E-mail: CommitteeServices@.gov.uk

Direct line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 18TH MARCH 2014 AT 2.00pm COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman) Sheila Matthews Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur Liz Kitchen Adam Breacher Gordon Lindsay Jonathan Chowen Brian O’Connell Philip Circus Roger Paterson Roger Clarke Sue Rogers George Cockman Kate Rowbottom David Coldwell Jim Sanson Ray Dawe Diana van der Klugt Brian Donnelly Claire Vickers Jim Goddard

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18th February 2014 (attached)

3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee – any clarification on whether a Member has an interest should be sought before attending the meeting

4. To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive

5. To consider the following reports and to take such action thereon as may be necessary

Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A

Horsham District Council, Park North, Horsham, West RH12 1RL Tel: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) www.horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 Chanctonbury DC/13/2328 Land South of Nyetimber Wine, Stane Street, North Heath

A2 , DC/13/1187 Land North of The Rise, &

A3 and DC/13/1090 Nyewood Court, Brookers Road, Shipley Billingshurst

A4 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/09/2129 Capons Hill Farm, Station Road, & West Grinstead Cowfold

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

DCS140218

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 18th February 2014

Present: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Sheila Matthews (Vice- Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, Roger Clarke, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Jim Goddard, Gordon Lindsay, Brian O’Connell, Roger Paterson, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson, Diana van der Klugt, Claire Vickers

Apologies: Councillor Liz Kitchen

DCS/97 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21st January 2014 were approved as a correct record, subject to amendments to the two concluding paragraphs of item DC/13/1265, which where amended to:

‘Members discussed their concerns regarding the proposals at length, in particular: the impact of the scheme on the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area); additional pressure on local services and infrastructure; strong local opposition to the proposal; drainage and flooding issues in the light of the flooding history; and whether the application was premature, in the context of the emerging housing strategy within the Planning Framework. Members were also concerned at non-compliance with CP1 and with the need for sustainability.

‘In conclusion and after careful consideration, it was proposed that the application should be refused because the potential benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the potential harm. It was proposed that "refusal be based on non-compliance with CP1 and was contrary to Council’s policies," which was carried.’

The minutes, as amended, were approved and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/98 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Brian DC/13/2113 Personal and prejudicial – he is the O’Connell applicant

DCS/99 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/100 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/1813 Granary Barn, Wyckham Lane, Mr & Mrs Barry Robinson DC/13/1537 Ferndene, Bracken Close, Mr R McCann EN/13/0259 Walden Hall, Cowfold Road, West Mr David Bostock Grinstead DC/13/1759 Well Adjusted Health, The Sports Mr Mark Jones Pavilion, Church Lane, Ashington DC/13/1677 2 Lock Farm Cottages, Lock, Mr & Mrs Nick Partridge Green Murphy DC/13/0964 60 – 62 High Street, Steyning Ms Jess Denny

Informal Hearings

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/0827 Southway Stud, Harbolets Road, Ms Melanie Edwards DC/13/1596 Whitebridge Farm, Lane, Mrs Susie Wineham Russell-Smith

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/11/1630 Downsview (land west of), Mr K Vangelov Dismissed New Hall Lane, DC/13/1357 Little Bracken, 63a Roman Mr Alan Dismissed Road, Steyning Margodt DC/13/1604 6 Hillview, High Street, Mrs Katherine Allowed Billingshurst Charlwood

2

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/101 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2213 – REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING MOBILE HOMES WITH FOUR DETACHED BUNGALOWS AND ACCESS (OUTLINE) SITE: OAKLANDS, HONEYBRIDGE LANE, APPLICANT: MR G JOHNSON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for four detached bungalows. Matters for consideration under this outline application were the principle of the development and access, with all other matters reserved for future determination. The bungalows were to replace three mobile homes, which were used by the applicant’s family.

The application site was currently a Gypsy site and the mobile homes had been permitted due to the Gypsy status of the applicant’s family. It was outside the built-up area to the west of Grinders Lane. Old Barn Nurseries garden centre was to the north and west of the site.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5 and CP16; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC9, DC28 and DC32; the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTAA); and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/13/1673 Replacement of existing mobile homes Refused with four detached bungalows and access (outline) WG/24/00 Replacement mobile home and shed Granted WG/50/92 The stationing of three caravans Granted WG/49/91 Construction of bungalow and access Refused Appeal Dismissed WG/52/82 Renewal of temporary permission Granted WG/41/79 WG/8/80 Stationing of a caravan site Appeal Allowed WG/41/79 Temporary stationing of a caravan 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. Fourteen letters of support had been received. One member of the public spoke in support of the application and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

3

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/101 Planning Application: DC/13/2213 (Cont.)

Members considered the principle of the development and noted that the existing mobile homes had been permitted in the countryside location as an exception to countryside policy due to the Gypsy status of the applicant. The site was therefore potentially suitable for traveller site development that would provide three pitches which would help fulfil the current backlog of unmet need.

Members discussed the impact of the proposal on the character of the rural setting. Whilst local support for the proposal was noted, Members considered that the location was unsustainable and inappropriate for permanent housing.

Members concluded that the proposal would lead to unsustainable overdevelopment of the site and to the loss of needed Gypsy accommodation.

Members therefore agreed that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/2213 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development would result in the loss of Gypsy accommodation for which there is an acknowledged need and which outweighs the development of housing in this unsustainable location. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy DC32 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and policy CP16 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).

02 The proposed development of four detached bungalows would result in an over development of the site in an unsustainable location which would fail to protect or enhance the character of this rural area by virtue of the cramped form and layout which would impact on the visual amenity and rural character of the locality. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1, DC2 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007, and Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007.

4

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/102 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1492 – CHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO AN AGRICULTURAL AND CLASS D1 USE TO ENABLE PROVISION OF A EARLY YEARS NURSERY SITE: PEAR TREE FARM, WEST CHILTINGTON LANE, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MRS TRACEY POULTON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for a change of use from agriculture to a mixed agricultural/ D1 use to allow for an Early Years Nursery which would provide for up to 35 children at any one time. The proposed nursery would focus on learning through nature and wildlife and operate on various parts of the land depending on the weather and time of year.

The accommodation for the proposed nursery would be provided within timber ‘cabans’ which were non-permanent structures designed to take three hours to erect and one and a half hours to dismantle. They would be circular with a diameter of approximately five metres and a maximum height of approximately 2.5 metres.

A car parking area for 20 vehicles would be provided at the south east entrance to the site, parallel to the existing drive, using permeable paving blocks, with a further six parking spaces for staff. The access track would be widened to six metres.

The nursery would operate five days a week (Monday to Friday) from 07:30 and 18:00, with traffic flows distributed throughout the day with peak flows in the morning and evening.

The application site was located outside the built up area in a area characterised by open fields and field hedging. Pear Tree Farm was a Grade II listed building, and there were two listed barns. There were a number of public footpaths running through the site and an area of Ancient Woodland on the western edge.

The access off the western side of West Chiltington Lane served Pear Tree Farm and a barn which had permission for conversion into a dwelling. A wind turbine and solar panels were in the field to the east of the main dwelling and a poly tunnel in the field to the north east.

The nearest properties were to the south of the site, and to the west and northwest. The Category 2 settlement of was approximately 2.2 kilometres from the application site by car, and Billingshurst (Category 1 settlement) was approximately 4.5 kilometres from the site by car.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP14, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2,

5

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/102 Planning Application: DC/13/1492 (Cont.)

DC6, DC9, DC13, DC23 and DC40; and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history predominantly relating to the listed building and and barns included:

DC/10/0346 Two storey link extension with single Granted storey storage building and construction of new access drive and garage DC/10/0347 Two storey link extension with single Granted storey storage building and construction of new access drive and garage (Listed Building Consent) DC/09/2268 Repairs, alterations and change of use of Granted redundant listed agricultural barn for residential purposes DC/09/2310 Repairs, alterations and change of use of Granted redundant listed agricultural barn for residential purposes (Listed Building Consent) DC/10/2427 Installation of 16 solar panels, 1 wind Allowed on turbine and battery store appeal

DC/11/1248 Erection of 12 solar panels and Granted retrospective planning for the erection of a building used as a battery store and 4 solar panels DC/11/0639 Erection of a poly tunnel (Agricultural Prior Not required Approval)

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was reported at the meeting that the Highway Authority raised no objection subject to the relocation of the disabled parking bays to the parking area. Comments from Ofsted had not been received and were awaited by officers.

The Parish Council supported the application. Six letters of objection from five addresses had been received. Three members of the public spoke in support of the application and a representative of the Parish Council spoke in support of the proposal.

During the course of the application, amendments had been made to reduce the impact of the proposal on the countryside location. The areas where the cabans would be located had been reduced to limit their impact. It was noted that the trees along the access, which would be widened, should be retained and this would be controlled by condition.

6

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/102 Planning Application: DC/13/1492 (Cont.)

Members considered the principle of the development and its effect on the character of the area and neighbouring occupiers. Members considered that the proposal would support the local community and rural economy by providing up to 35 Nursery places and employing thirteen members of staff.

It was confirmed that the Public Health & Licensing department had been in contact with the applicant regarding washing and changing facilities to prevent contamination from animals. The need for a Management Plan for the day to day operation of the nursery was discussed.

Members welcomed the learning through nature principles of the nursery and considered that the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the potential harm and agreed that the proposal was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/1492 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with local Members, for the framing of additional conditions regarding: the retention of the trees along the access drive and controlling works under their canopies; the receipt of a Management Plan for the day to day operation of the nursery, to include a travel plan; and the submission of a plan showing the relocation of the disabled car parking spaces. The preliminary view of the Committee was that permission should be granted.

