Parish: Ward: Birdham

BI/15/03851/FUL

Proposal Change of use of existing marine retail/storage/light industrial unit to new destination retail unit incorporation new showfront, entrance and side fire escape.

Site Unit 4 Premier Business Park Birdham Road Appledram West PO20 7BU

Map Ref (E) 483079 (N) 100354

Applicant High Seats Ltd

RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE

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

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Red Card: Cllr Hamilton Important information/opinion to raise in debate:

"Having consulted my fellow ward councillor, I am not happy that this application be refused again by the officers as the applicants have apparently fulfilled criteria for permission. Please can they be able to address the committee"

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is located on the north-west side of the A286 Road approximately 3 miles to the south of Chichester and 1 mile north of Birdham. The Premier Business Park occupies a relatively remote rural location that is also within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is located 300m north east of the revised settlement boundary in the emerging Birdham Neighbourhood Plan.

2.2 The application site was originally part of a soft drinks factory prior to its subdivision in 2004 into a number of smaller business units (BI/03/02203/FUL). The use of what is now Unit 4 was restricted to purposes within B1(c) - light industrial or Class B8 storage and distribution. A later permission issued in 2007 (LPA Ref: BI/14/04272/FUL), allowed the use of the front part of this unit "for the display and sale of water related leisure products with ancillary offices and store."

2.3 The application building consists of a steel portal framed building positioned at the northern end of a terrace of 4 similar units. The building is constructed with white clad elevations beneath a profiled steel ridged roof. The site consists of the "front half" (i.e. with a footprint of 20m x 12m) of the existing unit. The rear portion of the unit would be retained for use as a marine workshop.

2.4 Access to the Premier Business Park is via a centrally positioned vehicular entrance from the A286. Immediately on entering the site is a parking court which extends to the west and east. The existing parking on site serves the motor home retail units (Units 1 and 2) and Lansdale Marine which will continue to operate out of the rear of Unit 4 as part of this application proposal.

2.5 The business park is bounded to its south-west (i.e. its road frontage) by a timber post and rail fence with hedge. The sites other boundaries (i.e. south-west, north-west and north- east) are defined by more substantial hedge/tree screens. Beyond the business park's boundaries to the west and south is open countryside. To the north west of the site is an unauthorised gypsy and traveller site which is subject to ongoing investigation by planning enforcement . Directly to the east of the site is Birdham Farm, with open fields beyond.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 This application proposes a change of use of the front portion of Unit 4 (237sqm net floor area) from a restricted "water related leisure products" showroom use to a retail unit/showroom described as a "destination retail unit" for the sale of specialised mobility equipment and furniture. The interior of the building would be subdivided with a number of new partitions providing 'service desk' areas as well as storage space and an accessible w.c.

3.2 It is also proposed to undertake a number of external changes. The development would involve the replacement of the existing roller shutter door on the building's south-east elevation with new showroom window and entrance doors. Additionally, a fire escape door in the building's north-east elevation would be closed up with another being formed just to the north.

3.3 No parking spaces for the proposed use are provided within the application boundary. A parking plan has been provided which indicates the increased provision of parking on the Premier Business Park site generally, including along the eastern boundary where boat parking currently exists.

3.4 The rear portion of the building (205.84sqm net floor area) is to be retained by Lansdale Marine as a marine workshop.

3.5 The proposed business would be operated 7 days a week, 09:00- 17:00 on Monday to Saturday, and 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays.

4.0 History

03/00836/COU REF Change of use from vacant engineering works to indoor kart track.

03/01689/COU REF Change of use from vacant engineering works to indoor kart track.

03/02203/FUL PER Subdivision and refurbishment of existing factory into 3 no. separate units for B1(c). Use of 2 no. units for B1/B8 purposes. 1 no. unit for the sale, display and maintenance of motor homes.

07/03950/COU PER Change of use to part sale and display of water related leisure products and part use as workshops for the servicing, fitting out and storage of marine related products.

