around parking bays for 241 and 242 to prevent unauthorised vehicle incursion into the area. In addition provision should be made for hedge and tree planting to give structure to and soften the end of the cul de sacs.
(Amended comments based on revised layout): It is considered that the landscaping plans submitted (plan Nos. D1691 L.280 & D1691 L.281) demonstrate that an acceptable soft landscaping solution for this application could be provided by way of the size and distribution of spaces proposed and this therefore overcomes the previous concerns raised; however further consideration of the exact hard and soft landscaping details, together with any boundary treatments, will be required through the imposition of conditions.
3.4 Design and Conservation Advisor: The application is for phase 2 of the development approved under outline application DC/09/2138. The form of these comments will assess the proposals against the approved outline parameter plans, as well as the design concepts in the DAS for the illustrative outline and the master plan. The latter of these were considered as being supplementary to the parameter plans, especially as the layout was reserved.
The area for phase 2 in the outline parameter plans indicates a round loop of streets connecting into the main square area of the development (phase 1) as well as a street connecting to the north western corner of the development (phase 1a). This has been replicated on the current layout and this conforms with the approved parameter plans.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9
The application is also compliant with the heights, density and pedestrian and cycle parameters approved at outline stage. However, there is concern regarding compliance with the landscape parameter plan. The south west corner of the phase on the plan was intended to be a “green route” with retained hedgerow/trees framing the end of the street, buffering between the development and the A24. The intrusion of parking spaces on this corner is disappointing and should be removed. It could be viewed as not conforming with the approved landscape parameter plan. The DAS for the outline indicated this area were to be characterised a combination of “homezones” and “mews” areas. The layout, while retaining a lower key character in the hierarchy of the development, could do more to reflect this previously agreed character; the plethora of on street parking dilutes the balance between vehicles and pedestrians and creates a vehicle dominated street scene.
Most of the layout is acceptable, with dwellings facing the street and corner plots addressing both street frontages. There are however some very convoluted and impractical rear twittens, especially to the rear of 197-202 and 212-219 resulting three fences being provided The complicated routes could lead to bins being left on the street instead of stowed away in rear gardens. This would also be the case for 223-225 where they back onto the adjacent phase. These should be amended.
Turning to the specific elevations although there are no major architectural design issues, some further attention to detail will enable the application be compliant with the outline DAS. These requested changes are detailed thus: Plots: 205, 207, 209, 210, 211, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 234, 242 have windows designed to appear like traditional double hung sliding sashes, however there opening methods show top hung casements. This is a modern details which appears awkward with the traditional design of the properties and the windows. All of these windows should change to reflect the agreed principles in the DAS. Plots 203 and 229 require the tile hanging to be returned on the side and rear elevations.
Updated comment - Whilst no formal amended comments have been received from the Design and Conservation Officer in a verbal discussion the Design and Conservation Officer considered that the amendments to the scheme together with details which can be secured by condition addressed most of the concerns as previously raised; however concern remains regarding the encroachment of the parking spaces/garage for Plot 242 in the area of open space.
3.5 Technical Services – Engineering Section: I have checked whether this application fits in with the Drainage Strategy approval at the outline stage. I’m not sure the statement below is correct if based on the Proposed Catchment Boundaries and Allowable Discharge Drawing No. 2589-D-01 Rev.A.
Planning Application DC/12/1259 Ref; Design & Access Statement (June 2012) Section 6.1 – Flooding and Drainage ‘Phase 2 will connect to Detention Basin 1, which was constructed with capacity for Phase 2’.
A quick comparison of the Phase 2 Layout and the catchment boundaries drawing, point towards at least 60% of Phase 2 falling inside the area draining towards Basin 2. Unless we have received revised Catchment Drawings from Application DC/09/2138 I think we should know how the above statement works.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10
3.6 Environmental Officer: I can confirm that I am happy that the EIA Statement of Conformity for phase 2 of the East of the A24 scheme demonstrates that the proposals accord with the agreed parameter plans for the scheme, and that we do not require any further assessment of environmental impacts in addition to those set out in the original Environmental Statement.
3.7 Leisure Services: No objections are raised in principle to the application. However the details secured through conditions for the delivery of planting and long term management and maintenance details for the areas of open space (including retained trees) is key to the success of this area. It is also important to ensure the green corridor details link up successfully with the details secured for the Phase 1 and future Phase 3 applications.
3.8 Access Forum: No comment
3.9 Operational Services: No objection
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.10 WSCC – Highways: This reserved matters planning application for 46 two-storey dwellings is pursuant to planning permission DC/11/2004, as originally approved under DC/09/2138, relating to development on land east of Worthing Road, Horsham.
According to the Planning Statement, resident access to this Phase 2 of the development A24 grade-separated junction is open. Construction access would be from the existing temporary left in/left out arrangement onto the A24 in accordance with the outline planning permission for the development.
Phase 2 of the development proposes the erection of 17 x two bed units, 27 x three bed units and 4 x two bed units together with 87 allocated and 15 unallocated spaces. It is proposed that the new access road passing north-south through this development would become part of the adopted highway network with private parking and courtyards served from it.
In terms of the proposed access and parking arrangements, these would generally appear satisfactory, as would the number of parking spaces (102 spaces) for the 46 new dwellings.
No highway objections are therefore raised to this reserved matters application.
3.11 WSCC – Ecology (First comments): The proposed development is not compliant with Condition 11 & 12 (DC/09/2138) or the ES.
With regards to Condition 11 & 12 of DC/09/2138: In addition to a confirmed bat roost there are high levels of bat activity associated with the pond adjacent to the SW corner of this site (HDA bat survey 2009). It appears that some vegetation will be removed, DWG no. S822/PH2/01 revD, there is also no indication of what lighting will be required in that immediate area and there is no ecological statement addressing any likely impacts arising from the construction and operation of this phase. Impacts on protected bats appear to have been overlooked in the assessment for this phase. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11
Due to the bat activity, I note that ES S10 Fig. 10.9 has the western boundary and the southern boundary to be kept dark. How much of this objective will be possible with this layout. With regards to the construction phase how will the lighting be arranged? What other bat enhancement measures (roost provision) are expected?
I recommend that the consultant ecologists are engaged to assess the impacts of these proposals on the bat interest associated with the pond and that a mitigation plan is drawn up, as necessary, to manage any identified impacts.
With regards to conditions 14 & 16 (25 & 26 also relevant) of DC/09/2138 How does the proposed bund relate to the existing planting alongside the A24? What tree and shrub species are proposed for the bund? What will the tree and shrubs be under-sown with?
(Amended comments based on revised layout): Two documents from Derek Finnie Associates have been submitted in response to my previous comments. Together they satisfy my previous concerns and I no longer maintain any objection
3.12 WSCC – Archaeology (First comments): No objection on archaeological grounds is raised to these proposals, subject to submission by the applicant of an acceptable Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation, in their support (with reference to Condition 27 (Archaeology) of Outline permission DC/09/2138).
Archaeological works (observation of ground investigations by an archaeologist) are required in respect of this Reserved Matters application (proposed Phase 2 residential development): Condition 27 (Archaeology) of the outline planning permission DC/09/2138 applies.
The applicant’s archaeological consultant and West Sussex County Council (for Horsham District Council) have recently been discussing the broad methodology for the archaeological work. It is understood that the requisite Written Scheme of (Archaeological) Investigation document, i.e. method statement, referred to in the Planning Statement for this application (para. 1.4) is in preparation.
Subject to submission by the applicant of an acceptable Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation, in respect of these proposals, no objection is raised on archaeological grounds.
(Amended comments based on additional information): This note is to confirm that since 9/8/2112 I've seen a draft of the submitted document (method statement for the archaeological watching brief) for the Phase 2 development, and that the submitted document is acceptable
3.13 Denne Neighbourhood Council: Denne Neighbourhood Council have noted the comments on the HDC website & are in general agreement. We request that close attention is paid to the quality of materials & design of any garden walls, in view of the problems currently being experienced in Hills Farm Lane where the garden walls are cracking & bricks crumbling. We are pleased that Berkeley's have amended the side elevation of plot 203 as DNC requested, so we have no further objections. In conclusion Denne Neighbourhood Council has raised no objection to the scheme. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 12
3.14 Gatwick Airport: The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. We therefore have no objection to the proposal.
3.15 Highways Agency: No objection
3.16 Southern Water: No comment
3.17 Sussex Police: I have had the opportunity to examine the detail within the application and in an attempt to reduce the opportunity and the fear of crime I offer the following comments. I was pleased to note that the Design and Access Statement submitted in support of this application gave details within chapter 8 of the crime prevention measures to be considered in the design and layout. The design and layout has provided the development with outward facing dwellings with in curtilage parking. This will create a good defensible space with natural surveillance of the surrounding street and will leave the road layout free and unobstructed. There are good examples of demarcation lines in the form of planting that have been introduced to provide private space in front of the dwellings.
There is however an overreliance on rear access paths to access rear gardens. Rear access paths are notorious for providing easy access to the rear of the property where 85% of unauthorised entries into properties occur. Should these access points be deemed essential the entrance must be gated to the front of the building line if possible. Additionally there should be adequate street lighting to ensure that the gates are well illuminated.
The area within the rear access path can encourage loitering and anti-social behaviour. To reduce this I recommend that the garden fencing backing onto these routes are constructed from 1.5m high close board fencing topped with 3000mm of trellis. This arrangement maintains the physical security for the resident whilst providing observation into an otherwise unobserved area. Gates leading to the gardens are to be lockable and of the same height as the adjoining fence.
I have concerns over the design of the rear access paths to plots 197-217. There appears to be a double line of paths which if it is correct will produce 3 lines of fencing. From a crime prevention viewpoint this is not acceptable and I urge the applicant to reconsider a more suitable solution. Ground planting throughout the development should not be allowed to exceed 1 metre with tree canopies no lower than 2 metres. This will allow a 1 metre window of observation throughout the development. Lighting confirming to BS5489 should be incorporated into the development.
3.18 Environment Agency: The information submitted is not sufficient to discharge planning condition 5 relating to surface water drainage at phase 2.
We also agree with the comments made by your own engineer that the drainage information submitted is not in accordance with the Masterplan drainage strategy. Basin 1 is not designed to take the all the surface water encompassed within phase 2. Developable area 1B (which includes a large proportion of phase 2) should be draining to basin 2 to the south"
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 13
Please note that although we do not require any further information relating to ecology and ground conditions for the development for phase 2, the planning conditions attached to the planning permission under DC/09/2138 still apply.
The Environment Agency has acknowledged that the applicants are not proposing to discharge condition 5 of the outline planning application (which relates to drainage details) at this time. However, the Environment Agency are in agreement with HDC Drainage Officer that further details are needed to demonstrate that basin 1 does have capacity to serve Phase 2 before any permission is granted. If it does not the principle details of how this site will drain are needed before any permission is granted.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.19 1 letter of objection has been received for this application which can be summarised as follows: Objection is raised to the provision of 5 car parking spaces within an area of open space. These are squeezed into the corner which is extremely close to a pond and trees. This is an ecologically sensitive location for bats and other wildlife. It is not clear whether there will be additional planting. The pond varies in size and adequate allowance must be made for this. Concerns are raised to the use of oil and surfactants and littering which could make its way into the pond. Creating a non-porous sloping surface away from the pond would help protect it. There is a requirement this area is not lit. Concerns are raised to car lights and lighting. It is not clear what planting is planning along the A24 – details are needed to provide a sound barrier, to provide shelter and a green wildlife link. Details of tree species need to be provided. Details of the upgrade to basin 1 need to be provided.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that the proposed development would have any impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS APPENDIX A/ 2 - 14
6.1 The key issues considered within this committee report are:
a) The design approach and compliance with advice within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document. b) Compliance with the principles established through the parameter plans approved by virtue of the outline application. c) The site layout, appearance, access and highway safety including car parking provision and servicing. d) The landscape strategy, open space provision and A24 bund e) Ecology and Drainage f) Any other matters, including issues arising from public consultation.
6.2 After receipt of consultation responses and discussions with the planning officer the applicant has submitted a number of amendments to the scheme and the provision of additional documents to seek to address concerns which have been raised. These changes include:
Reduction of car parking spaces from an area of open space, realignment of Plot 242 and removal of a garage Dividing blocks of terraced units 197-202 and 212-217 to enable suitable side and rear access arrangements. Reduction in size of larger gardens to enable suitable side/rear access arrangements for the above units. Provision of a landscaping masterplan to show indicative street planting and hardsurfacing The provision of an Archaeological Watching Brief The provision of a Bat Mitigation Strategy
6.3 Each of the key issues will be considered in light of the amended and additional information together with all other supporting documents and plans.
a) The design approach and compliance with advice within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document.
6.4 The site is located within Character Area 1 as defined within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Areas SPD which encompasses the northern section of land to the east of the A24. This character area includes the approved Phase 1 which adjoins the river corridor and the Tanbridge House School site; and is connected to Hills Farm Lane via the recently constructed bridge. The specific design guidance for Character Area 1 is reproduced below, which has been annotated to demonstrate how the current application is in general conformity:
DESIGN GUIDANCE COMMENT Densities of about 40 - 50 dwellings per The residential and open space element hectare. of the scheme is approximately 1.17ha therefore the scheme density is 41dph. Lower densities in the western section and Lower densities have been permitted in in the vicinity of watercourses. the vicinity of the river corridor in Phase 1. This site sits to the west of the development and is proposed to be at the APPENDIX A/ 2 - 15
DESIGN GUIDANCE COMMENT lower end of the density range as shown above. Dwellings 2 – 2 ½ storeys high. All of the dwellings proposed are two- storey. 3 – 4 storey dwellings or apartments in vicinity The area referred to here is not the of new junction onto A24. subject of this application site. Mainly terraced and semi-detached dwellings This comment relates to the whole of the and small apartment blocks with potential for a character area but the scheme has a mix small amount of detached housing to soften of housing sizes with the percentage as densities. follows: 4% detached 4-bed houses; 59% 3-bed houses and 37% 2-bed houses with a predominance of terraced units (36 out of the 46 units). Dwellings arranged to front public areas Dwellings front on to the highway network including streets, footpaths and and areas of open space watercourses/informal open space. Key focal points or landmark buildings max 2 – This phase is an extension to and viewed 3 storeys. in the context of the approved Phase 1 which has a number of focal/landmark buildings Provision of space for planting to soften A Landscape Masterplan has been streetscene. provided which illustrates the street planting design strategy. The provision of further details will be conditioned. Retention and enhancement of the existing There are no public rights of way within right of way (FP1633). this application site. Footpath 1633 is to the south of the site and has been stopped up with consent. This will be re- instated once development is complete. In the meantime a temporary diversion route have been provided by way of a permissive right of way within the southern part of the site which links up to the footpath network. Retention/reinstatement of the foot/cycle path This falls outside of the application site; from the A24 footbridge to the bridge over however a new foot/cycle bridge will be Boldings Brook. provided (secured via s106) and route of existing footpath to be diverted around land allocated to the school. Variety in design including roof form and The scheme incorporates a variety of materials, colouring should be sympathetic to materials drawing on the palate which locality but not detract from innovative design. characterise the wider area and those which have been approved and implemented as part of the Phase 1. Unallocated parking for some smaller units e.g. A total of 103 car parking spaces would in overlooking communal courts. be provided comprising allocated and unallocated/visitor spaces Open spaces could be designed around Key areas of open space were defined in existing trees to ensure their long term the Landscape Strategy Parameter Plan retention is feasible and so that they can approved as part of the outline planning contribute to the local amenity application. Trees are proposed to be retained within this Phase. These have been incorporated within an area of open space in accordance with the approved APPENDIX A/ 2 - 16
DESIGN GUIDANCE COMMENT Parameter Plan. Details of the area of open space will be secured via condition. Roads off new A24 junction to be set down in The A24 junction is beyond the area of the landscape as far as possible to help reduce the current application visual impact. Sympathetic earthworks could be designed to help localise views of the junction and alleviate some of the road noise Adequate planting to screen and reduce the The provision of landscape buffers is visual impact of the new road junction and secured by the outline permission and development as perceived from the offsite part of this will be provided within the views, including views from Highwood Hill and bunded area which falls within this the A24. application site. Some details have already been secured through the outline and Phase 1 planning application conditions however it will be necessary to re-attach conditions to this application in the event of approval. Highways lighting to be sympathetic to the A lighting strategy for the site is to be countryside edge setting and designed to try to subject to agreement with West Sussex avoid any unnecessary glare. County Council and the applicant in liaison with the local planning authority (subject to condition). This will likely continue the details which have been approved by condition for Phase 1 with regard to the visual, ecological and highway implications. Potential buffer planting between the new road This area is outside the application site junction and the proposed housing to help however buffer planting is to be provided reduce the impact of the road junction on adjacent to the A24 (see above). individual properties. Exploit the natural low lying and undulating The scheme incorporates a variety of roof topography to advantage i.e. sympathetic forms and design. roofscapes and judicial use of tree planting to help to visually contain the built form. Landscape enhancement of the open space This area is outside of the application adjacent to the river corridor and Boldings site however landscape enhancements Brook. have been secured through the Phase 1 application. Retention of the WWII pillbox near the Fulling This area is outside of the application Mill earthworks site.
b) Compliance with the principles established through the parameter plans approved by virtue of the Outline application
6.5 The parameter plans established the key principles relating to the location and scale of main land uses, vehicular access and circulation, the pedestrian and cycle strategy, landscape strategy, density and building heights. The proposed development is in general conformity with the key principles established by the parameter plans including the incorporation of an area of open space within the south west corner which will enable a green corridor through Phase 1 to the river corridor. This is on the basis that details are secured through appropriate conditions.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 17
c) The site layout, housing mix, appearance, access and highway safety including car parking provision and servicing together with construction arrangements.
Layout, Appearance and Mix:
6.6 The site layout links into the main primary and secondary road network together with connecting to pedestrian links through Phase 1. In this regard the layout adheres to the key internal connection and circulation principles established at outline stage. The development has been arranged in an arc with a mews area accessed from this arc in the north western corner. The layout promotes areas of shared surfacing which replicate some of the principles established through the approved Phase 1 layout. Parking is served at the front of units in bays or on plot together with a small number of garages.
6.7 Whilst some concern is raised to the level of parking along the highway edge, this is a product of the provision of terraced units and seeking to meet WSCC parking standards. It is considered that such a layout can be acceptable if the type of hardsurfacing is carefully considered and landscaping is used to break up and enhance the streetscape. In this regard a hard and soft landscaping masterplan has been submitted, together with some amendments to the layout, which demonstrate that sufficient street planting can be provided. This can be read alongside a palate of hard surface materials which could contribute to the character of the area. Whilst further consideration of hard and soft landscaping is required by condition, it is considered that the layout proposed is acceptable in this regard.
6.8 The Design and Conservation Officer together with Sussex Police have raised concerns to the convoluted nature of some of the rear access pathways. This was considered to not only encourage loitering and anti-social behaviour but would also likely result in bins left on the highway given the route future occupiers would need to take to access the rear of their gardens. In light of the consultation responses received the applicants have amended the layout to break up the row of terraced units 197-202 and 212-218. This has resulted in much shorter rear access route which is considered to address the concerns raised. Details of gates for the rear access pathways can be secured through a boundary treatment condition and it is noted that gates have been provided in the part of Phase 1 which has been constructed.
6.9 The dwelling designs replicate the general form and character of those approved as part of Phase 1. Given this is a small phase which directly connects into and appears as an extension to Phase 1, this is considered to be an acceptable approach. All units are two storeys in height and have varying roof forms. Units which front two highway boundaries have been designed so both elevations provide some degree of active frontage and dwellings are detailed with porches and gable features.
6.10 The proposed layout is considered to provide future occupiers with an acceptable area of private amenity space together with ensuring the back-to-back and back-to- side distances between dwellings are acceptable from an overlooking and general amenity perspective.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 18
6.11 This application proposes 37% 2-bed houses, 59% 3-bed houses and 4% 4-bed houses with 36 out of the total of 46 units being provided as terraced units. Development Control Policy DC18 sets out the need for smaller units. The proposed housing mix, as a whole, is considered acceptable with regards to Policy DC18. The policy aims to ensure that the correct mix of housing is provided within the District and whilst the scheme does not provide for the 64% target of 1 & 2 bedroom dwellings as stated in the supplementary text of the policy, the policy does provide flexibility in response to locality and character of the area. It also allows for the outcomes of future Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) to be taken into account when considering the individual merit of applications. In light of the outcome of the latest SHMA, which suggests there is less need for smaller units, and the location of the development within a wider strategic location, it is considered the proposed housing mix is acceptable. This is also having regard to the higher proportion of terraced units. As established in the S106 Legal Agreement approved at outline stage this Phase will not incorporate any affordable housing.
Access and Highway Safety:
6.12 In respect of access and highway safety, a comprehensive Transport Assessment was submitted in support of the outline planning application which included this site identified as part of Phase 2. The applicant has also submitted a further Transport Statement (TS) in support of this reserved matters application. WSCC has confirmed that it has no highway objections to this application.
6.13 Pedestrian and vehicular access will be taken through Phase 1 until such time as the new grade separated junction is complete. Pedestrian routes will link Phase 2 to the northern twitten and the existing bridge over the A24, to Tanbridge House School and across the new bridge in Phase 1 to connect to existing public transport links in Hills farm Lane. In addition a comprehensive Travel Plan has been approved for the site which includes the designation of a Travel Plan Coordinator and the distribution of information to future occupiers.
6.14 Car parking will be provided within the site comprising a total of 89 allocated spaces and 14 unallocated/visitor spaces which has been based on the WSCC parking guidance notes and calculator. Whilst this is a slight under provision of unallocated/visitor spaces (approximately 2 spaces) the submitted Transport Statement states that this ensures an efficient use of spaces given the sharing nature of these spaces. Officers consider there is a balance between car parking provision and the need to provide sufficient street planting and prevention of the erosion of key areas of open space. Given the limited disparity from WSCC parking guidance standards in relation to the provision of visitor spaces the level of parking proposed in this instance is considered to be acceptable.
6.15 In respect of vehicles manoeuvring within the site this is fairly straight forward with the road arc linking into the Phase 1 highway network. Swept path tracking for refuse vehicles has also been demonstrated to ensure they can enter and manoeuvre within the site. Operational Services have verbally confirmed their satisfaction that refuse vehicles could reverse into the mews area in the north western corner of the site providing the surfacing can withstand the weight of the refuse vehicle. Details of road construction can be secured by condition. It is proposed that the road arc will be to adoptable standards and the mews area a private road. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 19
6.16 The development also includes cycle sheds within the rear gardens which would provide cycle parking for each dwelling.