DCS/103 PLANNING APPLICATION: SDNP/13/05646/FUL – CHANGE OF USE FROM B1 (BUSINESS) TO C3 (DWELLINGS) INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL UNITS AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WITH THE ERECTION OF 2 NO. DETACHED HOUSES, GARAGES AND ASSOCIATED WORKS SITE: ENTERPRISE HOUSE, HORTON HILL, ROAD, SMALL DOLE APPLICANT: MR CHRISTOPHER BOARDMAN (NEW PLACE INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the change of use from B1 (business) to C3 (dwellings) and the demolition of two unoccupied commercial units and erection of two detached houses and garages within two plots each measuring 70 metres by 70 metres. The dwelling on plot 1 would be 16.4 metres by 15.4 metres and have a ridge height of 7.6 metres. The dwelling on plot 2 would be 31.5 metres by 12.6 metres with a flat roof 3.2 metres high. Both would have detached garages with office space above. A comprehensive landscaping scheme was included in the proposal.

7

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/103 Planning Application: SDNP/13/05646/FUL (Cont.)

The application site was located within the South Downs National Park in a countryside location. There were fir trees long the northern section of the western boundary, which would be removed, and there were far reaching views along the rest of the western boundary, where the land dropped away from the site. The site was situated in an elevated position in relation to a public footpath which ran to the north and west of the site.

The unoccupied buildings were low rise industrial buildings. One was located close to the entrance of the site and comprised a number of offices and workshop areas. The other building had been partly refurbished and had been occupied by Dragons of Walton Street until January 2012.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5 and CP15; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC18, DC19, DC30 and DC40; South Downs Management Plan 2008 – 13; South Downs Partnership Management Plan 2014 – 2019; DEFRA’s ‘English National Parks and The Broads’ Circular March 2010; and the Environment Act 1995 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

UB/15/58 Change of use of an agricultural building Granted for livestock to therapeutic purposes UB/17/58 Monkey holding unit for therapeutic Granted purposes UB/25/98 Re-cladding of a building Granted DC/05/1225 Telecommunications installation consisting Granted of one pole mounted tri-corner antenna unit and various internal equipment DC/11/1878 Demolition of the existing commercial units Refused and redevelopment of the site for 4 Appeal detached houses, garages and associated Dismissed works DC/12/0528 Change of use from B1 (Business) to C3 Refused (Dwellings) including the demolition of the existing commercial units and redevelopment of the site for 3 detached houses, garages and associated works SDNP/13/ Change of use from B1 (office) to C3 Withdrawn 03314/FUL (residential) including the demolition of the existing commercial buildings and the redevelopment of the site with the erection of 2 no. detached houses, garages and associated works

8

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/103 Planning Application: SDNP/13/05646/FUL (Cont.)

The Inspector’s grounds for dismissing the appeal of application DC/11/1878 were noted.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Highways Authority had considered that the proposal would not lead to a material increase in traffic movements and raised no highway objection. They requested contributions of £1,069 should the application be granted. One letter of support had been received. The South Downs Society had objected to the proposal. The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the principle of the development and its effect on the visual amenities and character of the area. The dwellings would be outside the built up area and within the national park and would fail to meet the sustainable development criteria required under Planning Policy DC1.

Members discussed the commercial viability of the site and noted that it was considered unlikely to attract commercial tenants and was therefore currently of no benefit to the rural economy.

Members discussed the brownfield site and the visual impact of the existing two unused commercial buildings on the surrounding area. Whilst the proposal would remove the buildings which were considered commercially unviable, this was not considered sufficient justification to change the site to residential use.

Members discussed the impact of the proposal on the scenic quality of the surrounding landscape within the national park.

Whilst the proposal would contribute towards the district’s housing shortfall, the proposed housing would not meet a specific local need or benefit the rural community. Members were concerned that allowing the proposal could set a precedent regarding the conversion of non-residential rural buildings to residential use, with the loss of brownfield sites connected with agriculture and the rural economy.

Having taken all material considerations into account, Members considered that the proposal did not address a local need and, on balance, the potential benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the potential harm, in particular with regards to granting permission contrary to planning policies designed to protect the rural landscape and support specific local needs.

9

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/103 Planning Application: SDNP/13/05646/FUL (Cont.)

RESOLVED

That application SDNP/13/05646/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

01 The site lies in a rural area, outside the limits of any existing town or village and the proposed residential development is not considered essential to this rural location being unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry or the extraction of minerals, if permitted, would consolidate an undesirable element of sporadic development in a rural area which would result in visual intrusion into the countryside to the detriment of the rural character of the area and the South Downs National Park. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1, DC2 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007, Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007 & the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

02 The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the development would meet specific local needs on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified local requirements for housing including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services and the extent to which the addition of new development would not reinforce unsustainable patterns. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies CP5, CP12 & CP15 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

DCS/104 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2301 – ERECTION OF A TRIPLE GARAGE AND COVERED LINK SITE: RAMBLEDOWN COURT, RAMBLEDOWN LANE, WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MR AND MRS GOSWELL

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a triple garage 11.4 metres wide and 6.5 metres deep with a link to the southern elevation of Rambledown Court. The proposal would have a maximum height of 4.5 metres. The link would be approximately three metres wide and contain a log store; it would not give access to the house. The proposed building would be constructed in materials to match the main dwelling with roller

10

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/104 Planning Application: DC/13/2301 (Cont.)

shutter doors on the garage bays and gates on the front of the proposed link. The garage would be approximately 5.8 metres from the southern boundary of the site, and approximately ten metres from the road at its closest point.

The application site was located within the built up area of West Chiltington boundary and West Chiltington Common Character Area and was surrounded by dwellings, with the general street scene made up of properties of varying designs and plots of varying sizes. Planning permission had been granted under DC/13/0313 for extensions to the existing large single storey dwelling, which were currently being constructed. The applicant was living in a caravan on site while these works took place.

The house was to the north of the site with the main garden to the south and west. There was an area of hardstanding for parking to the east.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC15; and the Horsham District Council Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/12/2076 Demolition of existing bungalow and Refused erection of single detached dwelling and erection of further detached dwelling on plot 7 pursuant to extant consent WC/15/61 DC/13/0313 Extension to all elevations of existing Granted property with associated alterations and re-pitching of roof DC/13/0914 Approval of Reserved Matters relating to Pending appearance, landscaping, layout and Consideration scale following Outline permission WC/15/61 (Layout of 15 Plots and Estate road) for the erection of a detached bungalow on Plot 7 DC/13/1859 Erection of garage and pool room Refused (Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development) DC/13/2308 Sun/pool room (Lawful Development Granted Certificate)

11

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/104 Planning Application: DC/13/2301 (Cont.)

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions regarding soakaways and the removal of any permitted development rights. Seven letters of objection, from six addresses, and one letter of comment had been received.

Members considered the design and scale of the proposal, and its impact on the streetscene. It was noted that a condition restricting use of the garages to parking would be included.

Members noted the large size of the plot and considered that the proposal would not represent over development and, on balance, would relate sympathetically to its surroundings.

The garage block would be single storey and fifteen metres to the nearest dwelling house. Whilst concerns regarding the proposal’s impact on the streetscene were noted, Members considered that it would not cause material harm to the amenity of nearby occupiers.

Members concluded that the proposal would be in keeping with the existing building and, whilst visible from the highway, would not have a material impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Members therefore agreed that the proposal was acceptable.

With regards to surface water run-off issues, it was confirmed that a condition regarding the installation of a suitable soak away from the garage roof would be included.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/2301be granted subject to the following conditions, and an additional condition to secure appropriate measures to manage water run-off from the garage roof:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

02 The materials and finishes of all new external walls and roofs of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour and texture those of the existing dwelling house.

03 The garage hereby approved shall be used for parking purposes only and for no other purpose.

12

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/104 Planning Application: DC/13/2301 (Cont.)

REASON

The proposal would sit comfortably on the plot and relate well to the existing dwelling. Given the separation distances to neighbouring properties the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal therefore meets the aims of policy DC9.

DCS/105 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2113 – FORMATION OF A NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR SAKE RIDE FARM AND ERECTION OF NEW ENTRANCE GATES SITE: SAKE RIDE FARM, WINEHAM LANE, WINEHAM, HENFIELD APPLICANT: MR BRIAN O’CONNELL (Councillor Brian O’Connell 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 the item.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission to create a new vehicular access road off Wineham Lane, a classified public highway. The new driveway would be south of the existing access drive, which currently serves both Sake Ride Farm and the neighbouring residential property known as 'The Diary'.

The original driveway would continue to serve 'The Dairy' and would be widened to four metres, which would widen into an enlarged turning space. The new driveway would serve Sake Ride Farm and be four metres wide, with a timer post and rail fence overlooking farmland to the south.

There would be a landscaped island about four metres wide between the two driveways and a pair of inward-opening entrance gates for each property, set about nine metres from the edge of the roadway. The proposed gates would allow a vehicle to stop clear of the highway whilst the gates were opened.

The application site was located outside any defined built up area on the western side of Wineham Lane and comprised a new-build bungalow called 'The Dairy', and the original buildings known as 'Sake Ride Farm'.

Both properties were currently served by one track. The site joined the public highway by a grassed verge, drainage ditch and a high, dense hedge.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC28 and DC40; and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

13

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/105 Planning Application: DC/13/2113 (Cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

DC/09/1896 Change of use of two buildings to indoor Withdrawn stables and indoor turn out area, retention of sand school, livery use and amend Condition 7 on Consent SH/10/93 (agricultural occupancy condition) to include a person working in equestrian employment. DC/11/2378 Conversion of building to a dwelling house Granted (Certificate of Lawful Development) DC/12/0599 Non compliance of condition 7 of consent Granted SH/10/93 - Agricultural occupancy condition (Certificate of Lawful Development - Existing) DC/13/0200 Erection of a homeworking office Granted

The response from County Highway Authority was considered by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. No letters of representation had been received.

Members noted the current issues arising from shared use of one driveway and how these would be addressed by the proposal.

Members considered the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would result in the loss of about five metres of mixed hedging along the street-facing boundary, in order to create the second vehicular access, and the hedge would also need to be trimmed back to allow for safe visibility splays. In the wider context of the site, this loss was considered acceptable.

The additional entrance would be adjacent to the existing one and would not lead to a material increase in traffic movements. Members noted that the Highway Authority had raised no objections and a condition would ensure that visibility splays were implemented prior to first use.

Members concluded that there would be no adverse impact on the character of the area or on highway safety and the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/2113 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 – Full Permission 02 H1 – Visibility splays to be implemented prior to first use of approved access

14

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

DCS/105 Planning Application: DC/13/2113 (Cont.)