15/01749/FUL REF Change of use of existing marine retail/storage/light industrial unit to new destination retail unit incorporating new shopfront, entrance and side fire escape.

07/02832/FUL PER Replacement office accommodation.

08/01359/COU PER Change of use of existing office building to classic car showroom.

10/00821/FUL PER Variation of condition No 9 of planning permission BI/03/02203/FUL. Use of 4 no. existing car parking spaces for the display of dinghies in connection with yacht chandlers.

10/04039/EXT PER Application to extend the implementation period of existing Planning Permission BI/07/02832/FUL. Replacement office accommodation.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Countryside YES AONB YES EA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and NO Gardens

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Birdham Parish raises No Objection to this application.

6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Subject to the red line identifying the application site being amended to exclude the retained marine workshop floor space in the back half of the unit, to raise no objection to the application, subject to the imposition of a planning condition restricting the sales and display of goods to items of furniture only and no other use within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).

Members were concerned that an unrestricted A1 use could change over time and have a far greater demand for car parking and trip generation, the latter considered harmful to the AONB and also likely to generate a greater number of movements on and off the site, interrupting the free flow of traffic.

6.3 WSCC Highways

This proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information. A site visit can be arranged on request. County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location in relation to a similar application under planning application reference BI/15/01749/FUL. While no in principle objection was raised to the proposal the LHA sought the following additional information to ensure that assumptions made when considering the application were correct. 1. Details of the business especially the web based nature of the business 2. Expected no of daily trips to the site to include staff and customers 3. The number of deliveries expected per weed and where they will load/ unload It should be noted that BI/15/01749/FUL was refused by the LPA citing the proposed parking provision as one of the reasons for refusal. In principle the latest application is similar to that previously proposed, seeking the change of use of an existing marine retail/storage/light industrial unit (256sqm) to a new destination retail until incorporation new shopfront, entrance and side fire escape at unit 4, Premier Business Park, Birdham Park, Birdham Road Appuldram. 8 car parking spaces will be provided to serve the unit, two spaces of which will be suitable for disabled access. I am mindful that BI/15/01749/FUL was refused by the LPA citing the parking provision as one of the reason for refusal. I note that WSCC previously raised no objection to the proposed parking provision within a consultation response dated 30/06/2015. I am also mindful that circa 190sqm of B1 Light Industrial use is to be retained to the rear of the application site in the form of a marine workshop which will typically be staffed by 1 or 2 engineers and a receptionist. Using the latest WSCC car parking standard the retained B1 use would require a maximum 7/8 car parking spaces. The application documents suggest that 4 car parking spaces are available to serve the remaining B1 use. I would be minded to conclude this quantity of provision would be acceptable for the anticipated number of staff expected to be working at the site. These spaces have however not been demonstrated on the plans provided and the LPA would be advised to be satisfied this provision is acceptable prior to determining the application.

After the inspection of the latest documents provided I would be minded to conclude that the service and delivery requirements of the retail use would be similar in highways terms to that of the existing use of the site. Therefore the LHA would not consider that the proposal would result in a 'severe' impact on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 32), and there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal.

If the LPA are minded to grant planning consent a condition securing the parking facility in perpetuity would be advised.