Construction Arrangements
6.17 Construction vehicles will continue to access the site via the temporary construction access from the A24. The existing construction compound is located to the south of this application site and therefore could still be used for this site; however full details of any construction compound together with protection of features during the construction process will be secured through a Construction Environmental Management Plan. This is secured by a condition on the outline permission which requires a CEMP prior to the commencement of each phase.
d) The landscape strategy, open space and A24 bund
Landscape Strategy:
6.18 The Council’s Landscape Architect initially raised concerns to the layout as it was unclear whether sufficient landscaping could be provided within the street scene. A detailed hard and soft landscape masterplan has now been submitted by the applicant, which includes the widening of some planting areas. The Landscape Architect is satisfied that this demonstrates an acceptable planting and hardsurfacing solution is possible; however further detailed review of the planting mix and hardsurfacing material is required by condition.
6.19 The Landscape Architect previously raised concerns to the ability to store bins away from the street frontage. Given the amendments which have been made to some rear access pathways together with clarifying how future occupiers will access the road frontage it is considered this will encourage future occupiers to store their bins in their rear gardens. Details of a refuse strategy together with collection points will be secured by condition.
Open Space
6.20 This application site includes a small but key area of open space within its south western corner which was secured within the outline Landscape Strategy parameter plan. This area, together with the group of trees and pond (which sit just outside of the application site to the west) will form a green corridor from the A24 boundary through Phase 1 and into the river corridor. This will be provided through the retention of trees, a hedgerow (where ever possible) and additional planting. It is therefore important that this application ensures the protection of these key features and integrates them within the layout. In this regard initial concerns were raised to a parking court adjacent to plot 242 which was considered to encroach into the area of open space secured at outline stage. The layout was subsequently amended to remove the parking court; however a garage was introduced for plot 242 which encroached into the pond area. The garage has now been removed from the layout.
6.21 Whilst the driveway to plot 242 together with two visitor spaces are still considered to encroach on the area of open space this is considered to be a limited degree. With the need for parking provision together with details regarding sensitive APPENDIX A/ 2 - 20
hardsurfacing, which can be secured by condition, this relationship is considered to be acceptable. The Arboricultural Officer is satisfied that the Arboricultural Report submitted in support of this application demonstrates that the development proposed within precautionary areas close to the trees can be satisfactorily implemented through the construction process ensuring that the trees can be protected during construction and retained in the longer term.
6.22 Details of the planting and long term management and maintenance of this area of open space, which shall include the adjacent group of trees and pond, will be secured by condition. It is noted that dwellings overlook this area of open space which is considered to be a good design approach.
A24 bund
6.23 The principles of the bunding structure and main acoustic fence along the western boundary with the A24 were secured as part of the outline planning permission and the conditions imposed upon it. The bunding structure was also included within the Phase 1 application site boundary. However given the bund has been constructed slightly wider than the Phase 1 boundary allowed the width of the whole structure has been incorporated within the site boundary of this application. The Landscape Architect has previously advised as part of the outline condition details that he is satisfied with the structure of the bund as implemented. The Landscape Architect and Parks Manager has also previously advised that they are satisfied with the bund planting details which have been secured as part of the Phase 1 conditions. Given that the bund planting has yet to be implemented these need to be secured as part of this application. Furthermore consideration is needed as to how the bund planting relates to the group of trees and pond to be retained.
6.24 It is important to consider access into the bunded area for maintenance but also to mitigate against the potential for loitering and anti-social behaviour. In this regard a gate will be required to the rear of the mews area to provide access into the bund. It will also likely be necessary to restrict access into the bunded area from the group of trees to be retained in the south western corner. It is considered these details can be secured through a boundary treatment condition in consultation with the Parks Manager who will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of this area when it is transferred to HDC, in accordance with the S106 legal Agreement. It is noted that the bund planting strategy is in the form of native tree and shrub planting, which includes defensive species such as hawthorn, holly and blackthorn.
e) Ecology and Drainage
Drainage
6.25 In accordance with the submitted Design and Access Statement it is proposed that this application site will drain into basin 1. Basin 1 has already been constructed and is located in the river corridor within the Phase 1 application site. The drainage of this application site to basin 1 is a different approach when compared to the drainage strategy submitted as part of the Flood Risk Assessment which supported the outline planning application. At that stage it was proposed that part of this application site would drain to a basin located further south. No information has been submitted in support of this application to demonstrate that basin 1 as APPENDIX A/ 2 - 21
constructed can accommodate the drainage requirements of this application site. HDC Drainage Officer and the Environment Agency therefore consider it to be reasonable and necessary to require the applicant to demonstrate (or otherwise) that basin 1 as constructed can accommodate the drainage requirements of this phase prior to any permission for this application being granted. If basin 1 cannot accommodate this application site officers propose to condition the required basin/amendments to be constructed prior to the occupation of any dwellings in this application site which is a similar approach to that taken in Phase 1a-Windrum Close DC/11/2243. It is therefore proposed that this matter can be resolved through the delegation process in consultation with HDC Drainage Officer and the Environment Agency.
Ecology
6.26 Initial concerns were raised by the County Ecologist regarding the lack of supporting information relating to ecology given there are confirmed high levels of bat activity associated with the pond and trees in the south western corner of the site. Further to the concerns raised by the County Ecologist the applicant’s ecologist has submitted an ecological response referring back to conditions imposed on the outline planning permission together with a bat mitigation strategy. Details of a Water Vole survey were also included within the applications supporting documents. Given the receipt of this additional information, and the removal of the garage adjacent to plot 242, the County Ecologist has removed his objection to the scheme. However there will be a need to control this information by condition together with ensuring that details of lighting are acceptable from an ecological perspective.
6.27 In light of the above and other consultation responses received HDC Environmental Officer is satisfied that the EIA Statement of Conformity submitted in support of this application demonstrates that the proposals accord with the agreed parameter plans for the scheme, and that we do not require any further assessment of environmental impacts in addition to those set out in the original Environmental Statement, submitted in support of the outline planning application. It should be noted that there are a number of conditions within the outline planning permission which ensure the provision and implementation of ecological information and mitigation.
f) Any other matters including issues arising from public consultation.
6.28 A Noise Assessment has been submitted in support of this application which draws on the details within the Environmental Statement submitted in support of the outline planning application. The Noise Assessment details updated testing which has been carried out for the bund and acoustic fence which demonstrates its effectiveness as a noise barrier. The assessment states that as well as the main acoustic fence rear/side boundary fences of those units adjacent to the bund will be required to be an acoustic fence of 2.2m. Whilst HDC Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the contents of the Noise Assessment submitted in support of this application he has raised concerns to the rear/side acoustic boundary fences being within private ownership. This was not however an issue raised within the Phase 1 application where rear/side acoustic boundary treatments adjacent to the bund will also be within private management. This is not considered to be sufficient to raise APPENDIX A/ 2 - 22
objection and the boundary treatment condition will ensure boundary treatments are retained as approved.
6.29 Matters relating to contamination are controlled through conditions imposed on the outline planning permission whereby details are required to be submitted prior to the commencement of development.
6.30 The Design and Access Statement and supporting information submitted in support of this application states that the units will achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. It also states that energy and water efficiency standards will be met together with a range of other criteria that promote best practice in sustainable design and construction. In addition the site will provide two centralised recycling banks together with individual storage for units. It is considered this is acceptable in terms of Development Control Policy DC8.
6.31 Further to the initial consultation response from the County Archaeologist an Archaeological Watching Brief has been submitted in support of the application. The County Archaeologist considers this document to be acceptable which will need to be controlled by an appropriately worded condition.
6.32 Denne Neighbourhood Council were consulted by the applicant at pre-application stage and their comments were incorporated in an amendment to the application as submitted. Denne Neighbourhood Council consider the details secured by condition, in particular boundary treatments, are important. Denne Neighbourhood have raised no objection to this application.
6.33 One letter of objection has been received which is summarised above. This objection primarily relates to the area of open space, including the adjacent trees and pond, within the south western corner of the site. This was also a concern of officers and as discussed above amendments have been provided within this area together with the submission of additional ecological information. Further details such as lighting and planting can be controlled through appropriately worded conditions but officers are satisfied that an acceptable landscaping solution can be provided.
Conclusion
6.34 It is your Officers view that, subject to the resolution of the drainage matter as discussed at 6.25 above, the proposed development accords with the policies within the Development Plan, the principles as set out within the approved outline parameter plans together with the key principles within the S106 and is therefore recommended for planning approval.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that Planning Permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the resolution of a drainage strategy and any necessary drainage conditions, in consultation with HDC Drainage Officer and the Environment Agency, and the following conditions:
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 23
1. Notwithstanding the submitted information, no works or development shall take place until full details of a hard and soft landscape scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such a scheme shall have regard to the pond and group of trees to be retained which are adjacent to the site. These details 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/seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers Tree pit and staking/underground guying details A written specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment). Hard surfacing materials- layout, colour, size, texture, coursing, levels
The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any part of the development for its permitted use, or according to a timetable to be agreed with the Local Planning authority.
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).
2. No works or development shall take place until full details of underground services – locations, dimensions and depths have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the detailed landscape proposals submitted pursuant to Condition 1 above. Reason : To ensure the underground services do not conflict with satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
3. Prior to the commencement of any works on site a detailed Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The plan shall include: Aims and Objectives A description of Landscape Components Management Prescriptions Details of maintenance operations and their timing Details of the Parties who will be responsible for maintaining different areas of the site For the avoidance of doubt the Maintenance and Management Plan shall include, but shall not be limited to include, the bunded area, the acoustic fence, the pond and group of trees which are located adjacent to the application site. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 24
The areas of planting, open space and acoustic fence shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan, unless any variation is approved in writing by the LPA. 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)
4. D6 - Finished Floor levels
5. No development shall take place until details of boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such boundary treatments associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the boundary treatments shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6. All works shall be executed in full accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Development Report dated September 2012, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees, shrubs and hedges on the site in accordance with policies DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
7. All works shall be executed in full accordance with the submitted Bat Mitigation Strategy received August 2012 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.
8. All works shall be executed in full accordance with the submitted Archaeological Watching Brief dated August 2012 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable items of archaeological interest to be recorded in accordance with the policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
9. M1 - Approval of materials
10. The buildings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking, turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection APPENDIX A/ 2 - 25
with the development]. Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
11. Notwithstanding the submitted information, within 6 months of the planning permission (unless otherwise agreed) a refuse strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include details of storage and collection points for each dwelling within the site together with construction details of the carriageway to ensure appropriate construction to withstand regular use by refuse collection vehicles. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for refuse collection in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).
12. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles has been made within the site in accordance with the hereby approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13. Prior to the commencement of the development a Water Reduction Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in accordance with the recommendations in the Environmental Statement (ES)) to minimise water consumption and contribute towards achievement of the relevant Code for Sustainable Homes. Reason: To achieve planned reductions in water usage referred to in Chapter 15 paragraph 15.5.50 of the Environmental Statement.
14. The dwelling(s) shall achieve Code Level 3 (unless Government requirements have imposed higher levels at the commencement of development, in which case the higher level should be achieved) 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).
15. J12 – Removal of permitted development – enclosures
16. J13 – Removal of permitted development – windows
17. V5 – Removal of permitted development – extensions
18. J11 – Removal of permitted development - garages
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 26
19. No trenches or pipe runs for services, drains, or any other reason shall be excavated anywhere within the root protection area of any tree or hedge targeted for retention on or off the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
20. O1 – Hours of working
21. Within 6 months of the commencement of the development a full timetable of implementation and details shall be submitted to and approved in writing of the following:
a) details of street furniture, including any bollards b) details of lighting
The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable. 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).
22. Drainage condition/s to form part of the delegation process.
Note to applicant: The applicant is reminded that the current application is to be read in the context of the conditions attached to the outline planning permission DC/011/2004 and obligations as contained within the Legal Agreement dated 13 August 2010 and its supplementary agreements.
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
The proposal includes satisfactory provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and would not impinge upon the safety and convenience of other highway users.
The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
Background Papers: DC/12/1259 Case Officer: Emma Parkes APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 2 October 2012 Proposed additional permanent mobile home and one additional touring DEVELOPMENT: caravan to existing site SITE: Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane, Barns Green, West Sussex WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham APPLICATION: DC/12/0298 APPLICANT: Mrs Anita Ray
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer Referral: this application is one of three currently before the Council seeking planning permission for additional gypsy and traveller accommodation. The other two applications, DC/10/1921 (Northside Farm, Rusper Road, Ifield) and DC/10/1974 (Deer Park Farm, Hampers Lane, Horsham) appear elsewhere on this agenda. The three applications are reported together to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the relevant policies.
RECOMMENDATION: planning permission is granted
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application is to extend the site at Greenfield Farm westwards by 20.5 metres to accommodate a further mobile home and to station an additional touring caravan at the eastern end of the site where four others are currently kept. The additional mobile home would be for the applicant’s daughter, her partner and their two young children, who live with the applicant in one of the four mobile homes when they are not travelling. The eldest child is attending pre-school in Barns Green and the younger is due to start at Easter 2013.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 Greenfield Farm is a level site on the north side of Valewood Lane currently occupied by four mobile homes and four touring caravans. The site is occupied by members of a single Gypsy family.
Contact Officer: Mark Harbottle Tel: 01403 215416 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 I/26/03 – Retention of 3 mobile homes and siting of further mobile home and 4 touring caravans and continued use of land for residential purposes – temporary permission granted.
1.4 DC/08/0416 – Removal of condition 1 of planning permission I/26/03 for retention of 3 mobile homes and siting of further mobile home and 4 touring caravans and continued use of land for residential purposes – further temporary permission granted.
1.5 DC/10/0721 - Removal of condition 1 of planning permission DC/08/0416 for retention of 3 mobile homes and siting of further mobile home and 4 touring caravans and continued use of land for residential purposes – permanent personal permission granted.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework does not make specific reference to gypsy and traveller accommodation, this is addressed in a companion document, “Planning policy for traveller sites”, published March 2012. The Government’s definition of traveller includes gypsies.
2.3 The document states: “The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community” (paragraph 3). Therefore, as with housing provision for the settled community, Local Planning Authorities are required to ensure a supply to meet future need. Policy B indicates that Local Planning Authorities should, in producing their Local Plan:
a) Identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets; b) Identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years six to ten and, where possible, for years 11-15; c) Consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis, to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries); d) Relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density; and e) Protect local amenity and environment.
2.4 Policy H of the document sets out the Government’s approach to dealing with planning applications for traveller sites. Its starting point is that applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It adds that “Local planning authorities should consider the following issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites:
a) The existing level of local provision and need for sites; b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants; APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3
c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant; d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites; and e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections.”
2.5 Specific policy on countryside locations is provided in paragraph 23: “Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.”
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.6 Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, “Gypsies and Travellers”, is the most relevant policy for assessing applications for gypsy and traveller sites. The policy states that proposals for sites for caravans for gypsies and travellers will be granted provided that:
a) The Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting this established need; and b) The identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.
The policy sets out criteria for assessment of applications where it is determined that need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites.
2.7 Emerging local policy is set out in the Council’s Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options document, which was the subject of public consultation between 6 July and 31 August 2012. The site subject of this application is identified as a potentially suitable site within the consultation document.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY FOR APPLICATION SITE
2.8 I/26/03 - retention of three mobile homes and siting of further mobile home and four touring caravans and continued use of land for residential purposes – permitted for a temporary period, 31 March 2006.
2.9 DC/08/0416 - removal of condition 1 of planning application I/26/03 for retention of four mobile homes and four touring caravans and continued use of the land for residential purposes – permitted for a further temporary period, 5 June 2008.
2.10 DC/10/0721 - removal of condition 1 of planning application DC/08/0416 to retain four mobile homes and four touring caravans with associated works for occupation by a Sussex Gypsy family – permitted 18 June 2010.
This permission made the site permanent but restricted to the applicant and her immediate family, defined as ”the husband of Mrs Ray, or any other person Mrs Ray is living with as man and wife, the parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle nephew, niece of Mrs Ray or the spouse thereof”.
OTHER RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4
2.11 DC/10/1041 – use of the land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 11 no. Gypsy pitches together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/dayrooms ancillary to that use at Kingfisher Farm, which is approximately 135 metres to the north – refused, 9 March 2011 but allowed on appeal, 19 December 2011. This application was not made by, nor is of any benefit to, the applicant subject of this current application or her family.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Spatial Planning Manager advises: “This application should be considered against policies in the Local Development Framework, in particular the Core Strategy (2007), and the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD . Policy DC32, Gypsies and Travellers, is the most relevant policy and sets out the criteria against which to consider applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Other policies, particularly those relating to landscape character and design, are also relevant.
In addition, the application needs to be considered against national policy in the form of Planning policy for traveller sites and the National Planning Policy Framework, both published March 2012.
Emerging local policy can be considered a material consideration in determining the application. The Council has produced a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options document, which was the subject of public consultation between 6 July and 31 August 2012. The site subject of this application is identified as a potentially suitable site within the consultation document.
It is noted that this is the early stages of the development plan process, therefore the weight attached to the document is considered limited. The Introduction of the document clearly sets out the policy history which is relevant to consideration of this application.
The background document Horsham District Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Study, Final Report, October 2011 by Baker Associates, forms part of the evidence base for the document. This site is identified as a potentially suitable site for one pitch subject to suitable landscape mitigation. See Appendix 4: Shortlisted Sites.
The relatively recent appeal decision to allow 11 pitches at Kingfisher Farm, West Chiltington Lane, Itchingfield (DC/10/1041) on a site a field away from this application site is also relevant to the consideration of this application.
This application, then, is for an extension to the existing four pitch site at Valewood Lane. The existing site was granted a personal consent in 2010 (DC/10/0721).The extension is for one additional pitch. The resulting site would have five pitches in total.
You will be aware having read all of the above mentioned documents that the Council has to date not met the local need for pitches identified in the 2007 West Sussex Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment. Although the new guidance allows local planning authorities to re-assess the local needs and set its own targets through a local plan, we have to be mindful that we, similar to other authorities, have not to date addressed this issue. The new national guidance gives local authorities a year to show a five year supply of traveller sites and encourages a plan led approach. However, even though we are bringing a Sites document forward at the present time and we will be looking to set a target through the Horsham District Planning Framework, it has been noted that it is still early days in the plan making process. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5
Therefore, we need to look at Policy H, Determining planning applications for traveller sites of the Planning policy for traveller sites. Paragraph 20 requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
This takes us to our adopted criteria based policy, Policy DC 32. Firstly, then, we do have a need. The Inspector in the decision on Kingfisher Farm was clear that there is a District wide need and that there was no justification to consider this need across “other more discrete geographical areas”. Moreover this need can not currently be met at any suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.
As such and following on from this, the policy requires that the proposal is assessed in light of the other three criteria set out in the policy. These requires the site to be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local and community facilities; have a suitable means of access and that the highway network is adequate to serve the a site, and that adequate parking and turning are proposed. You need to be satisfied in all three respects. I will only comment here on the first criterion.
The Council took the view back in 2010 in relation to the Greenfield Farm site that, although the main mode of transport would be vehicular, the site could be justified as sustainable in the wider sense. It was acknowledged at the time that this would set the tone for consideration of sites in the future under this policy. You are referred to the committee report. Similarly, the Inspector when considering the Kingfisher Farm appeal referred to the close proximity of the sites and reached the same conclusion in respect of sustainability (see paragraph 30). I am therefore of the opinion that the logical conclusion is that an additional pitch in this location for a family member would be equally sustainable. As you will be aware the National Planning Policy Framework (and the Planning policy for traveller sites) includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
In terms of size of the site, this would accord with the findings of the Council’s Stakeholder Consultation 2009 which supported sites between 4 and 12 pitches; and is well below the figure of 15 suggested as an ideal maximum for a site referred to in the Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2008).
Overall, then, from a strategic perspective, although ideally all sites would come forward through a plan led approach, the extension of the Greenfield Farm site by one pitch for occupation by Gypsies and Travellers in accordance with the definition set out in Appendix 1 of the Planning policy for traveller sites, would accord with current adopted development plan policy and recent government guidance. This conclusion accords with the inclusion of the site in the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options Consultation Document.
As the case officer you are required to look at the proposal in light of all relevant NPPF policies, the policies in the Planning policy for traveller sites and other relevant development plan policies; so that issues such as landscape and landscape mitigation and drainage need to be considered and balanced against the principle of development.”
3.2 The Public Health & Licensing Officer has no objection but recommends the following conditions:
1. A satisfactory means of foul drainage must be provided and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority before installation. The new drainage provision must be separate from the existing system and may need permission from the Environment Agency for any discharge; 2. The mobile home must be provided with a wholesome water supply; APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6
3. Hours of work for installation of mobile home and curtilage to be restricted to 8:00 - 18:00h Monday to Friday, 8:00 -13:00h on Saturdays; no working on Sundays or public holidays; 4. No deliveries to the site to be received or dispatched outside the above hours; and 5. No burning of waste or waste materials on site.
Information for the applicant: the site licence will need to be amended to include the new mobile home if approved.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.3 Itchingfield Parish Council makes the following representations concerning what it considers to be three serious deficiencies in the application:
“No information is given regarding the arrangements for sewage processing and disposal beyond that it will connect to the existing. The current system originally laid to serve the existing 4 pitches has historically proven inadequate on several occasions with surcharging, noxious smells and local flooding. No details are given regarding the capacity or type of system to be used, nor to its efficacy as requested in the application document. This must be satisfactorily addressed.
No case is made in the application documents supplied as to the need for the extra pitch. Permission can only be given for a close relative of Mrs Ray. This matter has been addressed in part in a separate letter submitted to HDC planning dept by Mrs Ray on 21st February 2012, although she does not state the names of her daughter, her partner or children. This must be clarified.
No mention is made regarding the provision of a day room constructed of fire resistant materials as laid down in the Gov. Guidelines for gypsy/traveller sites. Our understanding from the guidelines and more recent planning applications is that the provision of a day room is essential for H&S and welfare reasons. This deficiency must be rectified.
It should be noted that the original plot size for Number 4 was extended into the adjacent agricultural land last year. This was formally notified to HDC enforcement dept and Madeleine Hartley attended the site and advised Mrs Ray no development could take place on the extension to her plot. Whilst no actual development has taken place the submitted plans show the extension as part of the domestic curtilage of number 4 with the new site for number 5 adjoining this extended plot. The legality of this must be investigated and resolved.
At the IPC meeting on 26th March representations were made by Mr and Mrs Robertson of Lower Pratts farm, expressing deep concern that when permission for a 5th pitch on site BIL001, subject to planning consent was agreed by HDC following the publishing of the Baker report in October 2011 it was expected that the application for 11 pitches on the adjacent but unmentioned site Kingfisher Farm site would be refused. Now that planning permission has been granted for the Kingfisher Farm site the total for the sites which must now be considered as one gypsy/traveller development is 15 pitches which is the maximum recommended for single sites. With the addition of the proposed 5th pitch in Greenfield Farm this maximum will be exceeded and so must be refused.