03 M1 – Approval of gate details 04 Development to be in accordance with approved plans

REASON

The proposal is in accordance with policies CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character and CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development.

The proposal is in accordance with General Development Control Policy DC9: Development Principles.

The proposal is in accordance with policy DC40 in providing a safe vehicular access to the existing highway network.

The meeting closed at 3.50pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

15

Development Control (South) Committee 18th February 2014

16

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 18TH MARCH 2014 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS

1. Appeals Lodged

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/13/1614 Proposed new dwelling. Roundabout Hotel, Monkmead Lane, West Chiltington, , West Sussex, RH20 2PF. For: Mr Chris Chapman

DC/13/0984 Demolition of derelict glass housing and removal of former car park and the erection of two detached dwellings with access off Littleworth Lane. Abbots Lea, Littleworth Lane, Partridge Green, Horsham, RH13 8JF. For: Mr and Mrs William Cotton

DC/13/1972 Proposed new driveway, retaining walls and new vehicular crossover. 2 Glenthorne, Henfield Road, Cowfold, Horsham, RH13 8DR. For: Ms Hayley Rich

DC/13/1929 Replacement of existing triple bay garage with a detached triple bay oak framed garage with storage room above and to side. Gallina, Gay Street Lane, North Heath, Pulborough, West Sussex, RH20 2HW. For: Mr Nicholas Overton-Smith

3. Informal Hearings

DC/13/1674 Replacement of existing mobile home with new dwelling and garage (revised application). Marnor, West End Lane, Henfield, West Sussex, BN5 9RE. For: Mr and Mrs Ron Richardson

4. Appeal Decisions

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:-

DC/13/1537 Detached annexe. Ferndene, Bracken Close, Storrington, Pulborough, West Sussex, RH20 3HT. For: Mr R McCann Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/13/1813 Proposed side extension and front porch. Granary Barn, Wyckham Lane, Steyning, West Sussex, BN44 3YW. For: Mr and Mrs Barry Robinson Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/12/2378 Erection of a four-bedroom dwelling on a former paddock. Land South of The Chase, Mill Lane, Partridge Green, West Sussex. For: Delcraven Ltd Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/1759 Consent to display metal sign on metal pole with name of business and directional arrow. Well Adjusted Health, The Sports Pavilion, Church Lane, Ashington, Pulborough, West Sussex, RH20 3JY. For: Mr Mark Jones Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/1681 Replacement of old windows with new PVCu alternatives. Tunsgate, Jarvis Lane, Steyning, West Sussex. For: Mr Michael Bissett-Powell Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th March 2014 To relocate brewery from Horsham to Brinsbury College campus involving the erection of buildings, the forming of parking and turning DEVELOPMENT: areas and security fencing, upgrade of the existing field access, provision of reed bed system for waste water, solar panels and landscaping SITE: Land South of Nyetimber Wine, Stane Street, Pulborough, West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/13/2328 APPLICANT: Hepworth & Co Brewers Ltd and

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Application

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate the application for approval subject to the expiry of the departure notice on 3rd April 2014 and completion of a legal agreement securing contributions towards transport infrastructure.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission to erect a new Brewery for Hepworth and Co on land that is currently part of Brinsbury College. The application involves the erection of two brewery buildings in the north west corner of the field. The first would be used as a shop / visitor centre, toilets, offices and three auxillary brewery rooms. The second building would be used for the brewery, packaging and warehouse. A small utility building, a malt silo, liquor and CO2 tanks would be erected between the two main buildings.

1.2 The visitor centre building would measure 47m in width by 16m and 12.5m in depth and would have a ridge height of 7m. The visitor centre element of the building would be clad in timber over metal cladding. The rest of the building and the roof would be clad in olive green profiled metal cladding. The brewery building would measure 72m by 25.4m and would have a ridge height of 8m. This building would be clad in olive green profiled metal cladding to the walls and roof and solar panels would also be installed on the roof.

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

1.3 The application also proposes the creation of a reed bed which would be located 140 metres from the brewery buildings in the south east corner of the field. The reed bed area would measure 49m by 41m and would provide 10 reed beds, together with a final pool and willow bank. The reed bed facility would be surrounded by a post and rail fence.

1.4 A parking area for 18 visitors would be sited to the front of the visitor centre and 25 spaces for staff parking would be sited to the rear of the visitor centre. An up graded access would be created which would serve the brewery from Stane Street and would give access to the visitor parking, staff parking and the goods entrance for the brewery. The site would be surrounded by security fencing which would then be surrounded by native hedge planting and some larger trees. The company known as ‘Architectural Plants’ is sited on the western side of Stane Street.

1.5 The hours that the brewery would operate would be from 6am to 10pm. Two shift patterns would operate from 6am – 2pm and 2pm – 10pm with offices operating from 7.30am to 7pm. The shop/visitor centre would be open 7 days a week, Monday – Saturday 9am – 8pm and Sundays & Bank Holidays 10am – 8pm. Deliveries would operate between 7am – 7pm everyday. Brewery tours would take place between 9am and 8pm Monday to Saturday.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The site is located within a countryside location and is part of Brinsbury College Campus. The land is currently used to graze horses kept at the college. The site is located to the north of the main campus and is sited on the eastern side of Stane Street. To the north of the site is open pasture, the railway line runs along the eastern boundary of the site, the land to the south is open pasture used to graze horses and there is a native hedgerow with mature oak trees sporadically dotted along the western boundary bordering Stane Street.

1.7 There is currently an access track that runs from Stane Street along the northern side of the application site over the railway line to the east. There is also a single track that runs parallel with Stane Street from the college campus up to the application site to the east of the hedgerow.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

Paragraph 18 states “The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.”

Paragraph 19 states “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.” APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

Paragraph 28 states “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

 Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;

 Promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;

 Support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.”

Paragraph 109 states “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils”

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007) – CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality) & CP15 (Rural Strategy).

2.4 Local Development Framework (GDCP 2007) – DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC9 (Development Principles), DC25 (Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites / Intensification of Uses), DC26 (Replacement Buildings for Commercial Uses in the Countryside), DC39 (Tourism) & DC40 (Transport & Access).

2.5 Site Specific Allocations of Land 2007 – Policy AL15 (Centre of Rural Excellence at Brinsbury).

2.6 Brinsbury Centre of Rural Excellence – Supplementary Planning Document 2009.

PLANNING HISTORY

PL/108/95 Construction and operation of green waste composting WDN facility Site: Brinsbury College Of Agriculture North Heath

DC/09/0266 Erection of a new winery and finishing building, security WDN lodge, access, parking and landscaping (Land north East of Chichester College Brinsbury Campus and north of Ashton Park School)

DC/10/0284 Erection of a new winery and finishing building, security PER lodge, access, parking and landscaping (Land north East of Chichester College Brinsbury Campus and north of Ashton Park School)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal and external consultation, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Landscape Architect has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

1. “The development due to its location and siting in open countryside will be perceived as an isolated development substantially unrelated to the existing built form of Brinsbury college and furthermore will be 'read' as essentially industrial development, bearing in mind the character of the buildings, associated parking, security fences and lighting. (It should be noted development that approved for Architectural Plants on the other side of the A29 at least had the advantage of buildings being set back from the main road, within a more generous well landscaped setting. Similarly, the previous Nyetimber proposals to the north.

2. Although some tree and hedge planting around the building has now been proposed this is still very limited in its extent, and is likely at least in the short term more to draw attention to the building rather than to integrate it, especially in the absence of more substantial strategic landscape proposals to integrate it with the rest of the campus.

3. The reed beds due to their regular shape and form will not integrate naturally into the landscape and are likely to require fencing- no hedgerow planting has been proposed to assist in their integration.

4. As such significant adverse landscape and visual harm will result and the buildings are likely to be particularly prominent from the A29 itself, the railway and from some public rights of way on higher land to the south.

The proposals are therefore considered wholly contrary to:

 NPPF policies relating to the third key dimension of Sustainable development -namely protecting and enhancing our natural environment, of which landscape forms a part, and those requiring good design, including para 64 which is a restrictive policy  Local Plan policies CP1, DC1, DC2, DC9 and the Brinsbury SPD”

3.2 Public Health & Licensing have no objections in principle to these proposals subject to conditions.

3.3 Arboricultural Officer has no objection

3.4 Economic Development has commented that the approval of this planning application will enable:

 The retention of a business which started and has grown within the Horsham District.  The retention of 28 jobs within the Horsham District with further jobs projected.  This business to reach its fullest potential in a new facility which meets the requirements of its major customers. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5

The retention and expansion of this company also supports internationalisation and business growth – the two key themes of Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 Natural has commented that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites.

3.6 The Highway Authority has no objection to the application. The applicants have provided an up-to-date road safety audit and a travel plan statement. The audit does not raise any issues which are not agreed by the applicants’ consultants. The travel plan generally accords with the County Council’s requirements. It would be expected that a final travel plan would be submitted before occupation of the completed development. In order to implement the proposed access junction to Stane Street, the applicants would need to enter an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. The Highway Authority has requested a TAD contribution of £41,314.

3.7 Environment Agency has no objections in principle.

3.8 WSCC Ecology has no objection.

3.9 WSCC Archaeology has no objection subject to suitable mitigation measures to ensure the observation, recording and reporting of buried ancient heritage assets exposed during ground excavations within the proposed new reed bed and highway access footprints.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.10 West Chiltington Parish Council has no objections subject to adequate landscaping.

3.11 Pulborough Parish Council has stated that whilst members do not object to the plans for the facility itself, they object to the siting of the building within the greenfield area and would prefer to see it located closer to the built up area of the Brinsbury Campus. Furthermore, Members raised concern over the new access to the site and the impact on safety on this already busy and fast stretch of the A29. Members questioned whether the access to the new brewery could be combined with the existing access points to neighbouring facilities to minimise these affects.