6.4 One Third Party Objection

In summary the following comment was made:  The current occupier has reverted back to storing boats and paraphernalia in the dedicated parking area immediately adjacent to the northern boundary.  From the business activity on the site, the occupier of unit 5 will simply pack more boats into a further restricted area. This will inevitably lead to increased business activity alongside the northern boundary.  Much of the remainder of section 5 sets out arguments for removing the current occupier to Chichester Marina. The agent suggests the current occupant will be removing stored water craft (for which they receive storage rental) from the site to Chichester Marina (where they would have to pay storage rental) would somehow be more economically viable. The agents also assert the current occupier will remove much of its marine servicing operations to the Marina from the current site. Again this will require the payment of rent on premises, presumably at a much higher level. If this is so, then the argument that there is no viable market for marine related business in this planning area is clearly a self-defeating one put forward in support of this application  In terms of the marine industry locally, as I understand matters the last owners of Chichester Marina (Black Rock) were content to invest £3.5 million there and indications are it was money well invested.  Unit 3 being is occupied and has been for the whole of the relevant period.  The agent puts forward representation regarding the proposed occupier. They are asserting that an older population exists south of Chichester. The whole Chichester area has a demographic skewed towards the elderly, it is not correct to assert they all somehow live in the .  The agents also cite the bespoke nature of the furniture. And add that they have stores located in Southampton (22 miles) and Hove (28 miles). My experience is that most people are happy to drive to a specific location, particularly in pursuit of a bespoke item. 22 miles is certainly not far to travel in a car.  As at todays date there are 2 spaces left clear for motor vehicles but these seem permanently taken up by Lansdales spare vehicles.

6.5 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

The application was accompanied by the following supporting information:  Design and Access Statement  Sequential Test  Marketing information.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. At this current time there is no adopted made neighbourhood plan for Birdham Parish, however the plan is at an advanced stage and therefore the policies of the Neighbourhood Development Plan hold significant weight.

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

Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029:

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 26: Existing Employment Sites Policy 27: Chichester Centre Retail Policy Policy 28: Edge and Out of Centre Sites - Chichester Policy Policy 29: Settlement Hubs and Village Centres Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy 44: Development around the Coast Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 46: Alterations, Change of Use and/or Re-use of Existing Buildings in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity

Birdham Neighbourhood Plan :

Policy 6: Biodiversity Policy 9: Traffic Impact Policy 10: Footpaths and Cycle Paths Policy 13: Settlement Boundary Policy 15: Rural Area Policy Policy 22: Development for Business Use Policy 23: Retention of Businesses

National Policy and Guidance

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

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

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

7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), 14, 24 and 30.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

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

A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow A3 - Vibrant and sustainable City and market towns, with a good range of business and retail types

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i. The principle of change of use to retail (A1) ii. The marketing of the unit iii. Sustainability and location of the site iv. Access and parking provision.

Assessment i. The principle of change of use to retail (A1)

8.2 The building is currently in business use as a boat sales and workshop (B1- B8 retail/light industrial/ storage), with the sales element having recently re-located to Chichester Marina. The permission for Premier Business Park was granted in 2003 and secures by condition the use linked to the 'showroom for the display and sale of water related leisure products with ancillary offices and store'. This application seeks a move away from water related leisure products to use the retail showroom for specialised furniture for the elderly. The rear of the unit will be retained in marine use, with a division installed to allow the proposed retail use to operate independently of the marine use at the rear of the unit.

8.3 As the current use is a business use, Policy 26 of the Local Plan is relevant, which states that changes of use will be granted for existing employment sites where it has been demonstrated that the site is no longer required and unlikely to be re-used for employment uses. This policy is applied in conjunction with the marketing requirements within the Local Plan Appendix E (in particular E.1 - E.5).

8.4 Policies 28 and 45 of the Local Plan are also relevant. Policy 28 refers to proposals for non-food and food retail outside the central retail area on edge and out of centre sites which seeks to ensure this type of use is located in the sequentially most preferable location, that being within or adjacent to a main settlement. This site is within the defined Countryside, outside of any main centre, edge of centre or out of centre location. This is the least sequentially preferable location and therefore the applicant needs to demonstrate that there are no other suitable and available sites which are more appropriate. Policy 45 relates to development in the countryside, outside settlement boundaries and states that "development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements". It goes on to state that applications for retail development in the countryside will be considered where it has been demonstrated that the appropriate sequential and/or impact assessments have been undertaken".