The granting of an additional pitch to site BIL001/BAR001 would lead to a division of these sites from the Kingfisher Farm site which would pave the way for up to 30 pitches to be constructed, doubling the present developments. Such a concentration of Gypsy/Traveller pitches would overwhelm the Parish of Itchingfield as well as the nearby areas of the Billingshurst Parish so we re-iterate, it must be refused. This vital issue must be urgently addressed as part of the HDC’s Gypsy and Traveller Policy, particularly in the light of the recent Government announcements that Gypsy and Traveller sites will be included in the APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7
Governments Planning Reforms which it is proposed, will treat applications from Gypsy/Travellers in a similar manner to those from the “settled community” seeking permission for conventional housing and commercial developments.”
(The references BIL001 and BAR001 used above respectively relate to the existing four pitches at Greenfield Farm and a potentially suitable site in the position of the current application site in the 2011 Horsham District Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Study, Final Report, by Baker Associates, “The Baker report”.)
3.4 Southern Water advises that “There are no public sewers in the area to serve the development. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency direct regarding the use of a septic tank drainage which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner of the septic tank will need to maintain the septic tank to ensure its long term effectiveness.”
3.5 The Environment Agency has no comments to make.
3.6 West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning advises: “The most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing point of access.
Notwithstanding previous concerns regarding the visibility of the existing access, there have been no recent recorded incidents. Visibility from the site access is still affected by the roadside hedge, therefore in the event of any subsequent applications coming for further expansion of this site beyond 5 units following this application, it is likely that the Highways Authority would have to raise an objection. However based on the immediate history there will be no objections to this application.”
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.7 Five letters have been received from four addresses objecting to the application. These repeat the points raised by the Parish Council and introduce the following additional grounds:
Noise and light disturbance and loss of privacy from additional accommodation; Impact of additional car parking and the touring caravan; Precedent for expansion of other gypsy and traveller sites; The location is unsustainable due to high car dependency; Impact on trees and landscaping; and An alternative location to the north (believed to have been recommended in the Baker report) is preferred.
One letter asks that adjacent land in the same ownership is cleared if permission is granted.
3.8 The applicant has responded to some of the issues raised by the Parish Council and members of the public in the form of comments on her own application, as follows:
“My daughter Christina husband Ben and two children Riana 2yrs & Bobby 1yr are in desperate need of a home of their own. Christina has lived here with me since 2003. The sewer will be a separate system so drainage will meet the current EA license & regs as a new tank will be installed following advice from the EA. Also people presuming that we are relatives of King Fisher Farm are completely wrong, they are unknown to us as much as they are you so therefore we are not exceeding the 15 Govt. and Gypsy Council maximum site size recommendation. We have 4 plots at present and are applying for a further 1 that is urgently needed.” APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 6 (Right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination), and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property and right to education) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights is an integral part of the planning assessment below.
Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
4.2 As the Council allows public speaking at its Committee meetings, the applicant has an opportunity to address the decision-maker if she wishes, which constitutes a fair and public hearing. The applicant would also have a right of appeal against the planning decision, if she is unhappy with it.
4.3 In addition, the occupiers of neighbouring land and property have been given the chance to lodge representations with the Council and to speak at the meeting.
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life)
4.4 This has become the centre of the majority of challenges by gypsies to planning decisions, where a planning decision could result in a person having to leave their home because retrospective permission is being sought, or enforcement action is being considered. As this application is for proposed development not carried out, the Article is of lesser significance.
Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property)
4.5 This states that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination)
4.6 This states that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Thus, it requires that no-one shall be discriminated against in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on any ground, including matters such as race, sex, national origin, or any other status.
4.7 Article 14 in this case refers to the choice of the Ray family to reside in mobile accommodation appropriate to their status as local Gypsies.
4.8 With respect to case law, in Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Tunbridge Wells BC, a planning inspector had found that conventional housing had been offered to the Gypsy family in question, and that they found the prospect distressing, having never lived in a conventional house. Nevertheless, the inspector went on to state that the offer of that accommodation detracted somewhat from the contention that the only alternative to the appeal site was an illegal roadside pitch. The High Court held that:
“…in certain appropriate circumstances it can amount to a breach of articles 8 and 14 to weigh in the balance and hold against a gypsy applying for planning permission, or indeed resisting eviction from Council or private land, that he or she APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9
has refused conventional housing accommodation as being contrary to his or her culture.”
4.9 To treat such refusal as a relevant consideration in reaching a decision was just as impermissible as penalising a religious or strictly observant Christian, Jew or Muslim because they will not work on certain days, or to penalise a strictly observant Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or Sikh because they will not eat certain foods or wear certain clothing.
4.10 The onus was on the individual concerned to satisfy the planning inspector that they or their family do indeed have a genuine aversion to conventional housing, but once that has been established:
“…it would be contrary to articles 8 and 14 to expect such a person to accept conventional housing and to hold it against him or her that he has not accepted it, or is not prepared to accept it, even as a last resort factor.”
4.11 The above consideration is pertinent in the context of this application as the Ray family are an established Gypsy family within the Horsham District and have always resided in mobile homes. However, as with some of the other Articles considered above, this is more relevant where a planning decision could deprive a Gypsy of accommodation they currently enjoy. As the mobile home is proposed, not existing, the Article is of lesser significance.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is considered that the proposal will not have any adverse impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 As noted in the Spatial Planning Manager’s comments, the Council has not met the local need for 39 Gypsy and Traveller pitches by 2011 that was identified five years ago in the 2007 West Sussex Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (“the 2007 Needs Assessment”).
6.2 Government planning policy indicates that the Council should identify a five-year supply of sites by March 2013, in the same way that it should for new housing for the settled community, through a plan led approach. This is being addressed through the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options Consultation Document (“the Preferred Options Consultation Document”) and a local target for future pitch provision will be set out in the Horsham District Planning Framework (formerly the Core Strategy review) but this will not be concluded by March 2013. It is therefore necessary to anticipate the likely situation when the five-year requirement comes into effect in six months’ time and to make an appropriate decision on this application in the interim.
6.3 The Preferred Options Consultation Document identifies the site as suitable for an additional pitch and there is therefore support for the proposal in emerging policy. This emerging policy has recently been the subject of public consultation but the results are not yet published.
6.4 Greenfield Farm is a relatively small Gypsy settlement, occupied by a single extended family. The application is for further members of the same family, and there is therefore a clear local connection. Its extension westward by a single plot would have a relatively limited impact on the landscape and local infrastructure. The additional mobile home APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10
would address the family’s current housing needs and would provide stability for the children, one of whom is already attending the Barns Green Playgroup.
6.5 Regarding the Parish Council’s comments:
The advice of Southern Water and the Environment Agency do not indicate that adequate arrangements for sewage processing and disposal cannot be made and an appropriate planning condition (number 11) is recommended; The question about the need for the extra pitch has been answered in the applicant’s comments reported in paragraph 3.8 above; It is not essential that a day room is provided and in view of the ages of the children the mobile home would provide adequate accommodation for the identified family members; The western boundary of the existing site is indeed laid out at variance from the previously approved plans and this application presents an opportunity to address the issue as it would create a new western boundary to the site. There is a contradiction between the submitted location and layout plans in this regard and corrected plans have been requested from the applicant; The combined impact of this proposal and the permission granted on appeal at Kingfisher Farm is considered in paragraph 6.7 below. However, the further concern that up to 30 pitches would be constructed is not relevant to this application, which seeks permission for one pitch and is considered on its merits. It understood that the applicant has a large family and this may create further need for pitches in the future but that is a matter for future assessment; this application is solely concerned with the needs of the family members identified in paragraph 3.8. However, the Preferred Options Consultation Document only provides support for one additional pitch, which this application seeks permission for, at Greenfield Farm; and The Government’s planning reforms affecting applications from Gypsies and Travellers came into effect at around the time the Parish Council wrote. The changes, described in paragraphs 2.2 – 2.5 above, do require that Gypsy and Traveller needs are addressed in a similar manner to those of others, particularly through the intended requirement that Councils identify a five-year supply of pitches, a point considered again in paragraph 6.11 below.
6.6 The above issues and other relevant planning considerations need to be assessed in the context of the criteria of policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD. As noted above, this policy states that proposals for sites for caravans for Gypsies and Travellers will be granted provided that:
a) The Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting this established need; and b) The identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.
6.7 Local need was last identified in 2007 and as noted above, the requirement of 39 additional pitches by 2011 has not been met. The Government’s policy on Gypsies and Travellers will require a five-year supply to be identified by March 2013 and at present it appears unlikely that this will be achieved. Expanding this site by one pitch appears an adequate way of meeting the need, subject to detailed assessment. In this respect it is noted that the Kingfisher Farm site is approximately 135 metres away and whilst the Parish Council and public comments are noted, the two sites are separate entities. The concern that both sites would over-provide in close proximity and adversely affect the population balance between the settled and travelling communities is recognised, although this did not prevent the inspector allowing the Kingfisher Farm site. An additional pitch at Greenfield Farm would not have a significant impact in this regard. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 11
6.8 In terms of alternative existing sites, the County Council sites at Adversane and Cousins Copse and the HDC site at Small Dole are full, with waiting lists.
6.9 Policy DC32 sets out criteria for assessment of applications where it is determined that need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites. Whilst 11 pitches were allowed on appeal at Kingfisher Farm nearby, it is understood that these have all been sold and are therefore not available to the applicant. The inspector in the Kingfisher Farm case noted that planning decisions taken since 2006 accounted for an additional 7 pitches within the district. The effect of these decisions and that at Kingfisher Farm is a net growth of 18 pitches, well short of the 39 pitches identified as needed by 2011 in the 2007 Needs Assessment. Therefore need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites, and therefore assessment against the policy’s criteria is appropriate.
6.10 The policy criteria are:
1. The site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities. The Council’s 2008 decision to allow permanent permission for the current four pitches accepted that this criterion was met, even though the location was not ideal, and the same must therefore be true for the proposed additional pitch.
2. A satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site. The current access to Valewood Lane would be used and as noted in paragraph 3.6, the Highway Authority, considers it suitable for this additional pitch.
3. The proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles. The Highway Authority’s assessment of the application has not found fault with the proposed arrangements.
The policy also states that occupation of a site will be restricted to Gypsies and Travellers and may be limited to a temporary period and/or for the benefit of named occupiers, matters that could be secured by appropriate planning conditions if necessary.
6.11 The identification of the site as suitable in the Baker report and in the Preferred Options Consultation Document lend support to the application, even though the relevant policy is at an early stage of preparation. The Preferred Options Consultation Document proposes the allocation of the application site in policy GTTS2, noting that it and the others proposed are suitable, available and achievable. Between them, these sites would deliver the 39 pitches identified the 2007 Needs Assessment. Considering the comprehensive survey and assessment made in the Baker report and the Preferred Options Consultation Document, it is unlikely that more suitable sites will come forward. In view of this, a case can be made for allowing this limited expansion of the site to meet Gypsy family needs and to assist with reducing the significant shortfall in provision of pitches against the number that should have been provided by 2011. As noted above, the Government expects planning authorities to identify a five-year supply of pitches to meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers by March 2013 and that may well require more sites to be made available. The emerging work on potential sites indicates that this site can help meet existing and future need and this proposal would address the needs of the applicant’s family based at Greenfield Farm.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 12
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012).
Reason: Due to the special circumstances of the case and in accordance with DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2. No more than 10 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (or any Act revoking or re- enacting these Acts), of which no more than 5 shall be a static caravan or mobile home, shall be stationed on the site at any time.
Reason: To avoid an overcrowded appearance and to secure satisfactory standards of space and amenity in accordance with DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3. The caravans hereby approved shall be sited in accordance with the submitted site plan, drawing AR 212/1.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory disposition and grouping of the caravans, in the interests of the appearance of the area, and to accord with policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. The touring caravans hereby approved shall not be occupied by any person at any time whilst on the application site.
Reason: To ensure the development remains of a scale appropriate to its countryside location, in accordance with policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
5. The residential use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mrs Anita Ray and her immediate family, defined as the husband of Mrs. Ray, or any person whom Mrs Ray is living with as man and wife; the parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece of Mrs. Ray, or the spouse thereof, and by no other person or persons.
Reason: Due to the special circumstances of the case and in accordance with DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6. When the land ceases to be occupied by the persons named in condition 5, the use hereby permitted shall cease and any caravans, vehicles, trailers, structures, materials and equipment (including all areas of hardstanding and sanitary equipment) brought onto the land in connection with the use, save as otherwise permitted, shall be permanently removed. Within two months of that time, the land shall be restored to pasture land.
Reason: Permission would not normally be granted for such development in this location under policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: APPENDIX A/ 3 - 13
General Development Control Policies (2007) but in granting permission exceptionally the Local Planning Authority have had regard to the particular circumstances relating to the proposal and policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
7. No industrial, commercial or business activity of any description shall be carried on from the site, including the storage of materials.
Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site.
Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
9. No external lighting fixtures shall be erected or placed on the land, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
10. 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 additional gates, fences, walls, or other means of enclosure shall be erected or constructed on the site unless prior written permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
11. The additional caravan hereby approved shall not be brought onto site until details of foul drainage to serve the increased number of caravans have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, and the sewage system shall be implemented prior to occupation of the additional caravan and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
12. No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works, including fences or any other means of enclosure, have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 14
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No deliveries shall be received outside the above hours.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 14. No burning of materials shall take place on the site
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Note to Applicant: The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency direct regarding the use of a septic tank drainage which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner of the septic tank will need to maintain the septic tank to ensure its long term effectiveness.
Note to Applicant: The site licence will need to be amended to include the new caravan.
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
IDP3 The proposal is consistent with national policy in “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites” (2012) and policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007) with regards applications for Gypsy development.
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
Background Papers: DC/12/0298, I/26/03, DC/08/0416, DC/10/0721 & DC/10/1041 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 2 October 2012 The use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for DEVELOPMENT: 1 No. gypsy pitch together with the formation of a dayroom/utility block and additional hard standing ancillary to that use SITE: Deer Park Farm, Hampers Lane, Horsham, West Sussex WARD: Forest APPLICATION: DC/10/1974 APPLICANT: Mr George Hunt
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer Referral: this application is one of three currently before the Council seeking planning permission for additional gypsy and traveller accommodation. The other two applications, DC/10/1921 (Northside Farm, Rusper Road, Ifield) and DC/12/0841 (Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane, Barns Green) appear elsewhere on this agenda. The three applications are reported together to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the relevant policies.
RECOMMENDATION: The planning application is delegated for approval subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure removal of lawful mobile home and surrender of LDC
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 Permission is sought to retain a mobile home that was brought onto the site in March 2010 and to erect a utility/day room building. A mobile home that was already on the site and which is lawful would be removed and the other mobile home moved into its position, to the rear of the site, between existing barns and the new utility/day room building. A touring caravan would be stored within one of the existing barns. A waste treatment plant and soakaway would be located underground where the new mobile home currently stands.
1.2 The accommodation is for the applicant, his wife and their three daughters aged 19, 13 and 10. The eldest daughter works in Horsham and the younger two attend local schools.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 Deer Park Farm is a rectangular and level plot of land on the north side of Hampers Lane, about 350 metres east of the built up area of Horsham. The application relates to the
Contact Officer: Mark Harbottle Tel: 01403 215416 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2
section nearest the lane, which includes a collection of small barns and stables on the western boundary and a paddock to the east. The site lies within the High weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
1.4 A mobile home that benefits form a lawful development certificate (LDC) is located centrally on the northern boundary and the new mobile home that would replace it is currently nearer the lane. The boundary to Hampers Lane is marked by a belt of trees and woodland lies to the immediate west. The land to the north and west (St Leonard’s Park) is predominantly open.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework does not make specific reference to gypsy and traveller accommodation, this is addressed in a companion document, “Planning policy for traveller sites”, published March 2012. The Government’s definition of traveller includes gypsies.
2.3 The document states: “The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community” (paragraph 3). Therefore, as with housing provision for the settled community, Local Planning Authorities are required to ensure a supply to meet future need. Policy B indicates that Local Planning Authorities should, in producing their Local Plan:
a) Identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets; b) Identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years six to ten and, where possible, for years 11-15; c) Consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis, to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries); d) Relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density; and e) Protect local amenity and environment.
2.4 Policy H of the document sets out the Government’s approach to dealing with planning applications for traveller sites. Its starting point is that applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It adds that “Local planning authorities should consider the following issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites:
a) The existing level of local provision and need for sites; b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants; c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant; d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites; and APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3
e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections.”
2.5 Specific policy on countryside locations is provided in paragraph 23: “Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.”
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.6 Core Strategy (2007) policy CP1, “Landscape and Townscape Character”, is particularly relevant due to the site’s location within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and states that activities that may affect the character of the landscape should only take place where that landscape is protected, conserved or enhanced and the biodiversity of the District is conserved and enhanced.
2.7 The general approach of CP1 is re-stated more specifically in policy DC4, “Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty”, of the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD. This states that planning permission will not be granted for proposals that would adversely affect the character, quality, views, distinctiveness or threaten public enjoyment of the landscape. The policy also states that where exceptionally development is necessary, landscape enhancements, mitigation or compensation measures must be provided.
2.8 Policy DC32, “Gypsies and Travellers”, is the most relevant policy for assessing applications for gypsy and traveller sites. The policy states that proposals for sites for caravans for gypsies and travellers will be granted provided that:
a) The Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting this established need; and b) The identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.
The policy sets out criteria for assessment of applications where it is determined that need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites.
2.9 Emerging local policy is set out in the Council’s Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options document, which was the subject of public consultation between 6 July and 31 August 2012. However, the site is not considered in the consultation document.
PLANNING HISTORY
2.10 DC/05/0223 - stationing of caravan (Lawful Development Certificate - Existing) – refused, July 2005.
2.11 DC/05/2235 - stationing of caravan (Lawful Development Certificate - Existing) – granted, February 2006. The use certified as lawful was “use of land for the siting of a caravan 3.04m x 2.13m x 7.62m for storage, mess facilities, sitting in and shelter”.
2.12 DC/10/1564 - use of the land for stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 1 no. gypsy pitches together with the formation of additional hard standing ancillary to that use and erection of a stable block – application withdrawn, September 2010. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Spatial Planning Manager advises: This application needs to be considered against policies in the Local Development Framework, in particular the Core Strategy (2007), and the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD . Policy DC32, Gypsies and Travellers is the most up to date and relevant policy and sets out the criteria against which to consider applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Other policies, particularly those relating to landscape character and design, are also relevant.
In addition, the application needs to be considered against national policy in the form of Planning policy for traveller sites and the National Planning Policy Framework, both published March 2012.
Emerging local policy can be considered a material consideration in determining the application. The Council has produced a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options document, which was the subject of public consultation between 6 July and 31 August 2012.
It is noted that this is the early stages of the development plan process, therefore the weight attached to the document is considered limited. The Introduction of the document clearly sets out the policy history which is relevant to consideration of this application.
The background document Horsham District Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Study, Final Report, October 2011 by Baker Associates, forms part of the evidence base for the document. This site is not identified in the study.
The Council has always intended to progress issues through a plan-led approach and there remains a commitment to producing a separate Site Allocations DPD. Evidence of this goes back as far as November 2006, when the Local Development Framework Gypsy and Traveller Sites Issues and Options Document, was published for consultation. Since that time further local policy advances on the matter have appeared limited, but this has been due to the implications of wider changes in planning policy, centred around the South East Plan and the need for an early review of the Core Strategy, as required by the Inspector at the original examination. In September 2009, the results of a Stakeholder Consultation with local Gypsy and Travellers, was published, supporting a preference for small family run sites.
Being mindful of all of the above, as stated earlier the Council does have an adopted criteria based policy, Policy DC32, Gypsies and Travellers of the General Development Control Policies (2007) against which to assess the application.
The issue of ‘local’ need is something which you need to be satisfied of, particularly in light of the focus on a ‘localism’ agenda. In my opinion, the applicant needs to provide sufficient information relating to gypsy status and his family’s local connections to the Horsham area. If you are satisfied with this, and it seems likely, particularly as the family have been residing on the site for some time and have children at the local school, it would, in my opinion, be difficult to sustain an argument against the local connection and thus the local need, particularly as at the present time we can not indentify an alternative authorised site for the family; though you should check with the County that the position regarding the Adversane site and in-house regarding Small Dole.
If one accepts the needs argument then you are best placed to consider the proposals against the other three criteria set out in the policy. I would make the point in relation to criteria 1 that Horsham is a Category 1 settlement, having a good range of services and facilities, and although this site lies outside of the Built-Up area boundary it is a short car APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5
journey to the town and is also within walking and cycling distance of the town and facilities. Therefore, if a local need can be proven, then it may be hard to resist the proposal on ‘sustainability’ alone. I would draw your attention to the Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane case, where it was accepted by the Council that despite its more rural location (further from all facilities than this site) the occupiers of the site could access services.
As the case officer, you are also best placed to give consideration of the proposals in light of other policies focusing on ‘development management’ considerations, such as highways and landscaping.
Overall, it is, my opinion that, in principle, consideration should certainly be given in this case for granting a temporary permission, pending work on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations DPD, subject to appropriate conditions which would include a condition ensuring that the permission was for the benefit of named occupiers in accordance with policy DC32.
3.2 The Landscape Officer advises: the proposed development is situated within the High Weald AONB. DC policy 4 advises planning permission will not be granted for proposals that would adversely affect the character, quality, views or distinctiveness or public enjoyment of the AONB landscape.
The previous development of stables and access and hardstanding areas and associated fencing has already had a very localised adverse impact on the landscape character and quality of the AONB, although visibility of the site in the wider area is limited due to the presence of existing hedgerows, woodland and mature groups of field trees.
On balance I consider the size and scale of the additional small area of hardstanding and a mobile home and day room are such that they will not add significantly to the current landscape impact of development on the site, subject to the carrying out of a comprehensive landscape scheme of native planting for the site as part of any planning permission.
The applicant has already recently carried out some native hedge and tree planting which will in time help to integrate the proposals but I have marked up the attached plan to show what additional planting will be required to provide additional screening from Hampers lane and on the eastern and northern boundaries. The native planting recommended can also in time help to also enhance local landscape character and benefit biodiversity.
I would strongly recommend that this planting scheme is marked up on a proper landscape plan and submitted to the Local Planning Authority before any planning permission is granted.
I understand an article 4 direction already covers the site which removes permitted development rights in respect of fencing. I would recommend in the event that future applications are received for any additional subdivision of the land by fencing that the authority seeks the provision of new hedgerow planting to minimise any adverse impact.
3.3 Pubic Health & Licensing comment: This department has no objection in principle to this application, but recommends conditions to any permission granted to control the use of the site from an Environmental Health point of view:
1. Details of the means of treatment and disposal of sewage must be provided and agreed with the Planning Authority before commencement of the use. Percolation tests will be required for any scheme which involves discharge of effluent to the ground, and the full results of these must be made available to the Council as well as APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6
the detail of the proposed treatment system before approval is given in order to ensure that the disposal of sewage does not have a detrimental impact on the immediate environment. Any new drainage provision may need permission from the Environment Agency for any discharge and from Building Control as a new drainage system. 2. A wholesome water supply must be provided to the mobile home pitch. 3. The use of the site shall be restricted to residential use.