3.12 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further representations received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be:

1) the principle of the development & link to Chichester College, 2) economic benefits; 3) the visual impact of the development; 4) the design and scale of the development; 5) access, traffic levels, parking & highway safety; 6) Residential amenity 7) Sustainability

Principle of Development & Link to Chichester College

6.2 Paragraph 28 of the NPPF 2012 states that “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.”

6.3 The application site is located within a countryside location where generally new development is restricted in order to preserve the countryside for its own sake. However, the site is part of Chichester College (Brinsbury Campus) which has its own Policy and Supplementary Planning Document.

6.4 The application is a departure from policy as the proposal does not fall to be determined under a particular policy. Planning permission has been granted for a Winery on land north of the site which has set the precedent for developing this application site. Brinsbury Campus has its own policy (Policy AL15 - Centre of Rural Excellence at Brinsbury) which is within the Site Specific Allocations of Land 2007. This policy states that “Development in support of the expansion and enhancement of Chichester College Brinsbury Campus as a Centre of Rural Excellence will be permitted solely in order to ensure the Campus financial and educational viability for rural land-based education and provided any proposals meet the following requirements:

a) Careful siting and design of all buildings and associated facilities; b) The introduction of sustainable transport systems linked in with the Campus; c) Appropriate access provision from the A29; d) Compliance with the financial and educational viability tests as set out in a supplementary planning document; e) An archaeological investigation of the site for any proposals for development adjoining Stane Street; and f) A specific flood risk assessment to refine the need for open space provision only alongside the watercourse running through the site (which is within Flood Zones 2 and 3) and to identify the requirement for Sustainable Drainage Systems.”

6.5 Brinsbury College is an agricultural college and it is acknowledged that the brewery use is not directly related to agriculture. However, Hepworth Brewery in conjunction with Chichester College Brinsbury Campus expect to develop an apprenticeship for the brewing and packaging of beer. The agent states that there are training courses for technical brewers but there is a lack of training courses for general brewery staff being employed in the micro / local brewery sector. The brewery would be able to provide some space, a APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7

wide variety of styles of beer and equipment on which to train staff. Although Hepworth & Co and Chichester College do not have any official agreement to create an apprenticeship in brewing and packaging beer, they do aim to create such a course for the benefit of students and the College which would accord with the Test of Appropriateness 1 in the SPD.

6.6 Policy DC25 states “Proposals for development which delivers economic benefits to the rural area, and extension of existing commercial sites outside the defined built up areas will be permitted where it relates to the needs of the rural local economy and in the case of company relocation the Council is also satisfied that the proposal constitutes the relocation of a currently badly sited use.” It is considered that although the brewery is not a rural land based operation, the proposal would deliver economic benefits to the rural area by providing jobs for rural people and would enable the relocation of the brewery to a site that would be more suited for the proposed use and would enable the expansion of the business.

Economic Benefits

6.7 By way of background, the existing Hepworth Brewery site in Horsham is to be redeveloped and Hepworth’s have been searching for a site since mid 2011. The applicant had a number of operational needs which include ample water supply and drainage, not too close to housing and a desire to build a brewery that was much more carbon efficient. Various options have been considered by the applicant including converting an existing building but the applicant states that this would require such extensive works that it made the development unviable.

6.8 Alternative sites have been considered namely a plot at Tilgate Business Park of 1.9 acres but due to its position in an ancient forest only 1.3 acres was usable. The Old Flint unit in was considered but this site was bought before an offer could be made. Unit 1, Thornhill Court in Billingshurst did not have enough space for future expansion and housing was too close. Tiseck Estate near Burgess Hill was considered but this was too big and too expensive and finally a site off the by-pass was considered but needed extensive work and would have pushed the rental too high to be affordable.

6.9 Hepworth’s buy barley from West Marden Farms and organic barley from The Goodwood Estate in West Sussex and the hops come from C & G Daws of Bodiam. The spent malt goes to Livertons Farm in Southwater and Bargmans Organic Farm in . Hepworth’s deliver produce within a 40 mile radius excluding exports to large multiple retailers on a regional basis and Marks & Spencer on a national basis with the Sussex Golden Ale. Hepworth has won ‘Best Drinks Producer’ in the ‘Taste of Sussex’ twice, local and Southern ‘Manufacturer of the Year’ 2013.

6.10 Hepworth & Co currently employ 28 staff, 20 full time and 8 part time, 26 members of staff reside in the Horsham District. Hepworth’s has achieved many accolades since 2000, including – Sussex Drink Producer of the year in the Annual Sussex Food & Drink Awards, 2008, 2010 and 2014.

6.11 HDC supports the Federation of Small Businesses, (FSB), initiative - 'Keep it Local' - promoting local purchasing by businesses and consumers, a key part of HDC's Microbiz and Horsham District Food & Drink Festivals annual events. By purchasing from local suppliers, profits and jobs are retained locally.

6.12 In 2010 Brinsbury College became The Centre of Excellence for regional food and drink and has made enormous progress creating links and networks with local food and drink producers in Sussex. The Economic Development Department have stated that the long term goal of the Brinsbury Campus is to become a hub for local producers to help them to APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

expand, as well as providing the necessary business related training to enable them to be accredited suppliers. Their new initiative ‘The Routes to Market Handbook’, created in conjunction with The Co-operative Group provides a wealth of information and advice for food and drink producers.

6.13 Test 3 of Appropriateness within the SPD states that “Development should, where possible, contribute to the District’s Rural Strategy and objectives.” The Horsham District Economic Strategy 2013 – 2023 states:

“The Vision: Create a prosperous and resilient Horsham District economy, by using our economic strengths to attract new investment, while growing and retaining our existing businesses, in order to improve local employment opportunities and quality of life for all.”

The National Planning Policy Framework supports economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and support sustainable development. This specifically includes the expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas, including the development of well designed new buildings.

Economic Development has been identified as the Council's top District priority, underpinned by - 'Plan for a successful local economy with high levels of employment'. It recognises that if the economy works - with people having jobs, that this sustains a good quality of life for all. The Economic Development Strategy 2013-23, sets out a vision and a framework for the development of the economy over ten years to 2023.

The Economic Strategy identifies the top 2 priorities as:

1: Plan and allocate new employment and housing land to provide maximum benefit to both local residents and long term economic prosperity.

2: Attract high growth businesses, while supporting new and existing businesses to grow and prosper.

6.14 It is considered that the proposal and method of operation accord with the requirements of the Districts Rural Strategy.

Visual Impact of Development

6.15 The development would be sited approximately 200 metres north of the existing buildings on the eastern side of the Brinsbury Campus. The site is located between two existing open fields which are bordered by the A29 Stane Street to the west and the railway line to the east. The site is within a prominent rural location and could be considered as sporadic development in the countryside. However, Chichester College has earmarked the field to the north of the site for business development which would be associated with the development of the college. This land was granted planning permission for the erection of Nyetimber Winery under reference DC/10/0284 in May 2010, however this development was not built and the permission has since expired.

6.16 The Landscape Architect was consulted on the proposal and objects on the following grounds:

 The location and siting of the development in open countryside;  The industrial appearance of the buildings with security fencing and lighting;  The hedge and tree planting proposed is still limited; APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9

 The reed beds are a regular shape and will not integrate into the landscape. No hedgerow planting has been proposed around the reed beds;  The buildings will be highly prominent within the landscape and from views from the A29 and the railway line.

The landscape architect has suggested that the minimum recommendations to make the development acceptable would be:

 Clad both buildings in timber to respond to the rural character of the area;  Ensure the security fencing is screened by hedging;  Require a Landscape Strategy for the whole field including the proposed reed bed;  Ensure that cut off lanterns are used to prevent light spillage into the countryside.

6.17 Officers have worked closely with the applicant, agent and Chichester College in order to find a resolution in order to retain Hepworth Brewery within the District. Chichester College have agreed to draw up a Master Plan together with the Council’s Policy Team which would highlight areas of the college that could possibly take future built development. The area outlined by the College at this stage is the land to the north of the application site. It is acknowledged that the siting of the brewery would be on a very exposed parcel of land with no other existing built form in close proximity. However, the applicants have agreed to re- site the buildings slightly further away from the access and to plant a native hedge and semi-mature trees around the periphery of the site in order to mitigate against the visual impacts on the surrounding countryside to accord with Test 2 of appropriateness within the SPD.

6.18 Given the identified harm in terms of visual impact, it is considered substantial landscaping and screening should be undertaken around the periphery of the site in order to try and integrate the development into the landscape and this mitigation could be secured by condition.

Design & Scale of the Development

6.19 Policy DC25 (Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites / Intensification of Uses) states that “Proposals for development which delivers economic benefits to the rural area, and extension of existing commercial sites outside the defined built up areas will be permitted where it relates to the needs of the rural local economy and in the case of company relocation the Council is also satisfied that the proposal constitutes the relocation of a currently badly sited use.”

The above policy is of relevance to the proposal. Although the development does not involve the demolition of any existing buildings on the application site, the proposal would replace Hepworth Brewery’s existing premises which are in Horsham. It is considered that the brewery would be compatible with a countryside location as the business cannot operate within close proximity to residential accommodation. The proposed building is considered by Officers to be in a fairly prominent and exposed part of the field being approximately 200 metres away from the main campus buildings. There would be an increase in the level of activity from the application site given that the field is currently used to graze horses.

6.20 The visitor centre building would measure 47m in width by 16m and 12.5m in depth and would have a ridge height of 7m. The visitor centre element of the building would be clad in timber over green metal cladding. The rest of the building and the roof would be clad in olive green profiled metal cladding. The brewery building would measure 72m by 25.4m and would have a ridge height of 8m. This building would be clad in olive green profiled metal cladding to the walls and roof and solar panels would also be installed on the roof. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10

Officers had requested that both the buildings be totally timber clad over metal sheeting, however the applicant has been reluctant to do this due to the financial cost of the timber cladding. The amended plans show that two sides of the front visitor centre building are proposed to be timber clad and the rest of the buildings would be metal clad. This is disappointing given the sites prominent location within a rural location. It is considered that the timber cladding would soften the visual impact of the structures given that the buildings would be within close proximity to the A29 and would be highly visible from the railway line and the road. Part a of Policy AL15 states that proposals should be “carefully sited and designed” and the last part of the policy states that “development should reflect the rural location of the Brinsbury Campus” and “development should not detract from the rural environment and should include provision for landscape enhancement.”