8.5 In summary, the principle of new retail sites in the Countryside would need to be justified, so as to ensure that the location of the proposed retail use is in the most sustainable location. The proposal, due to the associated loss of an existing business use, must also demonstrate the site is no longer required for that purpose through sufficient marketing, taking Appendix E.5 as minimum requirements. In order to conclude whether the principle is acceptable these two points are explored further below. ii. The marketing of the unit

8.6 The existing use as business space must have been sufficiently marketed under the minimum requirements in Appendix E (E.5) to be considered acceptable. The application 15/01749/FUL, for the same proposal, was refused (reason 1) for insufficient marketing evidence (decision July 2015). Ten months of evidence was provided in the application and it was advised 18 months would be required as a minimum for this site.

8.7 This application includes 18 months of marketing. Marketing information has been submitted by Fludes, the applicants marking agents. The Marketing information includes a report with details of local market conditions and the reasons (interest and feedback) as to why the application site has not been let. During the consideration of the application further clarification on Marketing was provided by the Agent. This included photographs of the marketing boards, an anonymous and undated Enquiry Schedule and proof of press notices.

8.8 It is the view of Officers that the marketing report does not demonstrate a continuous or robust marketing campaign. For instance, under the heading "Letting Brochure/Agency Particulars" it is stated that the marketing agents have provided "potentially interested parties" with details which have been "generally emailed to prospective parties". The applicant's marketing agents highlight (section 4.0) three reasons why the unit has not been taken up by business space applicants directly as: 1) car parking provision 2) minimum eaves height and 3) outside of Chichester City. A record log indicating six interested parties (appendix B) has been received although the evidence from the enquiry log only documents two reasons for the enquiries not being taken further, primarily its location outside of Chichester City and in the case of applicant C, requiring retail consent. There is some concern therefore that neither the eaves height nor parking provision are preventing this site remaining in business use as described.

8.9 There is also some concern with the inconsistency in the approach to marketing, particularly in relation to notices in the press (criterion 7, Appendix E.5). Under the heading "Local/Regional Advertising" the marketing agents explain that the premises was advertised in the local paper (i.e. the Chichester Observer) in May, June, July, September, October and November in 2014. It is not explained, however, why advertisements were only placed in the local paper in January and November 2015. Between February and October 2015 no advertisements appeared in the local paper. The marketing of the unit during 2015 was sporadic and does not meet the criterion in Appendix E of the Local Plan of at least four weeks' worth of advertisements, spread across a six month period. Whilst the local paper is acceptable it would have been desirable to have seen the site advertised in a more regional setting to attract marine related industry from across the south coast or in targeted press related to the industry.

8.10 The marketing report also outlines that the site has been marketed online, has been the subject of mail shots ("normally on a quarterly basis") and periodic "telephone canvasing". Although this is considered to be vague and contributes to a weaker marketing exercise, some weight is, however, given to maintained online advertisement presence through the commercial agent's website and road-front signage.

8.11 The marketing has taken place for the required amount of time as set out in Appendix E.5 of the Local Plan, though it has been weakened through some elements by being disjointed or sporadically undertaken which has contributed to the view of officers that this does not demonstrate a robust marketing exercise. However, following the submission of further information by the agent, including photographs of the marketing boards, an enquiry schedule and proof of press notices, it is considered that the minimum requirements set with Appendix E.5 of the Local Plan have been carried out and the unit has been marketed appropriately and therefore is acceptable within the requirements for Policy 26.

iii. Sustainability and location of the site

8.12 This application would result in the use of the site for Class A1 purposes which is materially different to the existing use of the site for a workshop and boat sales use restricted to "water related leisure products", which is clearly associated with the adjacent Chichester Harbour and is controlled by planning condition. The existing 'water related leisure use' is supported by the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan (Policy 23) "Support will be given to the retention of all business related to tourism, marine, horticulture and agriculture against any proposals for redevelopment or for a change of use. Accordingly, proposals for development must not have a significantly adverse impact on the tourism, marine, farming and horticultural businesses." The proposed use by High Seats Limited does not fall within the uses identified in Policy 23 of the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan.