4. Provision shall be made for the collection and disposal of refuse and recyclable materials. 5. Burning of Materials: A licensed waste removal contractor shall remove clearance debris from site. No burning of materials shall take place on site. 6. Hours of general demolition, clearance and construction at the site associated with the proposal shall be restricted to between 08.00-18.00 hours Monday-Friday, 08.00–13.00 hours Saturdays and no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
The following information for the applicant is also recommended:
The Mobile Home will need to be issued with a Caravan Site Licence if permission is granted. The applicant should be aware of the Licence conditions before any installation or building work begins as these may affect the proposals. For example the Licence will require that there is a gap of 1m between the mobile home and any permanent structure, and a minimum of 3m to the boundary of the site. I can provide the applicant with further information about the Licence conditions if required.
3.4 The Council’s Safeguarding Officer advises: The Children Act 2004 provides the legal underpinning for District Council’s duty to cooperate in the making of arrangements to improve well-being of children and young people. Section 11 sets out specific duty on District Councils to ensure that its functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Currently there is no statutory duty for District Councils to report suspected abuse of vulnerable adults; however as set out in its Safeguarding Policy, Horsham District Council is committed to applying the principles of safeguarding children and young people to vulnerable adults
Whilst it is difficult to ascertain the needs of specific individuals through the planning process, it is important to recognise that the length of time these individuals have been settled in a specific location. The individuals to whom the planning application relates may be children, young people and/or vulnerable adults. They may have additional or special needs, which are being meet through local infrastructure (e.g. health, schooling, social care) and moving them on is likely to be disruptive to their quality of life and life chances.
Assuming that children, young people and/or vulnerable adults residing on the site are users of local services, it is therefore recommended that this application is approved. This will enable the individuals to remain in the local community and continue benefit from the established support, thus safeguarding and promoting their welfare as well as meeting the Council’s statutory responsibilities.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.5 West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning advises: the principle of the addition of a residential dwelling and stable at this site was accepted in the WSCC consultation response to the previous application. It now appears that the stable has been omitted from the current application and has been replaced with a day room. If the site is kept to APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7
providing accommodation for one family, this would not be considered an intensification of use and would therefore raise no highway concerns. My previous comments still stand.
The previous comments, made on application DC/10/1564, were:
This part of Hampers Lane does not form part of the publicly maintainable highway. However, Bridleway 1696 follows the length of the unadopted part of Hampers Lane.
There is an existing mobile home on the site that is a permitted mess facility. It could therefore be argued that the addition of a mobile home as a dwelling will not incur a significant intensification of the site. Notwithstanding this factor, a site visit was undertaken due to local concern for this proposal.
It is acknowledged that Hampers Lane is a narrow road, however traffic speeds and volumes are low and there are regular passing places. It is clear that heavy vehicles would already use this lane to access the Southern Water site. Whilst it is also acknowledged that this unadopted part of Hampers Lane has a junction with the residential Smithbarn, there is no issue with visibility at this junction and therefore any additional vehicles would not be exacerbating an existing problem.
WSCC therefore does not object to this proposal on highway grounds.
3.6 Forest Neighbourhood Council comments as follows:
“It is understood that at present there is planning permission for use of the site for storage, mess facilities, sitting in and shelter on an agricultural basis. What is being asked for is a residential unit but the application does not specifically refer to this change of use.
FNC objects to the application on the grounds that:
As the site is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, any development will detract from the visual amenities and is an inappropriate area for a gypsy pitch to be located; It will set a precedent and any future applications would be difficult to resist; The site runs alongside the High Weald walking route and so the landscape will be adversely affected by the proposal; It is contrary to Horsham District Council’s policy DC4; The use of land for residential purposes is inappropriate and unacceptable; No formal change of use is being sought; The application is misleading: (a) Whilst it is stated there will only be one caravan, the description in the planning application and supporting statement states caravans in the plural. (b) It is also stated that there will be no gain or loss of residential units; surely the building of a permanent structure, albeit what is described as a day room, could easily be used to live in. Surely therefore there is a gain? The applicant hasn’t adequately considered the waste and drainage issues particularly as the site is in a heavy clay soil area. This is an important consideration and must be addressed; The size of the caravan is such that it is sufficient to live in. What is presently on site is a mobile home that is more than adequate for living in. Therefore the additional permanent building could be used as a residential dwelling. This must be resisted; There is some ambiguity in the way in which the design layout has been submitted and this need to be clarified; Although the access to this site is via a private road; there are problems with access to and from the main road which have been well documented in the past and permission to set up a gypsy pitch will aggravate an already difficult situation; APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8
It is unclear whether any of the newly formed entrance off Hamper’s Lane is concrete in which event planning permission needs to be obtained for this; Despite the fact that this is a retrospective planning application, this must not deter Councillors form refusing the application; Whilst this Council is aware of the Chapman v UK case on Human Rights, it must take into account the rights of others through the preservation of the environment and also consider whether, as appears in this instance, that the home was established unlawfully as it is a retrospective application.
FNC ask that this application should be delayed until Horsham District Council has formulated its policy ion Gypsy Site Provision in this area. This will allow the document to be presented without having to justify precedents or to take into consideration any planning application that is either pending or has been dismissed.
If, however, permission is granted then FNC would like conditions attached to ensure that the day room is deleted from the application, that the permission is only for this particular family and cannot be transferred and is for a temporary period of say 2 years.”
3.7 Southern Water advises: the comments in our original response dated 31/08/2010 remain unchanged and valid for the amended details.
The original comments, made on application DC/10/1564, were:
“Please find attached a plan of the water mains records showing the approximate position of a public water trunk main crossing the site. The exact position of the water main must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.
All existing infrastructure, including protective coatings and cathodic protection, should be protected during the course of construction works. No excavation, mounding or tree planting should be carried out within 4 metres of the public water main without consent from Southern Water.”
For further advice, the applicant is advised to contact, Atkins Ltd [address provided] or www.southernwater.co.uk.
In order to protect water supply apparatus, Southern Water requests that if consent is granted, a condition is attached to the planning permission. For example “The developer must agree with Southern Water, prior to commencement of the development, the measures to be undertaken to protect the public water supply main”.
The applicant is advised to consult the Environment Agency directly regarding the use of a package treatment plant which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner of the premises will need to empty and maintain the works or septic tank to ensure 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 form the proposed development.”
3.8 The Environment Agency has no comments to make.
3.9 Natural England advises:
St Leonards Ponds Site of Special Scientific Interest APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9
This application is likely to affect the St Leonards Ponds Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Having considered the information provided and the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposal upon the above designated site(s) Natural England considers that this application is unlikely to have implications for the SSSI. Consequently, we have no comments to make on this application in respect of the designated site at present.
High Weald AONB
Natural England is concerned about the effect of this development on the natural beauty, local character and distinctiveness of the AONB. We request that you refer to the High Weald AONB Management Plan for detailed guidance on ways in which the landscape character and local distinctiveness can be preserved. We suggest that you also send details to the AONB Unit, if you have not done so already in order to ensure that the planning issues regarding this proposal take into account the various issues that arise as a result of the AONB designation.
3.10 CPRE Horsham and Crawley objects to the application, considering that “It does not comply with:
i. HDC LDF policies DC1 Countryside Protection and Enhancement and CP5 Built Up Areas and Previously Developed Land because the site lies outside the built up boundary, is not essential to its countryside location, does not support the needs of agriculture or forestry, nor provides for quiet informal recreational use; ii. HDC LDF policy DC4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in St Leonards Park in that it would not enhance the natural beauty of St Leonards Park and in fact would adversely affect its character. The proposed formation of a new access onto Hampers Lane, new day room/utility block and large area of hard standing would visually detract from the rural setting; iii. HDC LDF policy DC32 Gypsies and Travellers because it has not been clearly demonstrated that a site is needed at this location and that there are other sites available in the District, for example at London Road, Washington. The existing access is not suitable for the proposed use which therefore necessitates the formation of a new, otherwise unnecessary access onto Hampers Lane. In addition, the formation of a permanent day room/utility block and the proposed area of hardstanding cannot be justified in terms of the needs of a single gypsy caravan pitch. Certainly there has been no need for such facilities since at least 2005 when a certificate of lawful use was granted for storage, mess facilities, sitting in and shelter (DC/05/2235). In this respect, it is also noted that although the current application refers to a single gypsy caravan pitch, the supporting statement refers to an unspecified number of caravans which taken together suggests the [potential risk of an even greater and more unacceptable incursion into the AONB.
Finally we note this planning application does not qualify as a rural exception under HDC LDF policy CP8 Small scale ‘Greenfield’ Sites or HDC LDF DC 30 Exceptions Housing Schemes because it is not required to meet identified local needs, nor provide affordable housing.”
3.11 The Horsham Society objects, commenting that:
“We note that there is an existing consent (DC/05/2235) in relation to the stationing of a single caravan for “storage, mess facilities, sitting in and shelter” and that “a use which is materially different from that described or which relates to other land may render the owner or occupier liable to enforcement action.” It seems clear that since some time following this consent the use has been materially different from that which was permitted. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10
The site in question lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Council’s policy DC4 clearly states that planning permission will not be granted for proposals in or near an AONB that would adversely affect the character, quality, views distinctiveness or threaten public enjoyment of these landscapes.
In our view the use of this land for residential purposed of any kind would create an unacceptable and inappropriate incursion into the AONB in a particularly sensitive location close to the built-up area boundary. Accordingly it is our view that this application should be refused and the requirements of the existing consent enforced.”
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.12 Over 200 representations citing the following planning-related grounds of objection have been received from members of the public:
Ambiguity of the number of caravans that would be permitted Impact on landscape and AONB Impact on SSSI and nature conservation Reduction in the recreational value of the area to residents Inappropriate location for residential uses Impact on local infrastructure, including school capacity Concerns that a business could be run from the site Capacity and safety concerns regarding Hampers Lane and the site access Precedent Alternative provision should be made No decision should be made in advance of changes in Government and Council policy
3.13 In addition, two letters of support has been received, one suggesting that the applicant has been the subject of a hate campaign and the other stating that he has tidied up the site and by his presence has improved security at adjacent properties.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and Articles 1 and 2 of the First Protocol (protection of property and right to education) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights is an integral part of the planning assessment below.
Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
4.2 The applicant has submitted this application for planning permission, and the case has been referred to the Committee for their consideration, at which the applicant can speak. Thus, the applicant has been given the opportunity for a fair and public hearing. The applicant will also have a further right of appeal against the planning decision, if they are unhappy with the decision.
4.3 In addition, the occupiers neighbouring landowners have been given the chance to lodge representations with the Council and to speak at the Development Control Committee meeting at which this application is to be considered.
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life)
4.4 This has become the centre of the majority of challenges by Gypsies to planning decisions. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 11
The Act states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence, and that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In this regard, recent case law on the subject has concluded that this Article is relevant in respect of mobile homes, as they are the homes of the applicants. The Human Rights Act requires public authorities to consider carefully the proportionality of their actions when making decisions which interfere with Article 8 rights. Thus public authorities are required to undertake a systematic analysis of the relevant issues and to ensure that they have taken into account the answers to a properly articulated framework of questions before reaching such decisions.
4.5 Further, in respect of potential enforcement action, it is incumbent upon a local authority to have proper regard to the requirements of Article 8 in order to ensure that rights are not firstly violated and secondly, that the interference serves a legitimate aim.
4.6 It is clear that enforcement action against unauthorised development which is also someone’s home constitutes an interference with their Article 8 (1) rights, which requires justification. The main issues that have arisen from recent case law on this subject is whether general or personal need for Gypsy accommodation and the personal circumstances and rights of the family as Gypsies, amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the degree of harm to the environment. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the interference with the Gypsies Article 8 (1) rights is proportionate. In cases where there has been no alternative site for the Gypsies to move to, they have been able to demonstrate that the harm that would be caused as a result of their removal in terms of their right to a private and family life, that they have no alternative site to move to, that they have access to health care and other facilities, education, and other services, would not be proportionate to the harm that would be caused if they stayed on the unauthorised site.
4.7 It is considered that the neighbouring land uses have been considered in the context of Article 8, and from the consultations and assessment in respect of the application it is not considered that the retention of the use at the site would adversely impact on neighbouring land uses under this article.
Article 2 of the First Protocol (right to education)
4.8 This sets out the right to a proper education, and again this legal requirement is especially applicable to Gypsies particularly since many Gypsy children are assessed as having special educational needs.
4.9 In the context of the above, due consideration must therefore be given in this instance to the children of school age that now reside on the site. One child attends Millais School and another attends Leechpool Primary School. In view of the ages of the children, there would be clear advantages in continuing the stable education they currently have access to.
4.10 The enhanced status now given to the right to education means that this is a prime consideration in the case of Gypsy and Traveller sites. One case of note is that of Basildon DC v Secretary of State of the Environment, where the court upheld the decision of the Secretary of State in which the environmental harm caused by Gypsy caravan sites in the Green Belt was considered to be outweighed by the need for stable educational facilities for the younger children of the families concerned.
Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) APPENDIX A/ 4 - 12
4.11 This states that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination)
4.12 This states that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Thus, it requires that no-one shall be discriminated against in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on any ground, including matters such as race, sex, national origin, or any other status.
4.13 Article 14 in this case refers to the choice of the Hunt family to reside in mobile accommodation. The Hunt family are local Gypsies.
4.14 With respect to case law, in Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Tunbridge Wells BC, a planning inspector had found that conventional housing had been offered to the Gypsy family in question, and that they found the prospect distressing, having never lived in a conventional house. Nevertheless, the inspector went on to state that the offer of that accommodation detracted somewhat from the contention that the only alternative to the appeal site was an illegal roadside pitch. The High Court held that:
“…in certain appropriate circumstances it can amount to a breach of articles 8 and 14 to weigh in the balance and hold against a Gypsy applying for planning permission, or indeed resisting eviction from Council or private land, that he or she has refused conventional housing accommodation as being contrary to his or her culture.”
4.15 To treat such refusal as a relevant consideration in reaching a decision was just as impermissible as penalising a religious or strictly observant Christian, Jew or Muslim because they will not work on certain days, or to penalise a strictly observant Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or Sikh because they will not eat certain foods or wear certain clothing.
4.16 The onus was on the individual concerned to satisfy the planning inspector that they or their family do indeed have a genuine aversion to conventional housing, but once that has been established:
“…it would be contrary to articles 8 and 14 to expect such a person to accept conventional housing and to hold it against him or her that he has not accepted it, or is not prepared to accept it, even as a last resort factor.”
4.17 The above consideration is pertinent in the context of this application as the Hunt family, who reside at Deer Park Farm, are a Romany Gypsy family and therefore reside in mobile homes.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is considered that the proposal will not have any adverse impact on crime and disorder. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 13
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 As noted in the Spatial Planning Manager’s comments, the Council has not met the local need for 39 Gypsy and Traveller pitches by 2011 that was identified five years ago in the 2007 West Sussex Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (“the 2007 Needs Assessment”).
6.2 Government planning policy indicates that the Council should identify a five-year supply of sites by March 2013, in the same way that it should for new housing for the settled community, through a plan led approach. This is being addressed through the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options Consultation Document (“the Preferred Options Consultation Document”) and a local target for future pitch provision will be set out in the Horsham District Planning Framework (formerly the Core Strategy review) but this will not be concluded by March 2013. It is therefore necessary to anticipate the likely situation when the five-year requirement comes into effect in six months’ time and to make an appropriate decision on this application in the interim.
6.3 The site is not considered in the Preferred Options Consultation Document and therefore does not form part of the Council’s emerging strategy to meet its obligations in respect of need for additional pitches that was identified in 2007. This emerging policy has recently been the subject of public consultation but the results are not yet published. However, the Council will shortly need to demonstrate a five-year supply of pitches and that is likely to require further allocations.
6.4 Deer Park Farm has been occupied for two years by a single Gypsy family of five, with children working or attending school in Horsham and there is therefore a local connection. Whilst the location is very sensitive in landscape terms, the site previously contained several buildings that have been maintained and a mobile home benefitting from a LDC that would be removed if permanent planning permission were granted. The mobile home is small for a five-person household with children of school age and above, and therefore the dayroom/utility block is proposed. This would be constructed with timber cladding and a plain clay tile roof and therefore would be able to blend in with the existing buildings on the site and would frame and obscure the relocated mobile home in views from the open parkland to the east. The additional accommodation would therefore address the family’s current housing needs and would provide stability for the children attending local schools, consistent with the advice of the Safeguarding Officer. These considerations are unique to the application, which is assessed on its merits, and therefore whilst the local concern about precedent is understood, it does not arise.
6.5 Local concerns have been raised about the impact the development might have on the wider public enjoyment of the area for informal recreation, particularly by walkers. As noted above, the family has been living on the site for two years now and no evidence has been presented to suggest that this has affected public access and recreation. Concerns about the capacity of local infrastructure and service have been addressed in the consultation responses reported above and, bearing in mind that the family has been living on the site for two years, it is noted that no evidence has been produced to indicate lack of capacity.
6.6 The above issues and other relevant planning considerations need to be assessed in the context of the criteria of policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD. As noted above, this policy states that proposals for sites for caravans for Gypsies and Travellers will be granted provided that:
a) The Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting this established need; and b) The identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 14
6.7 In terms of alternative existing sites, the County Council sites at Adversane and Cousins Copse and the HDC site at Small Dole are full, with waiting lists.
6.8 Local need was last identified in 2007 and as noted above, the requirement of 39 additional pitches by 2011 has not been met. The Government’s policy on Gypsies and Travellers will require a five-year supply to be identified by March 2013 and at present it appears unlikely that this will be achieved. Whilst the Council has yet to quantify it, additional provision will be required to meet its obligation to identify a five-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller pitches. Therefore, whilst this site is not proposed in emerging policy it may serve a purpose in meeting current and future need (the Preferred Options Consultation Document being concerned with meeting need identified in 2007 and which should have been met by 2011).
6.9 Policy DC32 sets out criteria for assessment of applications where it is determined that need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites. Taking account of all planning decisions taken since 2006, including 11 pitches allowed at Kingfisher Farm, Barns Green, on appeal, there has been a net growth of 18 pitches, well short of the 39 pitches identified as needed by 2011 in the 2007 Needs Assessment. Accordingly, need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites, and therefore assessment against the policy’s criteria is appropriate.
6.10 The policy criteria are:
1. The site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities. The location beyond the built-up area and in the AONB indicate that the site is relatively unsustainable, although the preference for countryside locations as part of the traditional Romany Gypsy lifestyle must be acknowledged. The site is relatively close to Horsham and therefore reasonable access to local facilities is available.
2. A satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site. As noted above, the Highway Authority has raised no objection on road capacity or safety grounds.
3. The proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles. The Highway Authority’s assessment of the application has not found fault with the proposed arrangements.
The policy also states that occupation of a site will be restricted to Gypsies and Travellers and may be limited to a temporary period and/or for the benefit of named occupiers, matters that could be secured by appropriate planning conditions if necessary.
6.11 Turning to landscape considerations, this part of the AONB retains the character of landscaped parkland (St Leonard’s Park) with planted trees in a level and largely open terrain, quite different from the rolling countryside that typifies the majority of the AONB. The application site has already been planted with small trees, predominantly native broadleaf species, and hedging along the entrance drive and along its eastern boundary. Retaining this planting and the opportunity to achieve more effective screening of the replacement mobile home through the design and muted materials of the dayroom/utility block constitute opportunities to mitigate the landscape impact of the development. A further opportunity arises to secure improvements to the site in the form of the additional landscape planting recommended by the Landscape Officer and this limited and managed impact on the landscape needs to be balanced against the benefits of addressing the need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 15
6.12 As noted above, the Government expects planning authorities to identify a five-year supply of pitches to meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers by March 2013 and that may well require more sites to be made available than are set out in emerging policy. However, it is unlikely that additional landscaping or the relinquishment of the LDC would be achieved unless the Council was prepared to grant a permanent permission. Ideally it would be better to make a final decision in the context of known post-2011 need, evidence that is not currently available. However, it is not possible to grant temporary permission for the dayroom/utility block, which is a permanent building. Therefore, and on balance, it would be appropriate to grant full permission restricted to the Hunt family and subject to approval and implementation of a landscape strategy for the site and the adjacent former parkland in their control, and securing a planning obligation to abandon the LDC for the existing mobile home.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the planning application is DELEGATED FOR APPROVAL to the Head of Planning & Environmental Services in consultation with the Ward Member and the Chair of the Committee subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure removal of the lawful mobile home and surrender of the LDC as set out in the report and subject to the conditions set out below:
1. The mobile home certified as lawful under reference DC/05/2235 shall be removed from the site and the second mobile home currently on the site shall be relocated to the position vacated by the lawful one within one month of the date of this decision and prior to commencement of construction of the dayroom/utility block hereby permitted.
Reason: In order to minimise the impact of development on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in accordance with policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC4 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
2. The dayroom/utility block hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. Within three months of the date of this permission or such extended time as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority a strategy showing details of landscaping works within the site and the adjacent land in the control of the applicant to enhance the setting of the site within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All landscaping required under the approved scheme shall be carried out during the first planting season (October to March) following the relocation of the mobile home hereby permitted. Any plants which within a period of five years from the date of this permission die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planning season with other similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of landscape character in accordance with policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC4 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012). APPENDIX A/ 4 - 16
Reason: Due to the special circumstances of the case and in accordance with DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5. No more than 2 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (or any Act revoking or re-enacting these Acts), of which no more than 1 shall be a static caravan or mobile home, shall be stationed on the site at any time.
Reason: To avoid an overcrowded appearance and to secure satisfactory standards of space and amenity in accordance with DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6. The caravans hereby approved shall be sited in accordance with the submitted site plan, drawing 10_342_003A.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory disposition and grouping of the caravans, in the interests of the landscape character of the area, and to accord with policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
7. The residential use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr George Hunt and his immediate family, defined as the wife of Mr. Hunt, or any person whom Mr Hunt is living with as man and wife, and their children, and by no other person or persons.
Reason: Due to the special circumstances of the case and in accordance with DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. When the land ceases to be occupied by the persons named in condition 7, the use hereby permitted shall cease and any caravans, vehicles, trailers, structures, materials and equipment (including all areas of hardstanding and sanitary equipment) brought onto the land in connection with the use, save as otherwise permitted, shall be permanently removed. Within two months of that time, the land shall be restored to pasture land.
Reason: Permission would not normally be granted for such development in this location under policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) but in granting permission exceptionally the Local Planning Authority have had regard to the particular circumstances relating to the proposal and policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
9. No industrial, commercial or business activity of any description shall be carried on from the site, including the storage of materials.
Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
10. No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site.
Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). APPENDIX A/ 4 - 17
11. No external lighting fixtures shall be erected or placed on the land, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
12. 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 additional gates, fences, walls, or other means of enclosure shall be erected or constructed on the site unless prior written permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the landscape character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13. Construction of the dayroom/utility block approved shall not be commenced until details of foul drainage to serve it and the mobile home have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, and the sewage system shall be implemented prior to occupation of the dayroom/utility block and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
14. Construction of the dayroom/utility block approved shall not be commenced until the exact position of the water main crossing the site has been identified and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. All existing infrastructure associated with the water main, including protective coatings and cathodic protection, shall be protected during the course of construction works. No excavation, mounding or tree planting shall be carried out within 4 metres of the public water main without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to avoid disruption to public water supplies.
15. Construction of the dayroom/utility block approved shall not be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials for the roof of the proposed building and details of the stain for the timber of the walls of the building have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials and stain used shall conform to those approved. Thereafter the building shall be maintained with the approved stain.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of landscape quality and amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policies DC4 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Note to applicant
Please refer to the enclosed annotations on an extract from drawing 10_342_003A in drawing up the strategy required under condition 3.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 18
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
IDP3 The proposal is consistent with national policy in “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites” (2012) and policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007) with regards applications for Gypsy development.
ICAB2 Subject to the approval and implementation of a landscape strategy for the site and the adjoining land within the control of the applicant, the proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
Background Papers: DC/10/1974, DC/05/2235 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 2 October 2012 Stationing of 2 caravans for occupation by single gypsy family with DEVELOPMENT: associated hard-standing (Retrospective application for Full Permission) SITE: Northside Farm, Rusper Road, Ifield, Crawley WARD: Rusper and Colgate APPLICATION: DC/10/1921 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs M Sansom
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer Referral: this application is one of three currently before the Council seeking planning permission for additional gypsy and traveller accommodation. The other two applications, DC/10/1974 (Deer Park Farm, Hampers Lane, Horsham) and DC/12/0841 (Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane, Barns Green) appear elsewhere on this agenda. The three applications are reported together to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the relevant policies.
RECOMMENDATION: planning permission is granted for a limited period of two years.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 Planning permission is sought to allow a mobile home and a touring caravan to be kept on the site, to allow the applicant’s family to continue living there. At present there is a mobile home on the northern boundary and a touring caravan to the south of it. The touring caravan would be relocated to the northern boundary, where the mobile home currently is, and a new mobile home would be positioned more centrally within the site.
1.2 Unlike previous applications made by the same applicant, this application is made claiming Gypsy status, supported by the Gypsy Council. The application also makes reference to one of the applicants’ health as a factor to be considered.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 Northside Farm is a smallholding of approximately 3 hectares at the junction of Rusper Road and Langhurst Lane. The application site comprises a square area within this landholding, situated on the northern boundary about 55 metres from Langhurst Lane and 40 to 45 metres from Rusper Road. The land is level and a collection of farm buildings and sheds stands nearby.
Contact Officer: Mark Harbottle Tel: 01403 215416 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework does not make specific reference to gypsy and traveller accommodation, this is addressed in a companion document, “Planning policy for traveller sites”, published March 2012. The Government’s definition of traveller includes gypsies.
2.3 The document states: “The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community” (paragraph 3). Therefore, as with housing provision for the settled community, Local Planning Authorities are required to ensure a supply to meet future need. Policy B indicates that Local Planning Authorities should, in producing their Local Plan:
a) Identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets; b) Identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years six to ten and, where possible, for years 11-15; c) Consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis, to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries); d) Relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density; and e) Protect local amenity and environment.
2.4 Policy H of the document sets out the Government’s approach to dealing with planning applications for traveller sites. Its starting point is that applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It adds that “Local planning authorities should consider the following issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites:
a) The existing level of local provision and need for sites; b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants; c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant; d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites; and e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections.”
2.5 Specific policy on countryside locations is provided in paragraph 23: “Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.”
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.6 Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, “Gypsies and Travellers”, is the most relevant policy for assessing applications for gypsy and traveller APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3
sites. The policy states that proposals for sites for caravans for gypsies and travellers will be granted provided that:
a) The Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting this established need; and b) The identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.
The policy sets out criteria for assessment of applications where it is determined that need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites.
2.7 Emerging local policy is set out in the Council’s Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options document, which was the subject of public consultation between 6 July and 31 August 2012. The site is not proposed in the consultation document and the study that informed it, carried out by Baker Associates (the Baker report) rejected the site because it would have “an unacceptable landscape impact”.
PLANNING HISTORY
2.8 RS/6/92 - retention of access, erection of two horse open field shelters & one hay & feed store – permitted, April 1992.
2.9 RS/1/94 - erection of 2 stables with tack room/toilet – refused, March 1994.
2.10 RS/20/98 - erection of one house – refused, June 1998.
2.11 RS/64/01 - erection of one dwelling – refused, December 2001.
2.12 DC/05/0122 - erection of one dwelling – refused, March 2005. Appeal dismissed October 2005.
2.13 DC/06/2906 - retention of caravan as dwelling in connection with agricultural business – refused, May 2008. Appeal dismissed, March 2009.
2.14 DC/09/0424 - siting of a temporary mobile home during the 2009 lambing season (Certificate of Lawful Use - Proposed) – refused, May 2009.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Spatial Planning Manager advises: This application needs to be considered against policies in the Local Development Framework, in particular the Core Strategy (2007), and the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD . Policy DC32, Gypsies and Travellers is the most up to date and relevant policy and sets out the criteria against which to consider applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Other policies, particularly those relating to landscape character and design, are also relevant.
In addition, the application needs to be considered against national policy in the form of Planning policy for traveller sites and the National Planning Policy Framework, both published March 2012.
Emerging local policy can be considered a material consideration in determining the application. The Council has produced a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4
Preferred Options document, which was the subject of public consultation between 6 July and 31 August 2012.
It is noted that this is the early stages of the development plan process, therefore the weight attached to the document is considered limited. The Introduction of the document clearly sets out the policy history which is relevant to consideration of this application.
The background document Horsham District Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Study, Final Report, October 2011 by Baker Associates, forms part of the evidence base for the document. This site is assessed but rejected on grounds of its adverse landscape impact. See Appendix 3: Stage 2 Rejected Sites.
It is noted that the Council has always intended to progress issues through a plan-led approach and there remains a commitment to producing a separate Site Allocations DPD. Evidence of this goes back as far as November 2006, when the Local Development Framework Gypsy and Traveller Sites Issues and Options Document, was published for consultation. Since that time further local policy advances on the matter have appeared limited, but this has been due to the implications of wider changes in planning policy, centred around the South East Plan and the need for an early review of the Core Strategy, as required by the Inspector at the original examination. In September 2009, the results of a Stakeholder Consultation with local Gypsy and Travellers, was published, supporting a preference for small family run sites.
Being mindful of all of the above, as stated earlier the Council does have an adopted criteria based policy, Policy DC32, Gypsies and Travellers of the General Development Control Policies (2007) against which to assess the application.
The issue of ‘local’ need is something which you need to be satisfied of, particularly in light of the focus on a ‘localism’ agenda. In my opinion, the applicant needs to provide sufficient information relating to gypsy status and the family’s local connections to the local area. If you are satisfied with this, and it seems likely, particularly as the family have been residing on the site for some time and have children at the local school, it would, in my opinion, be difficult to sustain an argument against the local connection and thus the local need, particularly as at the present time we can not indentify an alternative authorised site for the family; though you should check with the County that the position regarding the Adversane site and in-house regarding Small Dole.
If one accepts the needs argument then you are best placed to consider the proposals against the other three criteria set out in the policy. It may be hard to resist the proposal on ‘sustainability’ alone in light of the Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane case, where it was accepted by the Council that, despite its rural location, the occupiers of the site could access services.
As the case officer, you are also best placed to give consideration of the proposals in light of other policies focusing on ‘development management’ considerations, such as highways and landscaping. You will have noted that the Baker Associates report rejected the site on landscape grounds.
Overall, it is, my opinion that, in principle, consideration should be given in this case for granting a temporary permission, pending work on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations DPD and particularly in light of the new national policy. However, it is for you to balance this against any harmful impact on the landscape.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning advise: There is no apparent visibility issue at the existing access point onto Rusper Road, and the most recently available APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5
verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in this location. WSCC would.
The LPA are advised that residents at the site will be reliant on the use of a private car for travel to and from the site.
No anticipated highway safety implications.
3.3 The Environment Agency has no comments to make.
3.4 Rusper Parish Council comment: The Parish council are keen for the site to be improved and would like the following conditions included if permission is granted. The site should be for agricultural use only and restricted to only the existing unit as per application. A general tidy of the site is required and the site to remain in order without further development.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.5 One letter has been received, confirming that the writer has no objection to the application.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and Articles 1 and 2 of the First Protocol (protection of property and right to education) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights is an integral part of the planning assessment below.
Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
4.2 The applicant has submitted this application for planning permission, and the case has been referred to the Committee for their consideration, at which the applicant can speak. Thus, the applicant has been given the opportunity for a fair and public hearing. The applicant will also have a further right of appeal against the planning decision, if they are unhappy with the decision.
4.3 In addition, the occupiers neighbouring landowners have been given the chance to lodge representations with the Council and to speak at the Development Control Committee meeting at which this application is to be considered.
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life)
4.4 This has become the centre of the majority of challenges by Gypsies to planning decisions. The Act states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence, and that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In this regard, recent case law on the subject has concluded that this Article is relevant in respect of mobile homes, as they are the homes of the applicants. The Human Rights Act requires public authorities to consider carefully the proportionality of their actions when making decisions which interfere with Article 8 rights. Thus public authorities are required to undertake a systematic analysis of the relevant issues and to ensure that they have taken into account the answers to a properly articulated framework of questions before reaching such decisions.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6
4.5 Further, in respect of potential enforcement action, it is incumbent upon a local authority to have proper regard to the requirements of Article 8 in order to ensure that rights are not firstly violated and secondly, that the interference serves a legitimate aim.
4.6 It is clear that enforcement action against unauthorised development which is also someone’s home constitutes an interference with their Article 8 (1) rights, which requires justification. The main issues that have arisen from recent case law on this subject is whether general or personal need for Gypsy accommodation and the personal circumstances and rights of the family as Gypsies, amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the degree of harm to the environment. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the interference with the Gypsies Article 8 (1) rights is proportionate. In cases where there has been no alternative site for the Gypsies to move to, they have been able to demonstrate that the harm that would be caused as a result of their removal in terms of their right to a private and family life, that they have no alternative site to move to, that they have access to health care and other facilities, education, and other services, would not be proportionate to the harm that would be caused if they stayed on the unauthorised site.
4.7 It is considered that the neighbouring land uses have been considered in the context of Article 8, and from the consultations and assessment in respect of the application it is not considered that the retention of the use at the site would adversely impact on neighbouring land uses under this article.
Article 2 of the First Protocol (right to education)
4.8 This sets out the right to a proper education, and again this legal requirement is especially applicable to Gypsies particularly since many Gypsy children are assessed as having special educational needs.
4.9 There are no children of school age living on the site and therefore this Article is not material to the decision.
Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property)
4.10 This states that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination)
4.11 This states that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Thus, it requires that no-one shall be discriminated against in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on any ground, including matters such as race, sex, national origin, or any other status.
4.12 Article 14 in this case refers to the choice of the Sansom family to reside in mobile accommodation. The Sansom family are local Gypsies.
4.13 With respect to case law, in Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Tunbridge Wells BC, a planning inspector had found that conventional housing had been offered to the Gypsy family in question, and that they found the prospect distressing, having never lived in a conventional house. Nevertheless, the inspector went on to state that the offer of that accommodation detracted somewhat from the contention APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7
that the only alternative to the appeal site was an illegal roadside pitch. The High Court held that:
“…in certain appropriate circumstances it can amount to a breach of articles 8 and 14 to weigh in the balance and hold against a Gypsy applying for planning permission, or indeed resisting eviction from Council or private land, that he or she has refused conventional housing accommodation as being contrary to his or her culture.”
4.14 To treat such refusal as a relevant consideration in reaching a decision was just as impermissible as penalising a religious or strictly observant Christian, Jew or Muslim because they will not work on certain days, or to penalise a strictly observant Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or Sikh because they will not eat certain foods or wear certain clothing.
4.15 The onus was on the individual concerned to satisfy the planning inspector that they or their family do indeed have a genuine aversion to conventional housing, but once that has been established:
“…it would be contrary to articles 8 and 14 to expect such a person to accept conventional housing and to hold it against him or her that he has not accepted it, or is not prepared to accept it, even as a last resort factor.”
4.16 The above consideration is pertinent in the context of this application as the Sansom family, who reside at Northside Farm, are a Romany Gypsy family and therefore reside in mobile homes.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is considered that the proposal will not have any adverse impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 As noted in the Spatial Planning Manager’s comments, the Council has not met the local need for 39 Gypsy and Traveller pitches by 2011 that was identified five years ago in the 2007 West Sussex Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (“the 2007 Needs Assessment”).
6.2 Government planning policy indicates that the Council should identify a five-year supply of sites by March 2013, in the same way that it should for new housing for the settled community, through a plan led approach. This is being addressed through the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options Consultation Document (“the Preferred Options Consultation Document”) and a local target for future pitch provision will be set out in the Horsham District Planning Framework (formerly the Core Strategy review) but this will not be concluded by March 2013. It is therefore necessary to anticipate the likely situation when the five-year requirement comes into effect in six months’ time and to make an appropriate decision on this application in the interim.
6.3 The site is not identified in the Preferred Options Consultation Document and therefore does not form part of the Council’s emerging strategy to meet its obligations in respect of need for additional pitches that was identified in 2007. This emerging policy has recently been the subject of public consultation but the results are not yet published. However, the Council will shortly need to demonstrate a five-year supply of pitches and that is likely to require further allocations. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8
6.4 The Baker study, as part of the evidence base for the Preferred Options Consultation Document, included an assessment of the site and rejected it on grounds of its adverse landscape impact at stage 2 of the assessment process. The study does not expand on this reason for rejection.
6.5 The site was considered in detail in the context of application DC/06/2906, which sought to retain the caravan currently on the site as a dwelling in connection with an agricultural business at Northside Farm. Planning permission was refused in May 2008 and an appeal dismissed in March 2009. Many of the planning issues were different, the justification for that proposal being an agricultural business and no reference being made to the applicant’s Gypsy status. However, in dismissing the appeal the inspector noted that “The visual effect of the caravan on the countryside jars in a most pronounced way. It can be seen from long stretches of Rusper Road being located in a highly visible and sensitive position.” The position of the caravan in that application is not the same as the proposed location of the new mobile home in this one, but the two are broadly comparable when viewed from the surrounding area.
6.6 Northside Farm has been occupied for seven years by a single Gypsy family of five, with the son now working in family businesses and the daughters working at a care home in Furnace Green, Crawley and there is therefore a local connection. The accommodation would continue to meet the family’s housing needs. The family appears well settled in the area, indicated by the absence of local objection to the application.
6.7 The application also relies in part on the health of one of the applicants. Whilst this is noted, there does not appear to be anything intrinsic to living on the site that has any impact on the applicant’s health. Nevertheless, the possibility that a decision requiring the site to be vacated could cause additional stress should be acknowledged.
6.8 The above issues and other relevant planning considerations need to be assessed in the context of the criteria of policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD. As noted above, this policy states that proposals for sites for caravans for Gypsies and Travellers will be granted provided that:
a) The Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting this established need; and b) The identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.
6.6 In terms of alternative existing sites, the County Council sites at Adversane and Cousins Copse and the HDC site at Small Dole are full, with waiting lists.
6.7 Local need was last identified in 2007 and as noted above, the requirement of 39 additional pitches by 2011 has not been met. The Government’s policy on Gypsies and Travellers will require a five-year supply to be identified by March 2013 and at present it appears unlikely that this will be achieved. Whilst the Council has yet to quantify it, additional provision will be required to meet its obligation to identify a five-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller pitches. Therefore, whilst this site is not proposed in emerging policy, and noting the visual impact issue considered above, it may yet serve a purpose in meeting current and future need (the Preferred Options Consultation Document being concerned with meeting need identified in 2007 and which should have been met by 2011).
6.8 Policy DC32 sets out criteria for assessment of applications where it is determined that need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites. Taking account of all planning decisions taken since 2006, including 11 pitches allowed at Kingfisher Farm, Barns Green, on appeal, there has been a net growth of 18 pitches, well short of the 39 pitches identified APPENDIX A/ 5 - 9
as needed by 2011 in the 2007 Needs Assessment. Accordingly, need cannot be met by alternative suitable existing sites, and therefore assessment against the policy’s criteria is appropriate.
6.9 The policy criteria are:
1. The site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities. The location beyond the built-up area indicates that the site is relatively unsustainable, although the preference for countryside locations as part of the traditional Romany Gypsy lifestyle must be acknowledged. The precedent of the Council’s stance on Greenfield Farm, Barns Green noted above, is relevant.
2. A satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site. As noted above, the Highway Authority has raised no objection on road capacity or safety grounds.
3. The proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles. The Highway Authority’s assessment of the application has not found fault with the current arrangements, although an upgrade is recommended and this could be secured by condition if permission were granted.
The policy also states that occupation of a site will be restricted to Gypsies and Travellers and may be limited to a temporary period and/or for the benefit of named occupiers, matters that could be secured by appropriate planning conditions if necessary.
6.10 As noted above, the Government expects planning authorities to identify a five-year supply of pitches to meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers by March 2013 and that may well require more sites to be made available than are set out in emerging policy. Ideally it would be better to make a final decision in the context of known post-2011 need, evidence that is not currently available, and once the Council has identified the appropriate sites that would best meet that need. In view of this, and the impact that Government policy will have in under six months’ time, a case for granting permission for an interim period can be made, despite the visual impact of development on this site. However, a permanent permission would be inappropriate and premature at this stage; such permission should only be granted if local policy review has failed to identify better locations as part of a five- year supply to meet current and future local need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches.
6.11 It is necessary to consider what conditions would be reasonable in the event of temporary planning permission being granted. The Highway Authority’s recommendation that the access is upgraded to a highway specification would require a bound surface, such as tarmac or concrete with appropriate drainage where the access is currently surfaced in loose aggregates. Considering the length of time the access has been in situ it is not considered proportionate to require this for a temporary permission.
6.12 The Parish Council asked that a condition be imposed to limit the number of caravans/mobile homes and that would be an appropriate restriction. Other requested conditions were to (a) ensure the site is only for agricultural use; (b) to secure a general tidy of the site; and (c) to limit further development. The majority of the landholding at Northside Farm is excluded from the planning application site and there is no planning connection between the permission sought and the agricultural use (application DC/06/2906 failed to establish an agricultural need for a residence on the site), therefore (a) and (b) are not recommended, although if permanent permission were granted in future it would allow landscaping to improve the overall appearance of the site. Limitations on the development are included in the recommended conditions and other non-agricultural uses or buildings/structures would require planning permission, and that would provide the opportunity to limit further development. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 10
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Planning permission is granted for a limited period of two years, to allow for progress on identifying sites to meet current and future Gypsy and Traveller needs, subject to the following conditions:
1. The caravan/mobile home hereby permitted shall be removed and the land shall be restored on or before the 2 October 2014 to a condition which has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority on or before the 2 April 2014.
Reason: The Local Planning Authority would not normally grant permission for such a development in this location due to concerns over the visual impact of the development but under the circumstances prevailing it is considered reasonable to make an exception in this instance and to allow the development for a limited period, pending identification of site to meet current and future needs for Gypsy and Travellers within Horsham District.
2. This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012).
Reason: Due to the special circumstances of the case and in accordance with DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3. No more than 2 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (or any Act revoking or re-enacting these Acts), of which no more than 1 shall be a static caravan or mobile home, shall be stationed on the site at any time.
Reason: To avoid an overcrowded appearance and to secure satisfactory standards of space and amenity in accordance with DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. The caravans hereby approved shall be sited in accordance with the submitted site plan, drawing Plan 3.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory disposition and grouping of the caravans, in the interests of the landscape character of the area, and to accord with policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5. The residential use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr Melvyn Sansom and Mrs Kim Sansom and their immediate family, defined as their children Amy, Bill and Charlotte.
Reason: Due to the special circumstances of the case and in accordance with DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6. When the land ceases to be occupied by the persons named in condition 5, the use hereby permitted shall cease and any caravans, vehicles, trailers, structures, materials and equipment (including all areas of hardstanding and sanitary equipment) brought onto the land in connection with the use, save as otherwise permitted, shall be permanently removed. Within two months of that time, the land shall be restored to pasture land.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 11
Reason: Permission would not normally be granted for such development in this location under policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) but in granting permission exceptionally the Local Planning Authority have had regard to the particular circumstances relating to the proposal and policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
7. No external lighting fixtures shall be erected or placed on the land, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. 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 additional gates, fences, walls, or other means of enclosure shall be erected or constructed on the site unless prior written permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the landscape character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposal is not consistent with national policy in “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites” (2012) and policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007) with regards applications for Gypsy development because of its impact on visual amenity. However, a limited period permission is granted to allow consideration of future need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches through emerging policy, as it would be premature to terminate the residential use if more appropriate alternative sites have not been identified to meet future need.
Background Papers: DC/10/1921, DC/06/2906 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2nd October 2012
DEVELOPMENT: Outline application for the erection of a single dwelling with access
SITE: Dial Post Farmhouse, Horsham, Road Rusper
WARD: Rusper
APPLICATION: DC/12/1345
APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs A and J Turner
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Local member referral
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 planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to Dial Post Farmhouse. The applicants have put forward the application on the basis the proposed dwelling would provide accessible and inclusive accommodation to meet the long term needs of their severely disabled son.
1.2 As the application is for Outline permission, seeking agreement for the means of access only, there are no specific details relating to the design and scale of the proposed dwelling. The applicants have, however, provided general information to address the requirements of the Design and Conservation Officer, discussing the design principles underpinning their proposal. In this regard, the Additional Supporting Information document received on 29th August 2012 states “the property would be designed to provide inclusive and flexible accommodation, predominantly open-plan on the ground floor. Any upstairs accommodation will be capable of supporting wheelchair access using an internal lift…Bedroom accommodation will be situated on the ground floor with adjacent bedrooms providing an excellent environment for carers providing night time supervision and support. The property will also be adaptable; the potential use of moving wall partitions will be considered in order to provide configurable accommodation that offers open and inclusive living
Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2
accommodation during the day, whilst still allowing privacy and separation of bedroom accommodation at night”.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The application site is situated outside the built-up area of Rusper and is thus in the countryside. The site forms the north-eastern end of a paddock located on the north side of the Horsham Road, to the east of Dial Post Farmhouse. The site, which remains of typical agricultural appearance, abuts the Horsham Road along the entire eastern / southern boundary.