6.21 It is considered that the buildings are large in scale but the applicant has stated that by the nature of the linear process of beer making the rear building needs to be 72m in length. The front building incorporates a shop and visitor centre with a floor area of 90 square metres. A condition is proposed to control the floor area of the shop and visitor centre. The front building would have a lower ridge height than the rear building which would reduce the bulk and massing of the front building and thereby reduce the prominence of the proposed development within the street scene. Therefore, it is considered that the buildings are as small as they can be for the use proposed.

Access, traffic levels, parking & highway safety

6.22 The Highway Authority has been consulted as part of the application process and has no objection to the application. The applicants have provided an up-to-date road safety audit and a travel plan statement. The audit does not raise any issues which are not agreed by the applicants’ consultants. The travel plan generally accords with the County Council’s requirements. Therefore it is considered that the development accords with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

6.23 West Sussex Highway Authority has requested contributions of £41,314 for use towards the creation of bus stops at Brinsbury Campus so that transport links to Pulborough and Billingshurst can be improved for students. This would be subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the monies.

Residential Amenity

6.24 It is acknowledged that breweries produce odour from hops and malt. The odours are caused by boiling of hops in sweet wort a sugar solution derived from mashing the malt. This happens for between 1 and 1 ½ hours per brew which occur 3 to 4 times per week. Usually at most breweries between 5 and 10% of the wort is evaporated and volatile components derived from the malt and hops are discharged with the steam. However, Hepworth & Co have designed their boiling vessel to be fully enclosed. The benefits of the system are both to decrease the energy required, decrease the time it takes to boil and contains the odours. The applicant has submitted odour control measures and Public Health has been consulted on the information submitted. They have no objections subject to a condition requiring the applicant to adhere to the odour control measures.

Sustainability

6.25 The site is not within the most sustainable location being sited within a countryside location. However, the site would be located on the A29 which is a main transport route in the area. The Highway Authority has requested that a condition be attached requiring the applicant to submit a Travel Plan Statement in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and in general accordance with West Sussex County Council guidance on travel plans. The applicant would be required to implement APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11

the approved travel plan and thereafter maintain and develop the travel plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Conclusion

6.26 In summary, the proposal is considered to be a departure from policy, however the economic benefits of the proposal need to be weighed against the visual impact of the development given that it would be sited in such a rural and exposed location. It is clear that the development would provide future jobs for local residents, a visitor attraction, a training centre for budding brewers and the business would be able to continue trading within the Horsham District at a new site that would be able to accommodate the business expansion plans. However, it is considered that the development would be highly prominent within the rural landscape and would be viewed as sporadic development in the countryside until such time as Chichester College create a Master Plan for the future development of the Brinsbury Campus. Given the emphasis on economic growth within national guidance it is considered that on balance, the economic benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm to the landscape character of the area and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated for approval subject to the expiry of the departure notice on 3rd April 2014 and completion of a legal agreement securing contributions towards transport infrastructure and the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission

02 M6 Prescribed Materials

03 J1 Use Limitation “The site shall be used as a brewery and associated visitor centre & shop only”

04 D6 Finished Floor Levels

05 G6 Recycling (The Buildings)

06 O1 Hours of Working

07 The brewery shall operate between 0600 hours and 2200 hours everyday; The administration office hours shall operate between 0700 hours and 1900 hours everyday; The loading and unloading of vehicles shall be limited to 0700 hours and 1900 hours everyday; The shop / visitor centre shall be open for trade and business between 0900 hours and 2000 hours Monday to Saturday and 1000 hours and 2000 hours on Sundays and bank holidays; Brewery Tours shall operate between 0900 hours and 2000 hours Monday to Saturdays only. Reason – J8

08 Prior to occupation of the buildings, a detailed lighting management plan including:

o The location of the lights; o The dimensions of the lights; o The angle and wattage of the lights; o The hours of use; APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed management plan shall be implemented thereafter. Reason – In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

09 Noise and Odour Control measures shall strictly accord with the submitted ‘Assessment of Noise Levels and Associated Control Measures’ and ‘Odour Control Measures’ received on 28th February 2014 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interest of amenity and to enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

10 The fencing shown on drawing no. 15338-120 Rev B received on 28th February 2014 shall be erected on site prior to occupation of the buildings. The fencing shall be retained and maintained in accordance with these details. Reason – E3

11 Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water Reason: To ensure there is suitable drainage infrastructure provision to serve the development in accordance with policy CP14 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

12 Not withstanding the submitted landscape plan full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the buildings. The agreed details shall be implemented within the next planting season. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

 Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers  Native hedge planting around the reed beds;  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details  A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Existing and proposed levels, to include those for the access road and the adjacent open space  Hard surfacing materials including those for the public footpath: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels  Walls including retaining walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials  Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting shall be carried out according to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13

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)

13 Prior to the occupation of the 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/organisations who will be maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for

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).

14 H6 Wheel Washing

15 No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

16 Before commencement of the development the proposed vehicular access to Stane Street shall be designed/constructed and provided with visibility zones, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority all to be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction. Reason -

17 No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans or a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) for maximum 48 cars/minimum 5 cycles to be parked and loading and unloading of goods vehicles and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking/turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated purpose. Reason – APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14

18 No development shall start until a Construction Management Plan, to include details of:

Element 1: Public Safety, Amenity and Site Security Element 2: Operating Hours, Noise and Vibration Controls Element 3: Air and Dust Management Element 4: Stormwater and Sediment Control, including control of mud on the highway Element 5: Waste and Materials Re-use Element 6: Traffic Management, including operative and goods vehicle parking

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

Reason - The above conditions are required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

19 Prior to occupation of the site, the applicant shall:

(a) Submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority a Travel Plan Statement in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and in general accordance with West Sussex County Council guidance on travel plans.

(b) The applicant shall then implement the approved travel plan and thereafter maintain and develop the travel plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and the NPPF 2012.

20 The Developer shall arrange for an archaeological organisation or appropriately qualified archaeologists to observe the excavations and record archaeological evidence that may be uncovered as a result of the development in accordance with a written scheme of investigation and timetable which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: In order to ensure that archaeological features and artefacts revealed during development works will be adequately recorded in accordance with the policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

21 The floor area of the shop and visitor centre shall be restricted to 90 square metres as shown on drawing no. 15338 – 111 Rev E received on 28th February 2014 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that the development accords with the aims of the Brinsbury Centre of Rural Excellence Supplementary Planning Document.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15

Planning Informative

Water discharges will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. The applicant is advised to contact Mat Jackson, Environment Officer on 01243 756343 for pre Environmental Permit application discussions.

Planning Informative

Planning permission does not prevent action from being taken by the Local Authority or members of the public to secure the abatement, restriction or prohibition of statutory nuisances actionable under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or any other statutory provisions.

Planning Informative

In order to implement the proposed access junction to Stane Street, the applicants would need to enter an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.

8. REASONS

IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.

Proactive Statement

Pro 2

Background Papers: DC/13/2328

Case Officer: Kathryn Sadler

DC/13/2328 Land South of Nyetimber Wine

Scale : 1:5000

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 06 March 2014

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th March 2014 Development of 58 residential dwellings comprising 4 x 1-bed flat, 4 x 2- bed flat, 15 x 2-bed house, 20 x 3 bed house, 10 x 4 bed house and 5 x DEVELOPMENT: 5-bed units, with associated parking, garaging, informal open space and play area, together with new attenuation pond (Outline) SITE: Land North of The Rise Partridge Green West Sussex WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/13/1187 APPLICANT: Rydon Homes Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of 58 No. residential dwellings. This outline application seeks only to establish the principle of residential development in this location and the proposed access to the site. The details of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping are all reserved for consideration at a later date should outline permission be granted. The proposed 58 No. units would comprise 4 No. 1 bed flats, 4 No. 2 bed flats, 15 No. 2 bed dwellings, 20 No. 3 bed dwellings, 10 No. 4 bed dwellings and 5 No. 5 bed dwellings. The application has been amended during the consideration of the application following concerns raised by consultees and therefore the number of units has been increased from 55 to 58 and the property mix changed to reflect the points made by the Councils Housing Services Manager.

1.2 The proposed development would be accessed from the western side, with a vehicular access provided off Littleworth Lane and positioned towards the south eastern corner of the site. The layout submitted with the application, whilst only indicative, shows this access road extending perpendicular to the highway and running along the southern section of the site and then branching off towards the north and forming a loop towards the north eastern corner of the site and a cul-de-sac leading into a parking court leading back towards the west.

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2

1.3 The proposal shows a mix of single, one and a half and two storey dwellings, with the majority being detached or semi-detached. There would be three rows of terraced properties located towards the northern and eastern edges of the site. The application also proposes two blocks of flats. Of the 58 No. dwellings 45% are proposed as affordable units. This equates to 26 No. dwellings, comprising of 1 and 2 bed flats, 2 bed dwellings and 3 bed dwellings. Housing Officers expect the split to be confirmed as 62.5% affordable rent and 37.5% shared ownership. The original scheme proposed 55 units with 40% proposed as affordable units. This equated to 22 No. dwellings, comprising of 2 bed dwellings and 3 bed dwellings, with a proposed split 50/50 between affordable rent and shared ownership.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site lies outside the built-up area of Partridge Green, a category 2 settlement as defined within the Horsham District Local Development Framework. The site is positioned to the east of Littleworth Lane and to the north of The Rise, which forms the edge of the built-up area envelope of Partridge Green. The site currently comprises a largely open grassed field extending to approximately 2.3 hectares.

1.5 The site is roughly rectangular in shape and slopes gently downwards towards the north from a high point just to the east of the centre of the southern boundary. The site is currently enclosed by means of a mature hedgerow and a number of trees along the western boundary with Littleworth Lane and by a line of trees and shrubs along the southern, eastern and northern boundaries. The northern boundary and part of the eastern boundary are also formed by existing drainage ditches, with the northern ditch forming a stream. There is an open barn and a number of stable buildings located to the north western corner of the site.