8.13 The proposed use by High Seats Limited would result in a use which could reasonably be sited within a central retail area. The NPPF and policy 28 of the Local Plan require that if no sites are available within the City centre, then an edge of centre or out of centre location could be considered, subject to compliance with a number of identified criteria. Furthermore Policy 1 guides development to within Settlement Boundaries. Policy 45 states development requiring a countryside location must meet the essential, small scale and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements. It goes on to state that retail development in the countryside will only be considered where an appropriate sequential test has been undertaken, in order to protect the countryside from inappropriate development. This proposal results in a destination retail unit outside of any central retail area, edge of centre or out of centre location including that within Chichester City or any other identified shopping area, or settlement boundary in Neighbourhood Plans. In terms of its countryside location it does not meet an essential, small scale and local need which could not be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements.

8.14 The applicant has provided a sequential test consistent with Policies 28 and 45 of the CLP and paragraph 24 of the NPPF. The sequential test lists all available units within 5 miles of Chichester, including the retail centre, edge of centre and out of centre locations, all of which are considered unsuitable by the applicant (HSL) due to size, location, limited passing trade or availability of parking. The applicant was specifically asked for their comments on The Corn Exchange, Chichester, and the currently advertised 2a High Street, . Whilst it is acknowledged that the Corn Exchange would also require a change of use application to be submitted and approved (Currently B1), this site is within Chichester City and approximately 40m from the designated Primary Shopping Frontage of East Street (south side). In Selsey, the premises at 2a High Street, already has retail use permission.

8.15 The applicant was shown The Corn Exchange and the agent has provided the following comment: "Whilst they liked the accommodation and its location, HSL dismissed this property on the basis that the on-site parking provisions are insufficient. I appreciate that there are a number of public car parks nearby, however their customer base includes elderly individuals who struggle to walk any distance at all." It is the officer's view that despite the limited opportunity for allocated parking for the Corn Exchange unit, the availability of public parking provision within a short walking distance of the building must be given significant weight. There are two car parks within 50m of the site (Baffins Lane and East Pallant). Further afield there are another 3 car parks with 200m of the site. There is also short-stay parking available on Baffins Lane with a drop off/loading bay (east side of road).

8.16 The applicant was also asked to comment on 2a High Street, Selsey, currently being marketed by their commercial agent, as it is within the Settlement Boundary for Selsey and in current retail use. Their comment was, "this property was dismissed on the basis that HSL want to be in Chichester, or within a 5 mile radius of the city centre (as per the sequential test). Furthermore, Selsey is located about 10 miles to the south of Chichester, and therefore will not be considered." This appears to be contrary to the applicant's statement that singles out the need for the application site to be to the south of Chichester, "with its higher proportion of older residents" (para' 5.25, D and A statement).

8.17 The applicant has carried out a sequential test consistent with policy requirements which has identified at least one unit within the City Centre and has commented on a further unit that could be suitable within a Settlement Boundary. It is considered therefore that despite the specialised requests of the Applicant, the sequential test is in conflict with two criteria of Policy 28 of the Local Plan as it has not been demonstrated "…that no suitable site can be found, firstly within the existing town centre or, secondly, on the edge of the centre…" (criterion 2), and; "…the type of goods sold and the form of shopping unit proposed could not be conveniently accommodated within the existing shopping centre or where suitable sites and premises are not available within the centre or edge of centre sites…" (criterion 4).

8.18 Furthermore, paragraph 24 of the NPPF states that LPAs should "… require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered…". The sequential test has identified two units which are in City/Town Centres.