1.4 The site is screened by hedgerow along all boundaries, with north and south adjoining lands well screened from view. There is also an existing hedgerow along the eastern boundary, although this does not fully screen views from the east adjoining properties.
1.5 The site is closely adjoined to the west by Dial Post Farmhouse, a Grade II Listed Building which according to the Design and Access Statement dates back to approximately 1500. Other nearby properties include the Gardeners Green development to the east, and a number of commercial units at Dial Post Park (formerly agricultural units as part of Dial Post Farm).
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant South East Plan (2009) policies are: CC1, CC4, CC6.
2.4 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy (2007) are: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP13, CP16, CP19.
2.5 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) are: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC9, DC13, DC40.
PLANNING HISTORY
There are no previous applications relating to the application site, however there are a number relating to the adjoining Dial Post Farmhouse site. Of relevance to the current application is;
DC/07/2679 Change of use of a former agricultural building Permitted into home office and additional guest accommodation as an annexe to Dial Post Farmhouse APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Design and Conservation Officer – Comments not available at the time of writing.
3.2 Strategic Planning – Provides general comments about policy provisions, in particular policy CP5. Advises as the site lies outside the settlement boundary of Rusper, and does not at any point adjoin it, CP5 would not apply to consideration of the application.
3.3 Housing and Community Development – Provides general comments, which support the application on the basis the proposal would provide the child in question with greater flexibility of movement.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.4 Rusper Parish Council – Support the application on the basis the proposed development will provide a property purpose built for disabled use. It is believed that there is currently no other provision for disabled residents within the Parish.
3.5 West Sussex Highways – Comments not available at the time of writing.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.6 60 letters of support have been received, many of which outline the network of support that has been established in the Rusper area, and the role the community plays in supporting the applicants.
3.7 2 letters of objection have been received, on the grounds of:
Proximity of the proposed dwelling to adjoining properties Precedent Impact on amenity Overdevelopment Development out of character
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 is an integral part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact on safety and security issues. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the proposed development in this location, its effect on the character of the rural area and the visual amenities of the locality, the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties, traffic conditions in the area and wider sustainability considerations.
Principle
6.2 The applicants, as set out in the Supporting Planning Statement, consider it is policy CP5 against which the application should be assessed, on the basis of their ‘local need’. Having reviewed the provisions of policy CP5, and having consulted Strategic Planning on this issue, it is considered clear the proposal should not be assessed against this policy as the application site is neither within the built-up area nor does it adjoin the built-up area at any point.
6.3 Accordingly, as the site is situated within the countryside, the application is subject primarily to compliance with countryside policies. In this regard, policy DC1 in particular does not permit residential development in countryside locations unless there is an essential need and in addition, the development 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.
6.4 The applicants have submitted a substantial amount of information in support of the application, which sets out their individual circumstances and associated need for the proposed dwelling. Whilst the contents of this documentation are noted, it is considered the personal circumstances discussed therein have not in any way indicated there is an essential need to live in a countryside location. In any case, and notwithstanding the comments received from Housing and Community Development, personal circumstances, unfortunate as they may be, cannot be relied upon as a sufficient argument to set aside a strong policy objection to development of this nature in a countryside location. As such, it is considered the proposal would contravene the requirements of policy DC1.
6.5 Policy CP16 of the Core Strategy does provide some limited support for the proposal, as its general thrust supports positive measures which help create a socially inclusive and adaptable environment for a range of occupiers and users to meet their long term needs. The policy specifically identifies people with special needs, including the disabled or those with learning disabilities, whose needs and requirements will be taken account of. The application has set out a clear and substantial need for a bespoke dwelling of the nature indicated, however, having regard to the foregoing, it is considered this limited support does not outweigh the previously expressed overarching policy objections.
6.6 Furthermore, in terms of the principle of residential development in this area, the proposed dwelling would result in visual encroachment of built form beyond the built-up area. In the context of the local area, and given the site’s close proximity to the village, this would intensify the issue of sporadic development, in effect of extending the built-up area boundary of the village to incorporate its extent and contributing to the erosion of the rural character of the area. This would be contrary in particular to policies DC1 and DC3 and is unacceptable.
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5
Amenities
6.7 As outlined above, it is considered the proposed dwelling would represent an intensification of buildings in the rural area, contributing to the urbanisation of the area and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area
6.8 In respect of the relationship to adjacent dwellings and residential amenities, it is noted the application site is more than 55m from the nearest independent property, in Gardeners Green, which forms the built up area boundary for the village. Given the level of separation between dwellings and the mature screening along the eastern boundary of the application site, it is considered a dwelling in the area indicated would not adversely impact on the amenities of adjoining neighbours.
Highway Safety
6.9 West Sussex Highways has provided comments indicating the access from the Horsham Road would not give rise to any objections. In the event that permission is granted, conditions are suggested.
Sustainability
6.10 It was noted on inspection the highway adjacent to the application site is not serviced with a pedestrian pavement. The nearest point at which Rusper Road is serviced with a pavement is at the eastern entrance to Gardeners Green, approximately 160m away from the site entrance. Having regard to the specific circumstances providing the basis of this application, it is considered in the absence of such infrastructure the applicants’ family will not be reasonably able to access the village by any means other than the private car, extending unsustainable travel patterns.
6.11 In addition, in terms of the site’s strategic location, Rusper is a category 2 settlement. The Core Strategy outlines that this type of village settlement typically provides a more limited level of services which should only accommodate development that addresses a specific local need. The policy states ‘local need’ will be assessed on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified local requirements for housing, including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services, and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns. Taken in conjunction with the relatively poor access for pedestrians from the application site to the village, it is considered development such as that currently proposed would extend unsustainable development and travel patterns within the district.
Infrastructure Contributions
6.12 With regard to infrastructure requirements, the proposal would generate County and District contributions towards infrastructure development as follows; West Sussex County Council has requested £4,522, comprising £3,350 Total Access Demand (TAD) contribution, £135 Fire and Rescue contribution and £1,037 libraries contribution, while District Council contributions would amount to £2,930, comprising £2,201 towards open space, sport and recreation, £486 towards community facilities and £243 towards local recycling. At the time of writing a satisfactorily completed legal agreement securing such contributions has not been received. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6
Other considerations
6.13 It is noted that a substantial amount of local support has been received. Of the 60 letters of support received, a substantial number reference the local community support network which has been established to aide and assist the applicants in their daily lives. It is also noted Housing and Community Development have provided additional supporting comments, on the basis the proposal would address the specific needs of a particular sector in the community. Whilst the shear breadth of support in the locale is commendable, it remains officers’ view that personal circumstances cannot be relied upon to set aside strong policy objections to development such as that currently proposed.
6.14 The applicants have submitted a draft Section 106, which, if the application is permitted, provides that no more dwellings would be erected on the lands subject of the current application. Whilst this submission is noted, it is considered the proposal is of no material benefit as the lands outlined in red are quite small (0.17ha), and it is reasonable to assume that no more than one dwelling would be permitted on the site in any case.
Conclusion
6.15 In conclusion, whilst the applicants’ circumstances are noted, it is the officers’ view that personal circumstances should not overrule planning policy as personal circumstances only occasionally outweigh more general planning considerations since buildings, for example, will remain long after the personal circumstances of the applicant have ceased to be relevant.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that permission be refused for the following reasons
1. The proposed development which is situated outside of any built-up area boundary would represent an unacceptable intensification of residential development in this countryside location to the detriment of the rural character and visual amenities of the area. Furthermore, it has not been shown to require an essential countryside location or that it meets an identified local need and therefore would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development. The proposed development would thus be contrary in particular to policies CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC9 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport, community facilities, libraries and fire services infrastructure and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs for the development would be met.
Background Papers: DC/12/1345 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2nd October 2012
DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing buildings on site with the retention and incorporation into the proposal of the façade of 68 Queen Street. Erection of 12 no. flats with ground floor retail space, associated car parking and external works
SITE: 60A Queen Street, Horsham
WARD: Forest
APPLICATION: DC/11/2136
APPLICANT: True Blue (Queen Street) Developments Ltd
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development
RECOMMENDATION: Subject to the completion of an appropriate legal agreement to grant planning permission subject to conditions
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and replacement with a ground floor retail unit and 12 flats. The façade of 68 Queen Street would be retained and incorporated into the scheme. The proposals follow application DC/07/1903 and DC/08/1853 which were withdrawn, and application DC/09/0790 which was refused, which related to the erection of commercial offices and parking.
1.2 The new proposal relates to the erection of two buildings. Block A, at the front would house the retail store (327 sqm) with two flats above. Block B, set to the rear would contain 10 flats. The principal vehicular access to the site is the existing access road which leads from Queen Street to the south. This road would be widened at the Queen Street junction, which is enabled by the demolition of the existing building at the corner of no. 62 Queen Street. The entrance to the retail store is to be located on the Queen Street frontage. The entrance to the two flats
Contact: Val Cheesman Extension: 5163 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2
above the store is along the access road frontage as are the 11 car parking spaces for the store. Block B is located further along the access road. There are six parking spaces for the flats to the front of Block B with 6 undercroft spaces located to the rear. Access to this undercroft car parking is via the lane between the site and Hillreed House and is to be secured with gates that allow resident access only.
1.3 This application differs from the previous schemes in that commercial offices no longer feature in the proposal but instead include a retail store. In addition, the design (especially that along the Queen Street road frontage) has been re-thought and the form and design of the buildings have been changed from one building covering the majority of the site to two separate buildings (Blocks A and B). The number of flats has been reduced from 14 to 12. Block A is 2 storey and block B is 3 storey.
1.4 Submitted with the application are a Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Road Safety Audit Report, Code for Sustainable Homes Pre- Assessment Report, Renewable Energy Assessment, Noise Report, Bat Survey and a desk study for contaminated land issues.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.5 The site is 0.15 hectares in area and consists of a row of commercial properties fronting onto Queen Street (Nos. 62, 64 and 68) which are currently vacant but previously occupied as a bookmakers and hairdressers with a 3 bed residential unit. There is an undeveloped area of land between these structures (previously garden areas) and there is a single storey B1 light industrial use building (68 Queen Street) and a single storey timber building (60C) both of which are also vacant.
1.6 In the locality of the application site there is a mixture of residential and commercial properties, predominantly one and two storey, although there are taller buildings including a 2½ storey public house (Queen's Head), a three storey office building at Premier House (36/48 Queen Street) and further to the south east is the new Baptist Church with the 2½ storey flats opposite at 4A Brighton Road (Jaratt Court).
1.7 Along the north west of the site is the access road which leads to the premises together with 60 Queen Street (furniture workshop/retail unit), Horsham Rifle and Pistol Club and Hillreed House, 54 Queen Street which is a two storey office block. Further to the south is the former site of Horsham Football Club which has now been developed for housing and is known as The Hornets.
1.8 To the east of 54 East Street is Chancery Court, 60B Queen Street, which is a two storey office block and which is the current premises of PDT Solicitors. To the east of the site lies the workshop facilities of Kwik Fit accessed from Brighton Road together with their car parking area. Along the Queen Street frontage immediately adjacent is the shop and residential accommodation at no. 70 Queen Street and then are the single and two storey buildings of Kwik Fit.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP12, CP13, CP17 and CP19.
2.4 Local Development Framework Development Control Policies 2007: DC8, DC9, DC18, DC20, DC34, DC35 and DC40.
2.5 South East Plan 2009: SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC7, BE1, GAT1 and GAT2.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2.6 DC/07/1903 – Demolition of existing light industrial units and erection of a mixed use building comprising 1,110m2 of commercial office space, 1 x 1-bed apartment and 9 x 2-bed apartments with basement car-parking and cycle storage facilities - withdrawn 2.7 DC/08/1853 - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed use building comprising 1,437m2 of commercial office space, 7 x 1-bed and 7 x 2-bed apartments with basement car-parking and cycle storage facilities – withdrawn.
2.8 DC/09/0790 - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed use building comprising 1,355 square metres of commercial offices and 14 apartments (7 x 1- bed and 7 x 2-bed) with basement parking and cycle storage – refused.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Strategic and Community Planning –
Initial comments 21.12.2011 The site is located within the built up area boundary of Horsham, a Category 1 settlement and therefore the proposal complies with Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy which sets out that priority will be given to locating new development within areas which have defined built up areas.
Concern is raised as the applicant does not appear to consider Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy 2007 or Policy DC19 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 in their application and the proposal is regarding the redevelopment of commercial land. Policy CP11 sets out that a range of locations, types and sizes of employment premises and sites will be provided to meet the needs of the local economy and that more efficient space should be made of existing sites and premises which are not fully used because they are unsuited to modern business needs. The proposal seeks to make use of 5 units, 4 of which the applicant states are vacant and in poor condition; however there appears to be no evidence
3 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4 submitted with the application to back this statement up. Policy DC19 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 clearly sets out that redevelopment of commercial land within the built up area boundary but outside of Employment Protection Zones, which this site is, will be permitted if the Council is satisfied that the commercial units are no longer needed and / or viable for employment use and that the units have been marketed for at least 12 months prior to the application submission. We therefore suggest that the applicant submits evidence to the Council which identifies the marketing strategy for the units, so that the Case Officer can be satisfied that the units are no longer needed and / or viable for employment use and have been marketed for the required amount of time, in order for the proposal to comply with DC19.
Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy 2007 sets out that development should provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of the District’s communities and that provision should particularly be made for smaller homes to meet the needs of existing and new households. Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 details that for developments of 5 homes or more, permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets the identified need for smaller homes (1 and 2 bed properties) and the percentage of smaller homes should generally be taken to mean at least 64% within which a range of 1 and 2 bed dwelling types should be provided. The proposal is for 12 dwellings, all of which are 1 and 2 bed flats; therefore, with the percentage of smaller homes being proposed is well above the required 64% at 100%, the proposal complies in principle with Policy CP12 and Policy DC18.
Policy CP17 of the Core Strategy 2007 and Policy DC35 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 seek to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of the role of the town and village centres within the District and that their vitality and viability is not undermined. Policy DC35 sets out that proposals for new retail development outside the defined town centres will be permitted only when a clear need exists and can be demonstrated; the sequential approach has been applied; the proposed development is accessible; the proposal will not significantly undermine the vitality and viability of the nearest centre; adequate parking arrangements can be provided; and the range of goods and products sold is appropriate for its location. The applicant states that as the site is located within the secondary shopping frontage and therefore they consider that a sequential test is not required. Policy DC35 clearly sets out in criterion b) that a sequential test is required for new retail development outside the defined town and village centres. Concern is therefore raised, due to the lack of application of the sequential test, as to whether this is the most appropriate location for this proposal, particularly considering the location next to an existing convenience store. I therefore suggest the applicant undertakes a sequential test to comply with Policy DC35. I also suggest consulting the Town Centre Manger to get their view on the above matters, particularly the affect the proposal may have on the vitality and viability of the town centre and the adjacent convenience store.
Policy CP19 of the Core Strategy 2007 sets out that proposals, which promote an improved and integrated transport network will be encouraged and supported and Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 sets out that development will be permitted if it provides a safe and adequate means of access; it is appropriate in scale to the transport infrastructure; it is integrated with the wider network of routes; it makes adequate provision for all users; it includes provision for
4 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5 public transport; and the proposal is accompanied by a green travel plan. The proposal provides 23 car parking spaces in total, 13 for the residential element and 10 for the retail element of the proposal and it also appears to provide a number of cycle spaces. The numbers set out in the proposal, along with the sites location close to the town centre of Horsham, suggests that the proposal complies in principle with these policies. A Green Travel Plan is not necessary for this proposal as the proposed retail development does not exceed 1000 square feet gross, as stated in Policy DC35; however the applicant has provided a Transport Statement as part of the application.
Further policies that need to be taken into account are Policy DC8 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 which favours developments which ensure that measures are incorporated that reduce the impact of climate change and carbon dioxide emissions; and also Policy DC9, of the same document, which sets out various development principles which permissions need to take account of to ensure high quality development. As the case officer you are the best person to assess these issues.
In conclusion, I suggest that the applicant shows consideration of Policies CP11 and DC19 and submits evidence to the Council which identifies the marketing strategy for the units, to ensure compliance with DC19 in particular. I also suggest that the applicant shows consideration, through evidence, of a sequential test, to comply with DC35 and also suggest consultation with the Town Centre Manager regarding affect that a proposal of this kind may have on the vitality and viability of the town centre and the adjacent convenience store.
The site specific matters raised above are best judged by you as a case officer after a site visit and we suggest that you are mindful of the aims of the relevant policies and the above comments. I would be happy to offer further guidance if necessary.
Subsequent comments relating to retail policy – 8.5.2012
The site is located outside the defined town and village centre boundary but is within a designated secondary retail frontage. There are, therefore, two relevant policies to this site: DC35 ‘New retail and leisure development outside the defined town and village centres’ and DC36 ‘Change of use within defined town and village centres’. DC35 and DC36, however, appear to be written on the assumption that all secondary retail frontages are located within the defined town and village boundary. In this instance, this is not the case.
If you take the two relevant policies in isolation, DC35 ‘New retail and leisure development outside the defined town and village centres’ states that proposals for retail outside the defined town and village centres will only be permitted when ‘the sequential approach to site selection has been applied…’. DC36 ‘Change of use within defined town and village centres’ relates to the secondary retail frontage aspect of the proposal and states that ‘Proposals for change of use from A1 to other A class uses at ground floor level within the defined town and village centre boundaries will be permitted provided that ‘the proposal will not result in 4 out of 10 within the secondary retail frontage being in non retail use; the proposal will not result in more than 3 permitted non retail uses operating adjacent to each other within the defined secondary retail frontage…’. Policy DC35 therefore requires a
5 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6
sequential assessment to be undertaken and Policy DC36 does not require a sequential assessment to be undertaken. In addition, DC36 is aimed at ensuring sufficient retail units are retained in a secondary frontage. In this application, additional retail floorspace is proposed.
Paragraph 24 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date local plan. It also states that when considering edge of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre and that flexibility should be demonstrated on issues such as format and scale.
Due to the sites location within a designated secondary retail frontage, in the current development plan, the principle of retail use on this site has been accepted. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for the Council to require a sequential assessment for this proposal, as retail use would be in accordance with the aims of the up to date development plan.
If we were to ask for a sequential assessment in line with Policy DC35, there would essentially be no differentiation between a site within a designated secondary retail outside the defined town and village centre boundary and a site that is not designated secondary retail outside the defined town and village centre boundary.
3.2 Public Health and Licensing – Initial comments 16.12.2011 As with the previous applications there are a number of areas of concern relating to the proposed development. These are:
Noise from the adjoining tyre and exhaust business which operates without planning conditions
Noise from the proposed retail premises affecting adjoining and nearby residential dwellings.
Contamination of the site arising from current and historic land uses.
An acoustic survey has been provided with respect to the potential noise impacts of the adjoining tyre and exhaust fitting business. The survey has used BS4141:1997 to conclude that that there is unlikely to be any significant noise impacts on the internal noise levels of the proposed development. Further clarification is required in respect of the derivation of the ambient noise in relation to the measured back ground noise levels and also the number of peak noise events associated with the activities of the tyre and exhaust business.
It is noted that the amenity spaces for the first and second floor flats to the eastern facade comprise outdoor balconies which would be exposed to noise from the adjoining tyre and exhaust business. The impact of this noise on the amenity value of the balconies has not been assessed.
The proposed dwellings facing onto Brighton Road will be exposed to significant levels of noise from road traffic. Although the plans submitted show that bedroom
6 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 7 areas will be located away from the noisiest façade, an acoustic assessment prepared in accordance with the requirements of PPG24 Planning and Noise should also be submitted.
Noise from the proposed retail unit can be controlled through the application of appropriate conditions. It is recommended that the following conditions be attached should consent be granted:
1. A scheme of sound insulation works to the separating structure between the proposed retail use and first floor flats shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme as approved by the local planning authority shall be fully installed before the use hereby permitted commences;
2. No internally or externally located machinery or plant shall be installed or operated without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.
3. The hours of operation shall be restricted to 08:00-23:00 hours on Monday to Saturdays and from 09:00-22:30 hours on Sundays;
4. Deliveries to or from the premises shall be restricted to 08:00-18:00 hours on Monday to Friday, from 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays;
5. The playing of live or recorded music or generation of other amplified sound shall be so restricted as to be inaudible within adjoining residential premises;
6. Full details of the provision of facilities for storage of waste arising from the operation of the commercial development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The facilities as approved by the local planning authority shall be fully installed before the use hereby permitted commences and shall be operated for as long as the use is continued.
This application provides garden areas at ground floor level with the potential exposure of future residents to ground contamination arising from the previous land uses.
In accordance with the advice given in PPS23 Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination the applicant should submit sufficient information “to determine the existence or otherwise of contamination, its nature and the risks it may pose and whether these can be satisfactorily reduced to an acceptable level”.
It is considered that insufficient information has been supplied to properly determine the application in respect of these matters.
Subsequent comments
Following further information submitted, PHL confirms that subject to the internal layout being controlled the concerns relating to the flats in Block A have been addressed.
7 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 8
With regard to Block B , the comments state that ‘as previously identified the acoustic survey does not fully answer the concerns in respect of noise impacts from the activities of the adjoining business. The principal concern is that the impact of this noise on the amenity value of the balconies to the fist and second floor flats has not been assessed. However if provision were made to screen the balconies from having direct line of sight to the commercial premises this would help to reduce the potential for adverse noise impacts. The screen should same height as the access doors to the balconies and be constructed of materials with sufficient mass to provide an imperforate and durable barrier. ‘
A condition is recommended to relate to contamination issues, requiring submission of relevant details.
3.3 Access Forum - The convenience store does not appear to have an accessible parking space (with side and rear hatching) for disabled patrons. One will be needed with clear signage too.
3.4 Building Control - Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment - confirms code level 3 can be achieved for all dwellings providing development is built in accordance with design assumptions.
Renewable Energy Assessment - outlines case for various renewable options and concludes that PV provision to the residential block B is the only viable solution. - identifies that the main energy user is the commercial space but does not offer any options for reducing or off-setting energy demand - as final occupier is not known a worst case scenario has been used. - proposed solution delivers a 4% reduction in predicted energy emissions for whole scheme.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.5 West Sussex County Council –
Initial comments 6.12.2011
Sustainability The proposed development is located less than 1km from the nearest train station and less than 200m from the nearest bus stop – this is considered acceptable in- line with PPG 13 and CIHT guidance. It is situated on the periphery of the town centre and benefits from a range of services and amenities within reasonable cycling or walking distance.
The proposed retail facility is located close to substantial areas of residential dwelling and it is reasonable to assume that many of the journeys associated with the development will be undertaken on foot or by bicycle.
WSCC Highways are satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of sustainability.
8 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 9
Highway Safety
Access The ‘large vehicle track’ submitted as part of the Transport Statement (TS) demonstrates that the vehicle will cross of the centre point of the carriageway on the adjoining A281 when exiting the site to the west. Such movements will temporarily obstruct the carriageway and increase the risk of rear shunt collisions. Any drivers that misjudge the space required for the driver to complete the turn could create further complications in forcing the large vehicle into reversing manoeuvres and endangering other Highway users.