1.6 The properties of Beauchamps, The Barn and Blanches House are located to the north of the site, but set approximately 75m away and separated by an area of rough grassland and scrub. The existing properties, largely single storey in nature, located along The Rise to the south are positioned approximately 12m from the edge of the site. Open fields exist to both the east and west of the site. There is an existing vehicular access point serving the site located along the western boundary, just to the north of the centre point. This access leads to the existing barn and stable buildings and there is post and rail fencing running along the southern edge of the driveway in this location.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

- Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport - Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7: Requiring good design - Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) policies:

- CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character - CP2: Environmental Quality - CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development - CP4: Housing Provision - CP5: Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land - CP8: Small Scale ‘Greenfield’ Sites - CP12: Meeting Housing Needs - CP13: Infrastructure Requirements - CP15: Rural Strategy

2.4 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) policies:

- 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 - DC10: Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments - DC18: Smaller Homes/Housing Mix - DC22: New Open Space, Sports and Recreation - DC30: Exceptions Housing Schemes - DC40: Transport and Access

2.5 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Documents:

- Facilitating Appropriate Development (2009) (FAD) - Planning Obligations (2007)

2.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance:

- Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement (2001)

2.7 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. The planning application was considered after the consultation period and the Preferred Strategy is therefore a material consideration in the assessment of this planning application.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no planning history for this site relevant to the proposed development.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Strategic Planning (summarised): Comment on original scheme  The Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, however, the Inspector’s decision on the RMC Engineering Works site (DC/10/1457) suggests that rather than regarding the Council’s housing policies as out-of-date, a more flexible approach should be given to policies CP5 and DC1;  The FAD SPD provides the mechanism to achieve this flexibility and the proposal should be considered in light of this document;  There is a general need for housing across the District, but Partridge Green, as a Category 2 settlement is considered to have a more limited level of services and facilities than other Category 1 settlements;  The proposal for units in this location has the potential to impact the character of the area and adverse impacts should be balanced against the additional local housing that it could bring.

3.3 Arboricultural Officer (summarised): No objection to original application for 55 units.  The suitability of any development, in Arboricultural terms, rests with the retention and protection of the existing hedgerow and occasional large trees, predominantly oak, which surround the open field;  The loss of a small section of hedgerow along Littleworth Lane would not be unreasonable given the context of the development scheme as a whole;  Comments are on the basis of the submitted indicative layout and accordingly are without prejudice to any scheme subsequently submitted showing an altered layout.

3.4 Landscape Architect (summarised): Maintain landscape objection

Original Scheme  Objection to the cumulative adverse landscape character, including settlement character, of the proposed development;  Although the mainly two storey development will only be visible in occasional glimpsed and filtered views from the surrounding area, a number of key concerns remain;  The illustrative layout appears to show a suburban form of development that would have an urbanising effect on the site and erode the attractive, undeveloped rural landscape character of the surroundings;  The layout shows a dominance of car parking with limited scope for tree planting of larger native species. This would not therefore allow for a more landscape dominated development that would be more appropriate for the rural edge of Partridge Green;  Whilst some single storey development is proposed, this could be extended across the rising landform to avoid extending the impact of built development on the wider rural character;  The narrow buffer between dwellings and the northern edge of the site would not form an attractive transition to the rural area, but rather would be dominated by housing development;  The attenuation basin could become a steep sided muddy hollow due to the limited space available;  No information has been submitted to show if the intended open space and LAP would accord with adopted standards;  The proposal would appear to erode the small, but important, gap between Partridge Green and Littleworth;  It has not been evidenced that the proposed development would be accommodated without adverse landscape character effects.

Amended Scheme APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5

 Previous comments have not been overcome  Adverse impact on the local countryside  Perceived coalescence between the dispersed linear settlement of Littleworth Lane and the village of Partridge Green  Poor design in terms of the intended layout, scale and density of the built development and in terms of open space layout  Inadequate space for appropriate planting

3.5 Technical Services (Drainage) (summarised): No objection subject to condition The preliminary surface water drainage strategy proposed is acceptable, therefore until detailed design information has been submitted at the appropriate planning stage, drainage conditions should be applied.

3.6 Housing Services Manager (summarised): No objection  Partridge Green is a Category 2 settlement and as such any housing should meet an identified local need;  The Housing Needs Survey Report states that there are 44 No. households in need of affordable homes in the West Grinstead Parish area;  The affordable housing mix proposed does now reflect the profile of need established by the Survey, which suggests that a majority of smaller (1 or 2 bed) homes are required;  Housing Officers expect the tenure split to be confirmed as 62.5%/37.5% in favour of rented accommodation.  The applicant has canvassed local estate agents to demonstrate need for homes for market sale.

3.7 Parks and Countryside Officer (summarised); recommended that the LAP (Local Area Play) is replaced with a LEAP (Local Equipped Play Areas) or the existing King George V Playing fields is enhanced due to the increase in number of the residential homes, and the distance between the new development and the existing provision is close too or exceeding the PPG17 standard of 400m.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.8 Environment Agency: No comments

3.9 Natural England (summarised): No objection comments remain as per the original scheme  No objection on statutory nature conservation sites or European Protected Species grounds;  Advises to refer to standing advice for domestic species.

3.10 Southern Water (summarised): Comment & recommends condition 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 99 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. There are no public surface water sewers on the vicinity to serve the development, alternative means of draining surface water would be required, this should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer.

The applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

any SuDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity.

3.11 WSCC Archaeology (summarised): No objection subject to condition

3.12 WSCC Ecology (summarised): No objection subject to condition

3.13 WSCC Highways Strategic Planning (summarised): No objection to amended scheme subject to conditions  To achieve the requirements of the Manual for Roads and Bridges a forward visibility 94m distance would be required, this would necessitate some trimming back of he hedge along the western boundary;  However, the 61m forward visibility required by the less stringent Manual for Streets may be more applicable;  The applicant has stated that they wish to extend the existing 30mph limit northwards, this is not a requirement of the development and would require a revision to the Traffic Regulation Order;  The development would give rise to additional vehicular movements over a 12hour period, but would only marginally increase the peak hour traffic flow;  The trip rate would not meet the thresholds set out in the WSCC Transport Assessment Guidance to warrant specific junction assessments;  In light of the existing traffic flows and the anticipated increased movements, it is not considered that the impacts would be classed as severe, as required by paragraph 32 of the NPPF in order to refuse permission on these grounds.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.14 West Grinstead Parish Council (summarised): Previous objection to scheme maintained  Partridge Green does not have enough services and facilities to accommodate this amount of housing;  The level of development proposed is unsustainable;  The proposed development is not designed to address a specific local need. The West Grinstead Parish Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 44 dwellings for people with a local connection who cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market;  The Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey show that developments of this kind are not needed or wanted;  Littleworth Lane is dangerous and increasing traffic here is very undesirable;  The assessment of impacts of the development on local traffic is not comprehensive enough;  Further development would exacerbate existing sewage problems;  The development would give rise to problems with water run-off and compound flooding issues;  It would set a precedent for other developments around the village;  The current proposal is overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement;  The proposal would destroy the settlement gap between Partridge Green and Littleworth;  There are potential brownfield sites that could be made available for development.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7

3.15 A total of 28 letters of representation have been received from nearby residents objecting to the original scheme. A further 6 letters have been received regarding the amended plans. Original Scheme:  This is an inappropriate location for the proposed development;  The scale of the development is too large;  Littleworth Lane is too narrow for an access to such a development;  The submitted Road Safety Audit is flawed;  Existing congestion and parking problems would be worsened;  Significant additional vehicle movements would arise from the development;  There is a limited bus service to Partridge Green thereby causing additional vehicle trips;  There is poor visibility to the north of the proposed access due to a bend in the road;  An application for a caravan access to Littleworth Lane was refused permission;  Extending the lower speed limit area will not actually reduce speeds;  The increased traffic would be likely to cause more accidents on local roads;  The site and adjacent lane are subject to flooding;  The ditch to the north of the site forms a stream that is prone to flooding;  The proposed development would impede surface water drainage and the proposed attenuation pond would worsen the situation;  The stream and attenuation pond would be dangerous to children;  There is insufficient capacity within local sewers;  There are existing problems with utility services in the area;  Mature trees and wildlife, including rare butterflies, will be lost to this development;  The development could set a precedent for other future developments;  Properties along The Rise have accesses into the site;  There is insufficient capacity in the local school and doctor’s surgeries;  Local infrastructure and facilities would be placed under increased pressure;  The proposed properties would overlook existing dwellings in The Rise;  There are enough houses being built in the District already;  The development would cause noise and disturbance to local residents.

Amended Plans;  Parish Council have made significant progress in facilitating the production of a neighbourhood plan  Within the village there are opportunities to provide new housing without resorting to green field sites  Proposal still remains contrary to policy DC18  Original objections remain  Parish Appraisal noted that small groups of housing and brown field sites are the preferred options for housing for local residents

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

 The principle of the development  Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area  Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents  Affordable housing provision  Highway impacts  Drainage, ecology and archaeology issues  S106 obligations

Principle of the development

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision-taking. In terms of the determination of planning applications this should mean the approval of developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise.

6.3 In respect of strategic housing land supply within the Authority Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that:

‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’ In this regard, it has been accepted by the Council that it is unable to meet this requirement and for this reason the Council must rely upon the provisions of Paragraph 14 of the Framework to consider the submitted application. This states that:

“… at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date the Council must consider favourably applications for housing development and should grant permission unless:

 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

 specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

6.4 The starting point for the determination of this application is the fact that Authority does not have a 5 year housing land supply, and the proposed development would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of present and future generations. An assessment must therefore be made as to whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF.

6.5 The site is located outside of the built up area boundary of Partridge Green, but does abut the settlement boundary, to the south. The applicant submits that the proposed development would be located within walking distance of a number of local services and facilities. The village primary school is located 63 metres to the south west of the site. Partridge Green is defined as a Category 2 settlement (Policy CP5 states that Category 2 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9

settlements are those with a more limited range of services compared to Category 1 settlements). Opportunities for public transport within Partridge Green are limited to hourly bus services only on Mondays to Saturdays which serve only Horsham and Brighton.