8.19 The reason the applicant states for the location of the site in this rural area is due to the bulky nature of the goods. However, products would only be delivered to the site every 6 months (to update the shop displays) and no items would be despatched from site following a product sale as orders are delivered directly to customer's homes. It is therefore considered that the frequency and nature of the 'bulky' products does not provide sufficient justification for a Countryside location for the unit. There are currently a number of furniture stores within the City Centre and their ongoing operation in the centre is evidence that it is practicable for operation.

8.20 Officers therefore have a fundamental objection to change of use from the existing Class A1 water related leisure products use of the application site to retail purposes when it has been demonstrated that there are other available appropriate sites in Chichester City Centre and in the Settlement Boundary of Selsey. There does not appear to be an over- riding reason why a unit within the Countryside should be permitted for what would amount to an unrestricted retail use which should be either within the city centre, the edge of centre, out of centre or within a Settlement Boundary. As such, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to paragraph 24 of the NPPF and Policies 28 and 45 of the Local Plan. Furthermore the loss of a marine related unit would be in conflict with Policy 23 of the emerging Birdham Neighbourhood Plan as the proposed use would not support tourism, marine, horticulture and agriculture in the local area as specified by the policy. iv. Access and parking provision

8.21 The development proposed would require 8 parking spaces plus a further 7/8 spaces for the existing use retained (B1), a total of 16 spaces. WSCC has acknowledged due to proposed staffing levels in the rear of the unit for B1 use, 4 spaces would be adequate, 8 spaces are still required to service the new A1 unit. The applicant has provided a further parking plan of the site which indicates provision for permitted uses on site, staff parking for unit 4 and overflow parking. Given the use of the site as a motor home showroom, historically a number of parking spaces to the south of the site have been exclusively used as parking spaces for vehicles on sale. This therefore reduces the opportunity and availability of spaces for visitors to any of the other uses on site. There does however appear to be ample parking and with the marine retail sales element relocated to Chichester Marina, boat parking which has taken place along the northern boundary would be potentially moved, still allowing parking spaces to the rear of Unit 4 for the workshop marine use. The issue of parking as cited as a reason for refusal in the previous application has, due to the additional information received, now been resolved and it is no longer considered that it could be substantiated as a reason for refusal.

8.22 Despite the provision of additional parking, the location of this retail use outside of any settlement boundary and away from the City centre, or edge of centre, would result in the dependence on car travel. Whilst the proposed number of vehicles trips is not of concern, the sustainability of the site is of concern.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

8.23 This application in principle is identical to a previously refused application, against which the appellant appealed but which in March 2016 was withdrawn from the appeal process by the appellant. Whilst the applicant has provided further information in the form of additional parking plans, a sequential test and evidence for a longer period of marketing during the consideration of this application, there is still a fundamental concern regarding the proposal for a destination retail unit in the countryside. It is noted that has a large elderly population and the applicant (HSL) has indicated this as a good location to open a further shop, specialising in furniture for this age group. The unit would also result in 5 employees, and therefore potentially some local employment. The merits of this application do not, however, outweigh the concerns of siting the unit in the Countryside, four miles from the city centre where the types of goods proposed to be sold in this application would complement those in the existing retail/city centre. It is also not considered to be an essential, small scale and local need which could not be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements. Furthermore the loss of two-thirds of this unit to furniture sales would be in conflict with the emerging Birdham Neighbourhood Plan which seeks for business to support tourism, marine, horticulture and agriculture in the plan area (Policy 23).

8.24 Based on the above it is considered the proposal is contrary to development plan policies 1, 3, 28 and 45 of the Chichester Local Plan and Paragraphs 14, 24 and 30 of the NPPF and Policies 13, 15, 22 and 23 of the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

Human Rights

8.25 In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded that the decision to refuse permission is justified and proportional to the harm that would be caused if planning permission were to be granted.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE

1 U01011 Location and sustainability of the site.

INFORMATIVES

1 W16G Decision Plans 2 W46F App Ref Following Discussion - NWF

For further information on this application please contact Rhiannon Jones on 01243 743543.