It is unclear from the detail submitted as to the number of large vehicle movements that the development will generate and the number of large vehicles already using the access. However, a width of 4.8m is not sufficient to enable large vehicles to pass one another, resulting in standing vehicles obstructing the carriageway and/or pedestrian footway while waiting for the access road to clear.
Revised visibility splays in accordance with Manual for Streets (MfS) justification have been suggested in the TS but no further information has been offered. A plan showing the full extent of these splays should be submitted to support the justification, with visibility in accordance to the MfS stopping sight distance for the recorded 85th percentile speed. We would expect the following splays;
2.4 x 44m to the east (30.7mph) 2.4m x 38m to the west (27.7mph).
The significant intensification in use of the access onto the A281 will require a Road Safety Audit: Stage 1 to be submitted in support of the application as per WSCC policy (available on website). The auditor should be fully briefed on the application proposal and be provided with all relevant data such as, but not limited to, accident records, existing vehicle flows on the private access road, proposed HGV movements and track plots for largest anticipated vehicle to use the access. The Safety Audit will need to be complemented by a Designers Response to the issues raised.
Parking The parking accumulation table submitted as part of the TS suggests that the site will only require the provision of 6 spaces to service the demand generated by the development, with the proposal providing space for 10 (albeit it 4 of those spaces classed as temporary). In practice, such retail activities experience peaks and troughs in custom and it is the availability of short term parking as opposed to the accumulation that is of concern. It is conceivable that a majority of the hourly custom could come within a 15-30 minute period thus generating a significant demand for parking. While it is likely the proposed allowance would provide sufficient parking provision some of the time, in peak periods the provision would be insufficient and could result in the obstruction of access or encourage indiscriminate parking to the detriment of Highway safety.
We are satisfied that the parking provision for the residential dwellings satisfies the anticipated demand.
9 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 10
Summary In light of the above, WSCC Highways raise an objection on the grounds of Highway safety.
Highway Capacity As part of the TS, the applicant has submitted details regarding proposed traffic generation derived from the TRICS database and adjusted in accordance with appropriate pass-by rates.
In accordance with WSCC Transport Assessment methodology, we would require further assessment if a junction experiences an increase of 30+ movements during peak hours. Given the distribution of vehicles from the site exit, this threshold will not be exceeded and further assessment would not be required.
Although it is anticipated that there is likely to be an increase in traffic movements as a result of the development, the increase is modest and would not impact materially on the operation of the network.
Subsequent comments 10.1.2012 following submission of Safety Audit and Designer’s Response
The Highway Authority has reviewed the additional information submitted as a result of the initial response and provides the following comments.
The ‘Road Safety Audit: Stage 1’ and ‘Designer Response’ has been reviewed by an in-house auditor. The designer has agreed to all the recommendations in the audit and the audit deemed satisfactory, although one further recommendation has been put forward as follows.
Problem: Pedestrian facilities to proposed access
There are no pedestrian facilities shown across the proposed junction from Queen Street to the development. This could be hazardous to pedestrians, particularly those with restricted mobility.
Location: Proposed junction with Queen Street
Recommendation: Provide full pedestrian facilities with tactile paving across the proposed access, to be checked at detailed design stage.
Adequate visibility splays from the access have been demonstrated on plan 4096- 001, and it was noted by the auditor that visibility splays of 2.4m x 40m are achievable to the west when measured to the centre line and 2.4m x 40m achievable to the east when measured to an offset of 0.86m.
Concern was expressed in regard to the proposed parking provision for the A1 unit. Further information has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that there are alternative parking opportunities in close proximity to site, including dedicated on-street of carriageway bays to the north-west of the site and a public car park within 100m. Parking restrictions are in place along Queen Street. Whilst it is acknowledged that the parking provision is less than the maximum standard, there
10 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 11
are no material Highway safety grounds on which to resist the application. However, in accordance with the safety audit recommendation and designer response, servicing should be limited to specific off-peak times and that a banksman should be used to cone off the spaces required for turning – we would recommend a condition to this effect.
In light of the above, the Highway Authority withdraws the Highway safety objection and would also recommend conditions relating to car and cycle parking and the servicing arrangements.
Ecology :A bat and bird report has been submitted to support the application. Ecological surveys are in accordance with Natural England’s Standing Advice. No impact is expected on legally protected bats. Impacts on birds can be managed by condition.
3.6 Southern Water –
Comment that a public sewer crosses the site and there is a water main in close proximity. They request a condition to protect this apparatus requiring details of the measures to be undertaken to protect or divert the public sewer and mains prior to the commencement of development. They would require a formal application for a connection to the public sewer.
3.7 Forest Neighbourhood Council –
Initial Comments – 13.12.2011 This Council has carried out a site visit and studied the plans in detail. Firstly FNC is pleased to note that the application is a vast improvement on the previously submitted plans and that the applicant seems to have taken on board some of the objections raised. However, this Council objects to this application as follows:
Retail outlet Although it is noted that the building on the western side of the site is to be demolished, and the footprint of block A is set back, the entrance to the flats on the western side narrows the width of the road so that if cars are parked in the car park it will be very difficult to manoeuvre this section and in particular for the articulated lorries that the applicant is expecting to deliver to the store.
There is no footpath for pedestrians to get from the car park to the entrance to the store, which makes it very dangerous for pedestrians. The plans are misleading as the elevations show people walking along the side of block A, indicating a footpath.
The floor area of the convenience store appears to be similar to that at Tesco Express at Redkiln Way, Horsham. That store has over 12 allocated parking spaces, with space for other parking, and since that store opened, there are traffic problems at that site, which continue. This site only has 10 car parking spaces, or 8 if an articulated lorry is delivering, which is totally inadequate for a store of this size.
Whilst the applicant states that the positioning of the application site in such close proximity to large food stores would reduce the likelihood of customers travelling to
11 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 12
this site by car, this is questioned. Surely the size of the store is such that customers would not just buy one or two items and would need a car to transport their purchases. It would not make it economically viable to expect customers to buy just one or two items.
When an articulated lorry is delivering, it will be very difficult for the lorry and also cars to manoeuvre round this section of the roadway and from site inspections it is apparent that this will cause traffic congestion at this point. Indeed it will be impossible for two-way traffic to past this section. This could result in traffic having to reverse, possibly onto Brighton Road, which is contrary to the Highway Code.
There will be a change of use from residential/light industrial to A1 retail which is objected to as there is already adequate provision in the locality for A1 use and if permitted will cause additional traffic problems.
The whole site It is noted that the existing visibility provision will be enhanced which is welcomed, the traffic generated from this site will exacerbate an already crowded section of Brighton Road.
The increased traffic from the proposal will create an unacceptable increase in traffic movements which to the detriment of road users. Brighton Road is one of the main routes into Horsham and generates a substantial amount of traffic. This increases at work times and there are always queues of traffic getting into Horsham in the morning and getting out of Horsham in the late afternoon.
Generally If permission is granted, FNC requests that there is a restriction on delivery times to avoid unnecessary noise to adjacent neighbouring residents.
Comments on amended plans
Forest Neighbourhood Council does not consider that any of the objections raised when the original application was received have been addressed; therefore Forest Neighbourhood Council’s objections raised …still stand.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.8 Letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 43 properties, both residential and commercial.. In addition a petition with 120 signatures has been received and a letter form Brighton Road Residents association. The key points raised are:
Adverse business impact on adjacent Londis store and other shops in the vicinity No need for another store Size of store too big when compared to others in the area Store refused in locality previously Highway safety – volume of existing traffic along Queen Street/Brighton Road, especially at peak periods, so will add to congestion and delays Narrowness of Queen Street at this point and narrow pavements, and at junction of New Street
12 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 13
Difficulties for deliveries given existing road and pavement layout both in Queen Street and along access road Impact on pedestrian safety Will generate additional parking demand which cannot be met on site and will lead to problems in surrounding streets Scheme out of character with area Relationship of proposed flats to existing commercial uses and potential for conflict Relationship of building to residential unit at no.70 – loss of open aspect, overbearing impact, loss of light, overlooking Noise from store Design inappropriate – single storey entrance to the store Impact during construction period – noise, dust , disruption No more flats required Site should be developed as housing alone/all affordable flats Site has been allowed to fall into state of dilapidation
3.9 A further 3 letters of objection have been received on the amended plans commenting on that they do not address the objections, concerns about traffic and parking and no need for a further shop in this area.
3.10 The Horsham Society has commented that :
"We have no objection in principle to the development but consider the current design needs to be improved. The single storey frontage to Queen Street on the west side will look incongruous and would be better if it were two-storey. We would also request that any planning consent should include a specific requirement that the front elevation of 68 Queen Street, which is to be retained, is left unaltered."
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are the principle of the development and its effect on the character and appearance of the street scene and locality, the impact on the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers, highway safety and parking issues and contributions.
13 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 14
The Principle of the Development
6.2 The site lies within the defined built-up area of Horsham Town, a Category 1 settlement. The application needs to be assessed against the Development Plan policies of the Local Development Framework and the principles set out in the NPPF.
6.3 In respect of the redevelopment of this existing commercial site, which would involve the loss of the 3 B1/B8 units, and the requirements of policies CP11 and DC19, the aim of the LDF is to provide for and protect business and employment development needs, whilst recognising that sites which are no longer economically viable may be suitable for redevelopment. Thus it has to be demonstrated that the units are no longer needed and/or viable for employment use. Evidence of marketing for 12 months is required, as set out in Policy DC19.
6.4 A Report has been submitted which indicates that the retail shop ( former hairdressers at no.60 Queen Street and the A2 unit ( former betting shop at 62 – 64 Queen Street) have been empty for many years and are generally in a poor state of repair and would have a low energy performance rating. In respect of the B1/B8 units to the rear (60A, B and C Queen Street), these are single storey workshops of frame construction, with elevations of block and concrete panels ( 60A and B) and timber cladding ( C) under asbestos roofs. They are considered to be of a basic standard, generally in a poor condition and would have a low energy performance rating. The report concludes that these units are considered to have a very limited commercial value and would generate limited demand due to their location, access difficulties and condition and it would not be viable to refurbish the properties. The proposed scheme would be more viable and provide economic benefits to the area.
6.5 In these circumstances, your officers consider that the loss of the A1,A2 and B1/B8 units on the site is acceptable in principle .
6.6 The applicants have also advised that sine they acquired the site in 2006 they have sought to engage with adjoining owners to explore whether a larger site could be brought forward for development. They advise that they have spoken with each of the adjoining owners but ‘it has not been possible to do this, both in terms of agreeing terms with adjoining owners for the acquisition of land , but also in terms of the viability of a larger scheme. Faced with this we have submitted the current application in respect of the land we control.’
6.7 With regard to the retail element of the proposal, Policy CP17 'Vitality and Viability of Existing Centres' aims to maintain the viability of Horsham as a retail centre and allows for new retail proposals where appropriate.
6.8 This aim is expanded in the General Development Control Policies document. These policies seek to guide new commercial development to areas that are within or are well connected to the existing centres. Thus Policies DC34 and DC35 are relevant which deal with retail and other uses. In this case, whilst the site lies in Horsham town, it is outside of the town centre boundary, but the Queen Street frontage of the site is classified as a secondary retail frontage.
14 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 15
6.9 These policies were written when PPS6 was in force (relating to retail development and impact on town centres and requiring a sequential approach), this was then superseded by PPS4. However, now the provisions of the NPPF apply and so the proposal needs to be considered in those terms.
6.10 DC35 relates to new retail development outside of defined town centres and DC36 is concerned with changes of use within defined town centres. As the consultation from Strategic Planning indicates, these two policies appear to have been written on the assumption that all secondary retail frontages are within defined town and village centre boundaries. However, with this site this is not the case. It is therefore considered that a suitable approach is to examine the aims of the policies as a whole and assess the application accordingly.
6.11 Policy DC36 relates to sites where retail frontages have been defined. The site is a secondary retail frontage. This policy is aimed at ensuring sufficient retail units are retained should change of use from retail be proposed. Thus the overall objective of the Local Development Framework is to encourage retail uses in this location. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with the development plan in this respect as the additional retail floorspace is proposed and not any loss or change of use of retail to another use.
6.12 Policy DC35 relates to new retail uses outside the defined town centre. This allows for new retail development where the criteria in PPS6 are met.
6.13 It is important to note that this policy was written when PPS6 was in force and reiterates the requirement to for retail applications to be accompanied by a need test, a sequential approach and an impact assessment to demonstrate that the new retail floorspace will not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre.
6.14 PPS6 was then superseded by PPS4 in 2009, which removed the need test. However,PPS4 has been superseded by the provisions of the NPPF. Accordingly in these current circumstances the policy needs to be applied having regard to the NPPF.
6.15 Thus following the advice in the NPPF a sequential test is not required where proposals are in accordance with an up to date local plan. Also for edge of centre schemes, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. In this case it is considered that the scheme is in accordance with the LDF policies as it proposes retail in a shopping frontage, and is in an accessible location.
6.16 In addition, the NPPF indicates that an impact assessment is required if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold. If there is no such threshold, the default is 2,500 sqm. In this case the floorspace involved is 327 sqm, so an impact assessment would not be triggered.
6.17 The scheme is thus considered to be compliant with the advice in the NPPF for ensuring the vitality of town centres.
6.18 Whilst the concerns of objectors in respect of unfair competition with other local shops is acknowledged, this is really a matter for the economic market and is not a planning consideration. The existing premises include retail floorspace and the site
15 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 16
is in a retail frontage. If the existing retail unit were to be refurbished and let to another retailer there would be no change of use involved. The size of the redevelopment and the retail shop element is such that an impact assessment is not required and your officers consider the redevelopment of the site to provide a new, albeit larger, retail unit is in compliance with the overall aims of the LDF for retail and the town centre.
6.19 With regard to the housing element of the proposal, the site is in a sustainable location and is well connected to the town centre where there is a range of facilities and services and good public transport provision.
6.20 In terms of the density of the development, the site has a total area of 0.15 ha (excluding the commercial development) thus 12 flats would give a density of 80 units per hectare. High densities can be appropriate in suitable locations such as those with good public transport accessibility which includes the town centre of Horsham. However Policy DC18 also comments that development must respect the character of the area in which it is placed.
6.21 The principle of the development of this site at a high density for residential use is not unacceptable subject to the form and layout of the development being satisfactory which is examined in more detail below.
6.22 In respect of the housing mix, Policy CP12 states that development should provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of the district communities. Provision should particularly be made for smaller homes to meet the needs of all existing households. This is amplified in Policy DC18 which relates to smaller homes and housing mix. This states that for a development of five homes or more planning permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meet the identified needs of smaller homes (one and two bed properties). The proposal comprises a building of 12 flats comprising 3 x 1 bed units and 9 x 2 bed units. It is considered that the mix of dwelling sizes is appropriate and meets the requirement for smaller homes.
Character and appearance
6.23 Development Plan policies require that new development should be of a high standard of design and layout in keeping with the character of nearby development in the surrounding area.
6.24 The location is in a mixed area both in terms of uses and appearance. There are residential properties in the vicinity both individual dwellings and flats, together with commercial uses comprising offices, shops, a public house and the new Baptist Church as well as the Kwik Fit garage premises. This variety therefore brings a mixture of building sizes and styles in the locality. With the exception of the City Business Centre, the Church and Premier House, the surrounding properties are predominantly two storey and domestic in scale and character.
6.25 The current application includes the redevelopment of the buildings fronting Queen Street, this is considered to be appropriate and provides a more comprehensive redevelopment site than that proposed for the earliest application on the site (DC/07/1903) which retained the existing Queen Street buildings and had the new building to the rear. Subsequent applications then included the frontage buildings.
16 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 17
However, concern was expressed in respect of DC/09/0790 in relation to the design of the Queen Street frontage, the scale and massing of the proposal as a whole and its relationship with the character and pattern of adjoining development.
6.26 This current scheme is considered to address these concerns. The Queen Street frontage building is now 2 storey, rather than 3 as previously. There is also the incorporation of the façade of 68 Queen Street into the scheme with appropriate design features for the new build elements. The plans have been further revised during the course of the consideration of the application and now include a two storey element adjacent to no. 68, with the entrance to the store at ground floor level. Previously this was shown as a single storey element. There is no objection in principle to the adoption of a modern design and with the retention of the existing façade and the style of the adjoining structures, it is considered that the proposal now sympathetically relates to the scale and style of buildings in the area. This is particularly so with regard to this prominent corner site along Queen Street given the listed buildings at 1-5 and 9-13 Brighton Road and the locally listed Queen's Head public house. Also as now two separate blocks are proposed, the overall footprint has reduced and the scale and massing of the scheme has improved, and it is considered that the proposal now has a more appropriate relationship with the character of the existing buildings along the access road.
Residential amenities
6.27 It should be noted the site does lie in an area of mixed uses, both residential and commercial. With regard to the impact on adjacent residents, that most affected will be the residential unit attached to the shop at 70 Queen Street. This has ground and first floor living accommodation with a small courtyard garden to the rear with its southern and eastern boundary being formed by the Kwik Fit garage premises. There is a 2m high brick wall on its western boundary but beyond this lies the former garden area of the Queen Street properties and thus there is an element of openness at this point.
6.28 Previously on the earlier scheme (DC/ 09/0790) a 3 storey building was proposed. Although the building was set back from the western boundary, it was 2 storey adjacent to no. 70, with a height of 7m. The 2nd floor section was then set further back by 2m. Also, the building ran the total length of the site from Queen Street. The resultant wall was considered to be being stark and dominating.
6.29 The current design eliminates this problem as the floorspace proposed has been split into 2 separate buildings. Block A is two storey. Whilst it would effectively contain the courtyard area and would extend along the Kwik Fit building along this boundary, this part would be single storey with the roof sloping back to a flat roof element for 4m, so that the first floor part of Block A is set back some 5.5m from the western boundary. The ground floor elevation closest to no. 70 will be no higher than the existing wall. The roof would then be angled and set back. Also the first floor windows on the eastern elevation have been amended to an oriel design so as to prevent any overlooking down into no. 70's courtyard garden. Block B is 3 storey but is set to the south west of the Kwik Fit workshop
6.30 With regard to the amenities of the future occupiers of the residential units of this scheme and road noise, the internal layout of flat 1 at the front of the site is such that the bedrooms do not face onto Queen Street and the outlook from the principal
17 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 18
windows of the living room are to the west/south. Subject to a condition controlling the internal layout, this is satisfactory.
6.31 With regard to Block B and the flats to the rear, an important point is the context of the site and how the building wraps around the Kwik Fit premises. Six of the flats have their aspect to the west and south. However, flat nos.6,7, 10 and 11 on the first and second floors are orientated to the east and would look across to the Kwik Fit garage and its car parking area. However, this proposal with its reduced footprint has the building set 6m from the boundary with Kwik Fit. The previous scheme had a gap of 2m. The application has been accompanied by a noise report and given the separation distance from the building with the Kwik Fit parking area, together with the screening of the balconies to prevent a direct line of sight to the workshop building, as suggested by Public Health and Licensing, it is considered that the development would have an acceptable relationship with the adjacent commercial property. The internal arrangement of the flats is acceptable and subject to a sound insulation scheme this is considered to be satisfactory.
Highway safety, access and parking
6.32 The scheme proposes a widened point of access onto Queen Street and the widening of the existing access road.
6.33 This is possible due to the demolition of 68 Queen Street and the placing of the buildings further away from the western boundary of the site. The widened access road would be resurfaced and a pedestrian route delineated leading to the store. The 'pinch point' at the existing corner would be eliminated and would enable easier access to be achieved. WSCC have confirmed that visibility is achievable onto Queen Street and the access arrangements are satisfactory.
6.34 With regard to the retail unit, 11 parking spaces and 4 cycle spaces are shown along the northern boundary. A number of objectors have referred to concerns with parking at the site and in the vicinity and access difficulties. The matter has been reconsidered and the applicant has provided further details along with the Safety Audit and Designer’s Response and refers to the parking conditions and situation in the vicinity of the site. West Sussex County Council confirms that the details submitted are satisfactory.
6.35 In regard to servicing of the retail units, West Sussex County Council have advised in accordance with the Safety Audit recommendations and Designer's Response that servicing should be limited to specific off peak times and a banksman be used to cone off the spaces required for turning. Conditions to this effect relating to a servicing management plan would be required. Whilst your officers understand the concerns that have been raised in this regard, given the submitted details and the comments from West Sussex County Council it is not considered that an objection could be raised on highway grounds. It should also be noted that existing commercial properties fronting onto Queen Street are currently serviced from Queen Street/Brighton Road itself. In this respect the proposal would enable servicing and deliveries for those premises to take place away from the main A281 and this gives the opportunity to control the detail of those deliveries with the management plan.
18 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 19
6.36 In terms of the flats, there is surface and undercroft parking compromising one space per unit and one visitor space. The parking and access arrangements for the residential element of the scheme are considered to be an acceptable solution in this location.
Sustainable construction
6.37 A renewable energy assessment has been submitted for the whole scheme. This concludes that PV the most viable option for maximising emissions reduction within the scheme. The proposal is to maximise the available roof space by using a building integrated PV system on the roof of Block B, which is a system that can be integrated with the proposed single ply roofing membrane. This would represent a 17% reduction in emissions for Block B and 4% of the development total. This is due to the energy intensive nature of retail stores. The report contends that this strategy represents the best endeavours to satisfy DC8 which requires a 10% emissions reduction, within the financial viability of the scheme. The applicant has confirmed that the flats would be constructed to Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Details of the precise measures to be utilised would be covered by a condition.
Section 106 Agreement
6.38 If the application is to be approved, transport, library, education, fire service infrastructure and community facilities would be payable. These comprise :
£5,371 (primary education), £5,780 (secondary education), £1,744 (libraries), £765 (fire and rescue), £8,527 (transport), 10,230 (open space), £1,179 (refuse and recycling) and £ 2,358 (community facilities).
Conclusion
6.39 The site lies in the built-up area of Horsham in a sustainable location. Your officers consider that the scheme as now submitted address the previous concerns of the Committee and your officers with regard to earlier applications in terms of relationship with the street scene and adjoining properties. The changes to the scheme comprising revisions to the design, the scale and bulk of the proposal are such that it is considered that the revised proposal is acceptable for the reasons as set out above. The incorporation of a retail unit is considered to be satisfactory given the site's designation as a secondary retail frontage.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services with a view to approval subject to the completion within six months of a Section 106 Agreement in respect of contributions and thereafter that permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
19 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 20
01 A2 Full Permission 02 M1 Materials
03 No development shall be commenced until precise details and a method statement for retention of the façade of 68 Queen Street and its incorporation into Block A have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and maintained at all times.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
04 No development, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the car parking spaces have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.
Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of all highways in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
05 H10 Cycle Parking 06 G6 Recycling – flats 07 Before development commences full details of the provision of facilities for storage of waste and recycling bins arising from the operation of the commercial development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facilities as approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be fully installed before the use hereby permitted commences and shall be operated for as long as the use is continued.
Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).
08 L1 Landscaping 09 O1 Hours of Working – during construction
10 No work shall be carried out on site until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include details of the arrangements for deliveries and the storage of materials, skips and other equipment, together with the parking of construction vehicles and cars associated with the building works. Implementation of the development shall be in accordance with the
20 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 21
management plan unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
11 H6 Wheel Washing 12 D6 Finished Floor Levels 13 Before development commences details of any internally or externally located plant or machinery for the retail store, including extraction, refrigeration and ventilation equipment, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. These details shall include the location of such plant and equipment, times of operation and the proposed maintenance programme. Thereafter, the plant and equipment shall be installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 14 D10 Floodlighting 15 Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
all previous uses potential contaminants associated with those uses a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
21 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 22
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
16 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
17 No raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials or waste shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the buildings or storage areas hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
18 Before development commences a scheme of sound insulation works to the separating structure between the proposed retail use and first floor flats in Block A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be fully installed before the use hereby permitted commences.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenities by ensuring an acceptable noise level for the occupants and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
19 The hours of operation for the retail store shall be restricted to 08:00-23:00 hours on Monday to Saturdays and from 09:00-22:30 hours on Sundays.
Reason: o safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
20 The development, hereby permitted, shall not be brought into use, until a site management plan for the retail store indicating times, frequency and method of deliveries, including newspaper deliveries, and arrangements for parking and turning of delivery vehicles has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented and
22 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 23
maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and highway safety and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
21 The playing of live or recorded music or generation of other amplified sound in the retail premises hereby permitted shall be so restricted as to be inaudible within adjoining residential premises.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
22 No development shall take place until a plan showing the accurate position of the public sewer and the water main and details of the measures to be undertaken to protect or divert this apparatus has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason : To safeguard the public sewer and water main and in accordance with Policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).
23 The internal layout of the flats hereby approved shall accord with the approved floor plans and shall not be altered or amended in any way without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To maintain control over the development in the interests of the amenities of the future occupiers of the flats and in accordance with Policies DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
24 No development shall be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority precise details of the balcony screens for Block B .The development thereafter shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and maintained at all times.
Reason: To maintain control over the development in the interests of the amenities of the future occupiers of the flats and in accordance with Policies DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
25 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of proposed construction methods incorporating sustainable construction techniques shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
23 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 24
Planning Authority. Thereafter works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and in accordance with Policy DC8 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
26 M8 Sustainable Construction – Flats Level 3
27 No removal of vegetation shall be carried out on site between March to August inclusive in any year, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where vegetation must be cleared during the bird breeding season a check for nesting birds by a suitably qualified ecologist will be required. Any vegetation containing occupied nests will be retained until the young have fledged. Should demolition be delayed beyond the end of February access to the building by birds must be restricted following the advice given in the submitted ecological report.
Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.
8. REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
ITHP2 The proposal includes satisfactory provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and would not impinge upon the safety and convenience of other highway users.
Background Papers: DC/11/2136 Contact Officer: Val Cheesman
24 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 2nd October 2012 Demolition of existing single storey buildings and erection of 2-storey DEVELOPMENT: building comprising classrooms, offices, areas and ancillary accommodation SITE: Collyers School 82 Hurst Road Horsham West Sussex WARD: Horsham Park APPLICATION: DC/12/0578 APPLICANT: Collyers
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for approval subject to the expiration of the consultation period.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two a storey building for the purposes of providing teaching and support facilities located around a central courtyard, to the rear of the Rimbault Duckering Hall Link and to the north of the Sports Hall.
1.2 The proposed layout on the ground and first floor mirrors one another and includes 6 class rooms, a resource room office facilities and WC’s on both floors.
1.3 The western elevation of the proposed building would be located approximately 5.4 metres to 7.8 metres away from the rear south facing garden boundary.
1.4 The application has been supported by a design and access statement which amongst other matters sets out the provision for disabled access and explains the sustainable building measures that would be used in the construction of the building.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.5 The application site is located on the edge of the College playing fields in an area which is currently occupied by a collection of six single storey buildings. The current proposal would necessitate the removal of four of these buildings to accommodate the new development.
Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2
1.6 The main college campus including the Grade II listed building, is located to the south and west of the site.
1.7 The four building’s to be demolished include three buildings currently used for purposes of an on site nursery which are run independently from the College and one other used as a sports pavilion to house multi gym equipment. The equipment has been re-sited to the purpose built facility within the Sports Hall Annexe completed in 2006. Two buildings would remain in situ including the groundsman’s hut under the canopy of the oak tree on the north eastern boundary of the site.
1.8 Two of the existing single storey buildings abut the boundary of 2 Angus Close. A 1.8 high panel fence separates the rear garden area of this property from the school grounds with tree and shrub planting within the garden providing screening.
1.9 The existing pedestrian access that currently serves the nursery buildings and runs from the car park area between the Sports Hall and Science Building will be retained. The main access to the building would be via the ‘quad’ area via an extension to the existing pedestrian access route which includes a ramped approach from the car park.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP3, CP5 and CP16.
2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC9 and DC13
2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4
PLANNING HISTORY
2.6 The planning history of the site reveals that the most rapid period of expansion and development of the college occurred during the 1990’s. During this period existing buildings were repaired and upgraded and/or extended, a new sports hall and teaching accommodation was constructed and a new car parking area provided. The most relevant planning application related to the application site is DC/07/1304 for the demolition of existing single storey buildings and the erection of 2-storey building comprising classrooms, offices, theatre, toilets together with new access road from existing car parking area.
2.7 The current application being considered under DC/12/0578 differs from that application previously considered under DC/07/1304 in terms of its design and layout and the distance of the north-west elevation from the boundary of rear gardens to Angus Close as previously approved. Furthermore, the proposed footprint of the building is located around a central APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3
courtyard and as such, the built form projects further south east into the playing fields than the previous application.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Access Officer: Please confirm that the accessible toilet will be at least 2.2metres by 1.5metres and all the fittings and features will conform to Part M of the Building regulations. The dimensions in the plans look like a rhomboid room rather than a rectangular. Close attention is needed to the layout to ensure good functionality.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 West Sussex County Council: Commented that
Highways: It is unclear from the detail submitted in support of the application as to what impact the development will have in terms of traffic generated by the site.
The proposed development will utilise the existing site access; an interrogation of the Road Traffic Collision database shows that this access has a good accident record. Should the development not result in a significant intensification in use of the site access, the Highway Authority would be satisfied that the access arrangements are acceptable. Should the proposed development result in a significant intensification then further consideration would be required as to whether the increase will be to the detriment of Highway safety.
On the assumption that the development does not result in a significant increase in traffic generation then the Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposed development. However, further information is sought from the Applicant in regard to the number of traffic movements generated by the proposed development.
3.3 Southern Water: Commented that (summary)
The exact position of the [public sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.
Due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible a sewer now deemed to be public are crossing the above property. An investigation of the sewer will be requires to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site.
The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688).
Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public foul and surface water sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.
Informative required:
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 Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688). APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4
Should permission be recommended for approval the following condition should be attached:
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.
3.4 Health and Safety Executive: No Objections (Do Not Advise Against)
3.5 Environment Agency: No Objection
3.6 Horsham Society: Objects
I write on behalf of the Horsham Society to object to this application on the grounds of the quality of design and that it amounts to unneighbourly development.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.7 Neighbour Notifications: 6 letters of objection received (2 from the same address). The reasons for objection are as follows:
Loss of privacy and light Loss of private and visual amenities Obtrusive development Overlooking Overshadowing Over bearing and claustrophobic development Proximity to rear boundary of residential properties Noise and disturbance Parking Litter
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out in section 6 below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered the proposal will have a material impact on crime and disorder
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 Given the location of the building on the edge of the playing fields it is not considered that the proposal would have an impact on the setting of the listed building and the main issues in this case are:
a) The design and impact of the development upon the grouping of buildings within the college complex; APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5
b) The impact on the amenities of residents within the vicinity of the site;
c) The impact on existing parking and traffic conditions associated with the application site
Each issue is addressed below:
The design and impact of the development upon the grouping of buildings within the college complex
6.2 The proposed new two storey building would replace the existing single storey buildings adjacent to the site boundary of Angus Close. The current scheme would be sited further from the common boundary of Angus Close and therefore represent a better relationship with the residential properties and associated garden areas to Angus Close (particularly No 2) than the scheme previously approved scheme under DC/07/1304. The revised location of the proposed building would enable additional planting to be undertaken to reinforce the existing hedgerow. It is recommended that protective fencing is erected during construction work to safeguard the existing hedgerow. The design of the proposal is considered appropriate to its context.
6.3 The applicants have confirmed that with regards to the nursery, it is initially intended to build Phase 1 only being the element furthest away from the nursery up to the bridge link section, thereby allowing the nursery to continue operating. If and when funds become available for Phase 2, the nursery will be given a 12 month notification period in order to enable them to find alternative accommodation. The proposals have been discussed with the nurseries direct who are fully aware of the situation.
The impact on the amenities of residents within the vicinity of the site
6.4 With regards to the private amenities of local residents, it is considered that whilst the proposed new building is of a greater scale and mass than the existing single storey buildings it is generally comparable to that of the scheme previously approved under DC/07/1304.
6.5 The length of the north east elevation facing Angus Close has effectively been reduced from the scheme previously approved under DC/07/1304, and the elevation has been set further back from the common boundary of Angus Close by between 8.7m and 9.1m (previously between 7m – 8.5m in respect of the two storey element and 3 metres in respect of the single element as approved under DC/07/1304).
6.6 The entire length of the proposed north west elevation is two storeys with a height of between 6.7 and 8.5 metres which is comparable with the two storey element of the previously approved scheme. The north western elevation would follow the same building line as the two storey element of the previous approved scheme.
6.7 In effect the revised plans indicate that the relationship of the north west elevation with the common boundaries to Angus Close would effectively be improved given that it would be set further away and there would be less built from adjacent to it.
6.8 Windows facing the rear gardens of Angus Close will be obscure glazed and as such there are no concerns regarding loss of private amenity. In the event of approval a condition is recommended to ensure that details of the proposed obscure glazing is submitted for approval, that the glazing is permanently retained and the method of opening is agreed.
6.9 With regards to visual amenities it is considered that the design of the proposed building would be acceptable within the context of the surrounding buildings (Rimbault and APPENDIX A/ 8 - 6
Duckering Hall link) and the Sports Hall together with potential views from Hurst Avenue to the east. There would be very limited views from the Hurst Road frontage.
6.10 Consideration has previously been given to the impact of this development, on the increase in activity on the site and the associated noise and disturbance. It was not considered at the time of the previous approval for a two storey building in this location that this would lead to a measurable impact in terms of noise and disturbance to a level which, when compared to existing, that would have a negative impact on the amenity of those within the vicinity of the site. Your officers consider that this situation remains the same as when previously considered and as such would not be a justified reason for refusal of the current proposal.
The impact on existing parking and traffic conditions associated with the application site
6.11 As part to the continuing improvements to the facilities and site at Collyers, the main access to the building at the far end of the quad area would be via an extension to the existing pedestrian access routes which includes a ramped area from the car park.
6.12 No additional car parking is provided to serve the development, with the main car parking area being located to the south eastern corner of the site frontage. The provision of increased car parking would however be contrary to the strategy of encouraging the use of modes transport other than the private car and the operation of the Green Travel Plan on this site. Subject to the continued operation of the Green Travel Plan, the increase in students would be assimilated as the plan bites and there is a modal shift in transport. Given the on going policy to reduce car use on this site the development would not adversely affect existing parking and traffic conditions.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for approval, subject to the expiration of the consultation period and subject to the following conditions:
1 A2 Full permission 2 M1 Materials 3 L1 Landscaping 4 D6 Floor levels
5 Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed means of glazing and method of opening of the windows in the rear (north west) elevation of the building shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The windows shown as being obscure glazed on drawing number 0702104 B shall be fitted with the agreed glazing prior to the first occupation of the building and along with method of opening shall thereafter be permanently retained.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
6. No work shall be carried out on site until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include details of the arrangements for the timing of and location of unloading of APPENDIX A/ 8 - 7
deliveries, together with the proposals for the parking of construction vehicles and cars associated with the building works. Details shall be provided of the provision within the site (or other adjacent land within the applicant’s control) for all temporary contractors’ buildings, plant or stacks of materials associated with the development. Such provision shall be retained for these purposes throughout the period of work on the site. Implementation of the development shall be in accordance with the management plan unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
7. Full details of means of surface and foul water drainage to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on development. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained.
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 Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688).
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
IDP1.
The proposal is in accordance with the development plan.
Background Papers: DC/12/0578 and DC/07/1304 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes
APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: Retrospective application for re-decoration of frontage of existing DEVELOPMENT: building (Listed Building Consent) SITE: 26 Carfax Horsham West Sussex RH12 1EE
WARD: Denne
APPLICATION: DC/12/0906
APPLICANT: Mr Guy Bateman
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA:
To consider the planning application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Application to be granted.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 Retrospective application for the re-decoration of the frontage of the existing building (Listed Building Consent)
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 26 Carfax is a Grade II Listed Building located to the south side Copnall Way. The property is located within Horsham Conservation area. The property is a 15th Century Wealden house and has significant presence within the town centre. The building was originally one large unit however over time this has been divided into smaller units (26, 26a and 27) Each unit has different shops and different design in terms of colour and texture. From the different units no 26 has the largest sized shop at ground floor level. To the east side of the property is no 25 this property has white painted wall. To the west side of the property occupier 26a also has white cream painted wall. The application premises no 26 has a painted burgundy/maroon colour wall.
Contact Officer: Ravi Rehal Tel: 01403 215258 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.2 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1, and CP3.
2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC9, DC12 and DC13.
2.4 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and BE6.
PLANNING HISTORY
EN/11/0592 - Alleged unauthorised painting of Listed Building
2.5 On 2nd November 2011, a complaint was received that 26 The Carfax had been painted a urgundy/maroon colour. On the 3rd November 2011 a site visit was conducted by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, whose opinion was that although the change of colour affected the character of the building, and therefore required listed building consent under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, officers were unlikely to successfully justify a refusal should an application be submitted for the unauthorised works. Therefore it was not considered expedient to pursue (reasons set out below). On the 3rd Nov 2011, the compliance case was closed & the complainant informed of the reason for closure.
2.6 In late November, the complainant challenged this decision through the Council’s complaints procedure and in the interest of democracy officers decided to invite a listed building consent application to regularise the works. Listed Building Consent application DC/12/0906 was received on 5th May 2012 however the application was invalid in June 2012 the complaint was escalated through the Council’s complaints procedure. Recognising the unique issues in the case, the Chief Executive decided that a departure from normal procedure was warranted by bringing a report to the committee. This was heard at committee on 12th of June 2012 Committee resolved to give the owners 28 days to submit a valid Listed Building Consent application otherwise enforcement proceedings would be commenced.
2.7 In early August the applicant submitted sufficient information for the retrospective Listed Building consent application for re-decoration of frontage of the building to be validated, which is the application subject of this report. APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Design and Conservation Officer – Comments are follows,
“Listed building consent is required for an alteration that affects the character of a listed building and this can include paint colour. If a different paint colour from the existing is proposed, the local planning authority should make a decision as to whether the character of the building is affected. For example, changing paint colour from a white to a cream would normally be viewed as minor change not affecting the character of the building and unless there is a particular historically significant reason why the white paint is important to the preservation and enhancement of the character of the building, the alteration would be unlikely to attract an application. Some changes in paint colour can be more obvious on some buildings than it is on others where consistency is important. For example, in the rendered Georgian townhouses in London Road, Horsham, where uniformity is key to the buildings character and the characters of the conservation area, the LPA would be likely to resist an application for a colour which did not blend with lighter shades the terrace. There are also occasions where a “bright” colour (such a cerise or luminous green) its self is out of character. As with all planning decisions, the decision is made on its own merits.
The painting of 26 Carfax, Horsham:
26, 26a & 27 Carfax is a 15th century Wealden house. Originally the property would have been one building, but, over time it has been divided into different units, 26, 26a and 27 which probably correspond with the timber bay structure inside. It was floored over later and extended in the Victorian period - probably divided into three shop units about the same time also.
Each of the three individual units has a unique shop front, entrance and upper window design giving vertical as well as horizontal emphasis on the character of the building. For example Scissor Sisters at 27 has a equally proportioned double front shop front with a central door, plus a single casement window above; Hamptons at 26a in the centre has one large window a timber door, and a smaller shop window to the left, plus a large central Georgian paned sash half dormer, protruding above the eaves line; Mallards at 26 has a projected shop front at ground floor, off centre door and smaller shop window to the left, plus two large casement windows at first floor, a hanging sign, and centrally placed signage.
Immediately prior to the maroon painting at number 26, this unit was a dark cream colour, and a photograph from this date shows this was different from the facade colour of numbers 26a & 27. Thus as the paint colour is markedly different, it could be argued that the character of the building has been altered and this alteration would require listed building consent.
In the black and white 1907 photo, all the units in the building appear to be a dark colour; in the book Horsham Houses (Hughes 1986) the photo on page 47 shows a slight difference in colour between this unit and the others; photos from the 1980s show a minor difference in colour between all the shop units.
APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4
Turning to the maroon colour itself, this type of colour, is reminiscent of the dark Victorian hues used over the year and although is an obvious change from the previous cream paint, owing to the changes in the building’s history and character over the years, especially as its use as three units, there is a case for a different colour to reflect these changes. With the conservation area, the maroon colour also doesn't, in my opinion, jar visually in the context of the surrounding buildings, especially as there are a variety of colours on the terrace at 18-24 Carfax and in other buildings in the area. These are most notable at the Crown Public House, plus the pink, green and grey painted render colours of a number of listed buildings (including the II* Horsham Museum and Art Gallery) in the Causeway.
Taking into account these issues, recognising the factors of the changed character of the property and the other painted render colours in the town centre, as well as the significance of the building as a listed 17th century hall house, on balance there is no objection to the painting of 27 Carfax”
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.2 Horsham Society – Object to the proposal stating that the paint does require listed building consent from the Local Authority as it clearly affects it character. The painting of the upper floor is dark maroon which was conditioned by applicant’s corporate business to match their advertising.
“The building is listed as a whole despite being subdivided by use into three businesses (26, 26A and 27 Carfax). It is in a prominent position on the east side of the Carfax and is in the conservation area. The property is described in the listing description as of 15th Century origin but is in fact a 15th century Wealden house. It is the largest of three in the conservation area but is clearly the only example in the Carfax, East Street and West Street. The Painting of this part of the upper floor in dark maroon was conditions by the applicants’ corporate business colour to match their adverting, not through any consideration for the appropriateness to the building. In effect it could be said to be an advertising hoarding.
It has been argued that, in the past, the painting of the façade was often in different colours and that set a precedent , but that was in a time when there was no national and local concern for proper standards in the conservation of historic buildings. Furthermore all the available evidence shows that at no time was part of the façade a significantly different colour to the rest.
The issue is one where the visual integrity of the façade to the Carfax- a single rate 15th century building- is lost. The white first floor over its entire length and under one Horsham stone roof were the unifying elements that expressed the historic interest. So far as the conservation area aspect is concerned, even more worrying and surprising was the officers’ argument that the town centre facades are made up of a variety of colours and materials and the painting of part of this façade was just another example contributing to that variety. On the contrary, the colours of the buildings in Carfax are all muted and even were an application to be made for the whole of the listed building (ie Nos 26, 26A and 27 Carfax) to be painted in dark maroon the colour would still be completely inappropriate.
APPENDIX A/ 9 - 5
We cannot comment at this stage upon the suitability of the paint that has been used because the applicant has not provided details. However it is essential that the Council satisfies itself that any change is only executed in a paint that is specifically recommended for medieval rendered buildings. For the reasons set out above the Society request that the retrospective listed building application to be refused and if necessary enforcement action taken to reinstate the façade to its original colour before this latest alteration. “
3.3 13 Springfield Crescent, Horsham – Resident objects to the proposal stating that the colour of regal burgundy is not company’s house colour demonstrated in the photos. The introduction of this dark colour breaks up the continuity of the façade of this 15th Century Wealden House.
3.4 1 Hampers Lane, Horsham- Resident objects to the proposal stating that the paint on upper part of the building would impact the conservation area and other listed buildings in the town centre. Their concerns are also associated with the visual impact the colour affect would have on the town centre. They feel the building has lost its visual integrity of the façade to the Carfax.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Articles 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 The main issue to be considered is whether the retention of the external alteration (painting) of the building is acceptable. Unauthorised works to a Listed Building are a criminal offence under S9 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. However, the decision to take enforcement or prosecution action is discretionary and should only be taken when harm justifies such action.
6.2 The importance of development respecting the character of an area and being of a high quality design underpins Polices CP1, CP3 of Horsham’s Core Strategy and DC9 of Horsham General Development Control Policies. Policy DC13 relates specifically to Listed Buildings and is clear that development affecting a Listed Building or its setting will not be permitted unless the proposal has no adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character and appearance of the building or its setting. Further, Policy DC12 also indicates that within Conservation Areas, development will not be permitted unless the proposal is of a design and APPENDIX A/ 9 - 6
scale that preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the area, and is compatible with neighbouring buildings and spaces.
6.3 Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicates that local planning authorities should consider:
“the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”
6.4 The Existing building is a 15th Century Wealden House which has been sub- divided into different units (26, 26a and 27) floored over internally and extended. The issue with this application is the external painted burgundy/maroon finish used on the external wall on the front of building 26. Along the street there is a majority of white, cream, pink green and grey rendered coloured external walls.
6.5 Noticeably there are variety of coloured walls on the terrace at 18-24 Carfax and other buildings in the area. In Causeway, there are also number of listed buildings that have various external colours. Therefore in terms of consistency the buildings within the town centre there are a variety of different coloured external walls. The introduction of having burgundy/maroon coloured external wall on the application premises is not considered to be unduly out of character by your officers
6.6 The Design and Conservation Officer concludes “Taking into account these issues, recognising the factors of the changed character of the property and the other painted render colours in the town centre, as well as the significance of the building as a listed 17th century hall house, on balance there is no objection to the painting of 26 Carfax”.
6.7 The comments of the Horsham Society and local residents have been considered. However, it is felt that after due consideration of all matters, including criteria set out in the Local Development Framework and NPPF, the works are considered acceptable by your officers
Conclusion
In conclusion, given the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the retention of the re-decorated frontage of the existing building does not materially affect the character of the existing building, or the visual amenities of the conservation area such to warrant refusal of Listed Building Consent and as such it is therefore considered acceptable.
APPENDIX A/ 9 - 7
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Grant Listed Building consent
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
ILBC2: The proposal would safeguard the special architected or historic interest of the listed building.
Background Papers: DC/12/1062 Contact officer: Ravi Rehal