Economic

6.6 In terms of economic issues, the construction activities associated with the development could potentially generate employment opportunities for the local community, and have associated benefits for local services and suppliers. In the longer term the development could also support the local economy in terms of the use of local shops, services and facilities, and potentially result in a significant level of new investment in the village.

Social

6.7 In terms of social issues, the development could provide additional market and affordable dwellings to meet a recognised District wide need, built to the prevailing Code for Sustainable Homes at the time of implementation.

6.8 The applicant has submitted a copy of the Housing Needs Survey Report for West Grinstead (January 2012) carried out by Action in Rural Sussex, which identifies the affordable housing need across the West Grinstead Parish. This report concludes that there are 44 No. households within the Parish in housing need who have a local connection and who cannot afford to either purchase or rent on the open market. However, this survey does not provide details of market housing need across the Parish or within Partridge Green.

6.9 The application proposes a total of 58 No. dwellings of which 45% (26 No.) would be provided as affordable and the remainder (32 No.) would be provided on the open market. It is considered that the 26 No. affordable dwellings would assist in meeting an identified local need, as the affordable housing mix does now reflect the profile of need established by the survey. The survey suggests a majority of smaller (1 & 2 bed) homes are required within the Parish. Although the majority of respondents to the survey were single people, this would not translate directly into a requirement for 1 bed homes. One bed properties are inflexible and although a number should be provided for singles and couples who are in housing need, the greatest requirement is for 2 bed homes, which would allow some household growth. The applicant is therefore proposing 4 x 1 bed flats, 4 x 2 bed flats, 9 x 2 bed houses and 9 x 3 bed houses as affordable units of accommodation.

6.10 Whilst the application is only outline in form, it does specifically state the sizes of the proposed dwellings, this being originally 15 No. 2 bed dwellings, 25 No. 3 bed dwellings, 10 No. 4 bed dwellings and 5 No. 5 bed dwellings, which has now been amended to 4 x 1-bed flat, 4 x 2-bed flat, 15 x 2-bed house, 20 x 3 bed house, 10 x 4 bed house and 5 x 5-bed units. Given that this level of detail is provided, it is appropriate to consider the appropriateness of this mix of dwelling sizes. The NPPF requires, at paragraph 50, that Local Authorities plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and the needs of different groups within communities. Policy DC18 requires that on developments of more than 5 No. units the size and type of those units should meet the identified need for smaller homes. This policy goes on to specify that at least 64% of the homes should be provided as 1 and 2 bed dwellings.

6.11 The application, as amended proposes 25 No. dwellings falling within this smaller home size. This equates to just 43.1% of the total of 58 No. dwellings. On a site of this size, 37 No. units would be expected to be provided as 1 or 2 bed dwellings. The application therefore fails to comply with the requirements of policy DC18, and the social element of development as required in the NPPF. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10

Environmental

6.12 Finally, with respect to environmental issues, the site is a greenfield area of land, not subject to any specific designations or protection. The applicant has submitted information detailing that the proposed development would not cause harm to the existing biodiversity value of the site and would not adversely impact upon protected species. Furthermore, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment states that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and could be provided with an attenuation basin to limit surface water run-off rates to those of the existing greenfield site. As this application is only outline in form, no details of the design and construction of the proposed dwellings have been provided, however, these could be controlled through any reserved matters submissions and by conditions, to ensure that they are appropriate and that sustainable construction methods are employed. It is also accepted that the proposed development would not cause harm to heritage assets. However, it is concluded within the ‘Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area’ section of this report (below) that its development would have an adverse visual impact in this area.

6.13 Overall, having weighed these matters, it is consider that the development would not meet the definition of sustainable development and therefore would not comply with the provisions of paragraph 14 of the NPPF as the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The reasons for this conclusion are set out in more detail in the remainder of the key issues in this committee report.

6.14 As detailed above, the site lies adjacent to the edge of the built-up area of Partridge Green. This location means that the proposed development should also be considered with regard to the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD (FAD). The FAD SPD provides the flexibility to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy, and sets out the requirements against which planning applications for development on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries will be considered. The FAD SPD sets out three initial requirements for the consideration of development proposals.

6.15 The three requirements set out in the FAD SPD are: deliverable; sustainable; and scale. In relation to these requirements, the applicant has stated that the site is deliverable within a 5 year period as it is under the control of a local house-builder. They have advised that housing completions could be accomplished by 2015 and that the development could be completed by the end of 2016. However, as the application is currently only in outline form with all matters except for means of access being reserved for consideration at a later date, there is a realistic possibility of a delay to this schedule. There is some doubt as to the true deliverability of the site in the short-term, however, it is considered that this would be difficult to demonstrate given the existing control of the site.

6.16 The second requirement of the FAD SPD relates to the sustainability of the site. As previously stated the applicant has submitted that the proposed development would be located within walking distance of a number of local services and facilities, however, Partridge Green is defined as a Category 2 settlement (Policy CP5 states that Category 2 settlements are those with a more limited range of services compared to Category 1 settlements). The opportunities for public transport within Partridge Green are limited to hourly services only on Mondays to Saturdays and serve only Horsham and Brighton.

6.17 In terms of scale, the FAD SPD requires that sites should propose residential development not exceeding 150 dwellings, and on greenfield sites, this should be less. In the case of this proposal, the site adjoins the edge of a Category 2 settlement, rather than the edge of a Category 1 settlement, and therefore the scale of development should be proportionate to the size of the settlement to which it relates. This current application proposes 58 No. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11

dwellings on a greenfield site. It is considered that this level of development could not automatically be considered out of scale, as it is considerably less than the limits stated within the SPD, however, this is discussed in further detail below in paragraphs 6.19 to 6.23.

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

6.18 The existing site is characterised by its open rough grassland appearance, gently undulating landform and approximate containment with mature trees and hedgerows. This appearance is typical of the surrounding rural areas. The site provides an area of open land between the northern edge of Partridge Green and the cluster of properties which make up the hamlet of Littleworth, situated to the north. The Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement states that the traditional arrangement of buildings within Partridge Green is typically low density, with the buildings being secondary to the natural landscape.

6.19 The proposed development would position 58 No. dwellings across this open grassland area and inevitably create an urbanised appearance to this site, which would detract from the existing rural character. Although the site benefits from existing hedgerow screening to some degree around all sides, the proposed development would be visible, both above the vegetation and through the new access point. This would be particularly apparent across the raised land towards the southern portion of the site. Although three single storey dwellings are indicated to the south eastern corner of the site, and chalet bungalows along the rest of the southern boundary apart from plot 1 the indicative layout does still show two storey properties across the higher parts of the site.

6.20 The proposed development would be accommodated within the existing open field area and would largely retain the existing mature trees around the periphery of the site, which would ensure that the proposed development does not adversely impact upon existing trees from an arboricultural point of view. However, whilst the majority of these trees could be retained, the overall appearance of the landscape of the surrounding area and the prevailing rural character of the locality would be detrimentally impacted upon. The proposed development would be of a scale that would result in an urbanising of the site, through the introduction of significant built form and considerable expanses of hardstanding, and would only provide limited open space and opportunities for landscaping within the site. The single and chalet style properties on the northern side of The Rise form the current boundary to the village, and the surrounding countryside, with the low level nature of the properties softening the transition between the land uses. It is considered that the proposed development due to its scale would result in an urban frontage inappropriate to its edge of village location.

6.21 It is considered that the proposed development would not allow for a preservation, conservation or enhancement of the landscape character of the area, but rather would detract from the pattern of open fields that characterises the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies CP1 and DC2.

6.22 In addition, the location of the application site is such that it lies between the cluster of properties that make up the hamlet of Littleworth and the northern edge of Partridge Green. Policy DC3 specifically seeks to prevent the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements within the District. Whilst Littleworth is not identified as either a Category 1 or Category 2 settlement, it clearly forms a small distinct and separate hamlet from Partridge Green. The proposed development along the Littleworth Lane would occupy the only existing open space between these two settlements. This loss of the visual break between Littleworth and Partridge Green, together with the urbanising effect of considerable new built form and a new vehicular access in this location, would result in a perceived coalescence of these two settlements. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 12

6.23 Given the existing open and rural nature of the application site the proposed development of 58 No. residential dwellings would lead to a significant urbanising effect that would be detrimental to the landscape character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the positioning of substantial built form in this location would lead to a perceived coalescence of Partridge Green with the hamlet of Littleworth to the north. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to policies CP1, CP3, DC2 and DC3.

Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents

6.24 The site is located to the north of the existing residential properties of The Rise, Partridge Green. These residences are characterised by single storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. A number of these properties have extended into their roofspaces to create first floor level accommodation, some with substantial dormer window additions. The properties to the northern side of The Rise back onto the southern edge of the application site. These properties are afforded some views towards the site, however, the existing vegetation along this southern boundary provides screening. The arrangement and relationship between dwellings along The Rise limits any views from the public realm along this road to those available above the single storey garages which sit between properties.

6.25 The properties to the north of The Rise benefit from rear gardens of approximately 12m in length, the proposed development (as shown on the indicative layout) would then be situated a further 18m from this shared boundary, with the majority of the existing trees and vegetation here shown to be retained. It is accepted that the highest ground level of the site lies towards the southern edge of the site and that the properties within The Rise are currently afforded some views across this open land. However, it is considered that the separation distance that could be retained between the proposed dwellings and those along The Rise would ensure that the amenities of these residents would not be significantly adversely impacted upon. In addition, the indicative layout shows the three dwellings to the south easternmost corner of the site to be single storey properties. This relationship between the proposed new dwellings and those existing to the southern side would not be dissimilar to existing relationships between dwellings fronting Blanches Road and Littleworth Lane, just to the south. This level of separation, together with the retained boundary screening, is considered to constitute an acceptable relationship in terms of the amenities of both existing and any future residents.

6.26 The existing residential properties to the north of the site, those located along Littleworth Lane, would be separated from the proposed development by an existing area of rough grassland and vegetation. The nearest residential property, Beauchamps, would be situated approximately 75m from the northern boundary of the site. The existing hedgerow and vegetation to the northern boundary is shown to be largely retained and as such it is not considered that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of these residents, or those of the adjacent properties to the north of the site along Littleworth Lane.

6.27 In terms of the acceptability of the proposed scheme in relation to the amenity levels of future occupiers of any new dwellings, as the proposal is only submitted in outline form with an indicative layout, it is not possible to accurately consider this issue at this stage. However, the indicative layout provided does show that the number of dwellings proposed, could, with careful consideration of siting, landscaping and screening, be provided within the site without a likelihood of giving rise to significant amenity issues for future residents.

Affordable housing provision

6.28 The applicant has submitted a copy of the Housing Needs Survey Report for West Grinstead (January 2012) carried out by Action in Rural Sussex, which identifies the affordable housing need across the West Grinstead Parish. This report concludes that APPENDIX A/ 2 - 13

there are 44 No. households within the Parish in housing need who have a local connection and who cannot afford to either purchase or rent on the open market.

6.29 The application proposes a total of 58 No. dwellings of which 45% (26 No.) would be provided as affordable and the remainder (32 No.) would be provided on the open market. It is considered that the 26 No. affordable dwellings would assist in meeting an identified local need, as the affordable housing mix does now reflect the profile of need established by the survey. The applicant is proposing 4 x 1 bed flats, 4 x 2 bed flats, 9 x 2 bed houses and 9 x 3 bed houses as affordable units of accommodation.

Highway impacts

6.30 The application seeks to provide a vehicular access onto Littleworth Lane, positioned towards the southern side of the western boundary. The proposed access would be positioned between 2 No. existing mature oak trees and would necessitate the removal of a short stretch of hedgerow in this location.

6.31 The Highways Authority at WSCC have reviewed the proposed access and have not raised any objections to the proposed development. Whilst WSCC have advised that some of the hedgerow along the western boundary of the site would need to be trimmed back in order to provide forward visibility for right turning traffic at this access point, in accordance with the more stringent requirements of the Manual for Roads and Bridges, they do not raise an objection to the siting of the access in this location.

6.32 Similarly, no objection is raised by the Highway Authority in relation to traffic movements and highway capacity or safety. It is acknowledged that the proposed development would give rise to an increase in vehicular movements to and from the site over a 12 hour period compared to the existing situation. However, these additional movements would only result in a marginal increase in the peak hour traffic flow and it is not considered that further specific junction capacity assessments are required as part of this proposal.

6.33 Whilst the layout submitted is indicative only, the car parking shown would provide at least 2 No. spaces per dwelling, in either driveway parking, garages or small parking courts. The WSCC Parking Calculator provided by the applicant indicates that a total demand for 133 No. parking spaces would result from the proposed development. The indicative layout shows that the proposal could comply with this.

6.34 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ It is not considered that the proposed development would lead to impacts upon the highway that could be considered severe. The proposal would create a new vehicular access that could accommodate development at the scale proposed, would not cause any significant impact in terms of an increase in traffic movements within the vicinity of the site and could provide car parking to a level that would accord with the WSCC Parking Calculator. The proposal therefore complies with policy DC40.

Drainage, ecology and archaeology issues

6.35 The site lies within Flood Zone 1, as identified by the Environment Agency, and therefore has a low probability of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding in any year). Within Flood Zone 1 all forms of development and land use can be considered appropriate and as such the proposal can be considered acceptable in this regard, as it would not be at a significant risk of flooding. In addition, it is considered that the potential risk of flooding at the site from off-site sources is low. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 14

6.36 In terms of the management of surface water run-off, the application as submitted shows the creation of a water attenuation feature towards the north eastern corner of the site, which would be connected to an underground storage tank and would provide storage of surface water run-off with this then to be discharged at a greenfield rate. It is acknowledged that a number of local residents have raised flooding as an issue within the locality of the site, however, the Council’s Technical Services Engineer has advised that the proposed drainage strategy appears acceptable at this stage and no adverse comments have been received from the Environment Agency. It is therefore considered that a reason for refusal on this basis could not be maintained.

Ecology

6.37 The application has been submitted with an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Assessment. This report concludes that the site consists of semi- improved grazed grassland, trees, hedgerows and scrub and could provide a potential habitat for reptiles, bats and birds, and that there are water bodies within the locality. Consequently, the report recommends that additional survey work be carried out in respect of determining the presence/absence of reptiles, Great Crested Newts and bats. The applicant has therefore submitted an additional Reptile Survey and Great Crested Newt Survey. These reports concluded that neither Great Crested Newts nor reptiles were found to be present at the site, but made a number of recommendations should development works commence.

6.38 The County Council’s Ecologist has not raised any objections to the proposed development or contested the findings of the submitted reports. Similarly, Natural England have not raised an objection to the proposal. Whilst no additional information has been supplied in terms of assessing the likely presence of bats, it is not considered that the proposed development would lead to any potential impacts that could not be satisfactorily mitigated against, should development proceed.

Archaeology

6.39 In terms of archaeological impact, the application site is not identified as being of likely archaeological importance. The submitted Archaeology South-East desk based assessment also concludes that the site is likely to have a low potential for containing archaeological remains. However, WSCC’s Archaeologist does not concur that a lack of existing evidence necessarily means that there is a lack of buried remains. It is considered that there is a potential for the site to contain buried archaeological finds and features or deposits of a prehistoric date. This is not however, considered to be a barrier to future development, but rather would necessitate further investigations at the site prior to the commencement of works.

6.40 Therefore, had the development been otherwise acceptable, details of the drainage scheme, ecological mitigation measures and archaeological investigations could be satisfactorily controlled through future reserved matters applications and conditions, in order to ensure compliance with policies DC5, DC7 and DC10.

S106 obligations

6.41 In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, the applicant has been advised that there would be a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. This requirement is set out in policy CP13 of the Core Strategy and within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 15

6.42 Although the application has been submitted in outline form only and the exact scale of the proposed dwellings would be considered at a future date, the proposal does provide an indicative layout with dwelling sizes and tenures shown. This information has been used to calculate the relevant infrastructure requirements for the development, however, should the scale and form of development subsequently alter, then the calculations may need to be revised at that time.

6.43 Based on the information submitted, the current proposal would require contributions to Horsham District Council of £106,343 to cover open space, sport and recreation; community centres and halls; local recycling; and public art. An additional contribution would also be required to West Sussex County Council to cover education; libraries; transport; and fire and rescue services. The applicant has been advised of the requirement to provide a S106 agreement to cover these aspects, but at the time of writing this has not been received and, as such this is reflected within the recommendation.

Conclusion

6.44 The development proposals are located outside the Built Up Area Boundary of Partridge Green as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposals Map (2007). The site is also greenfield rather than brownfield land. As such it does not accord with the strategic housing policies of the Local Development Framework 2007. It is nevertheless necessary to have regard to the provisions of the NPPF and other material considerations before reaching a conclusion on the principle of development.

6.45 The starting point for the determination of this application is the fact that Authority does not have a 5 year housing land supply, and the proposed development would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of present and future generations. An assessment must therefore be made as to whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF.

6.46 It is considered that the proposed development cannot be considered to represent sustainable development in terms of the social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF. It is considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact in terms of the landscape and townscape character of the area, and result in perceived coalescence between Littleworth and Partridge Green. It is also considered that the housing mix proposed would not meet the identified need for smaller homes in the District. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact in terms of the social and environmental roles which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development by reason of its illustrative/intended layout, siting, form, scale and height of the development, would have a harmful urbanising impact on the rural landscape and townscape character of the site surrounds and on the rural setting of Partridge Green, and is likely to result in poor design inappropriate to the landscape character of the area. The proposal would also result in perceived coalescence between Littleworth and Partridge Green. The development does not therefore meet the definition of sustainable development within the National Planning Policy Framework and the harm identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the APPENDIX A/ 2 - 16

benefits of the proposal. The development would therefore be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework policies including Para 7 the environmental dimension, Para 17, and those requiring good design, in particular Para 64, as well as Horsham Local Development Framework (2007) Core Strategy (2007) policies CP1, and CP3 and policy DC2, DC3 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

2. The proposed development by reason of the proposed housing mix would fail to provide an appropriate level of smaller homes to fulfil the social needs of the District’s population and therefore cannot be considered to represent sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Framework. It is considered that the adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and therefore the development is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework policies including paragraph 7 and 50, and is contrary to policy DC18 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. The proposed development cannot be considered to represent sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Framework as it fails to provide a mechanism for the provision of affordable dwellings or contributions towards improvements to transport, education, libraries, community facilities, open space and recreation, recycling, public art or fire and rescue infrastructure and would therefore fail to fulfil the social needs of the District’s population. It is considered that the adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and therefore the development is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework policies and policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and the Planning Obligations SPD (2007), as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

Background Papers: DC/13/1187 DC/13/1187

Land North of The Rise

Scale : 1:2500

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 06 March 2014

SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th March 2014 Demolition of Nyewood Court, change of use of former B1 building to C3 dwellings (3 x 3-bed and 2 x 2-bed) with external alterations, and the DEVELOPMENT: development of an additional 9 dwellings (4 x 3-bed houses, 1 x 3 bed flat and 4 x 2-bed flats) and associated infrastructure (Total 14 dwellings). SITE: Nyewood Court, Brookers Road, Billingshurst, West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/13/1090 APPLICANT: W.T Lamb Holdings Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To Refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing building at Nyewood Court, the change of use of the former B1 building to C3 dwellings (3 x 3-bed and 2 x 2-bed) with external alterations, and the development of an additional 9 dwellings (4 x 3-bed houses, 1 x 3 bed flat and 4 x 2-bed flats) and associated infrastructure (Total 14 dwellings).

1.2 The building to be converted from B1 use to residential measures 34.9m by 8.7m and has a flat roof height of 6.4m high. The building would be converted to residential use and have a new pitched roof of 9.3m in height. This building would be split into five dwellings with 3 x 3 beds and 2 x 2 bed dwellings. These dwellings would have rear gardens of 10 – 11.5m in depth by 6 – 7m in width.

1.3 There are four other 3 bed dwellings proposed, three of which would be of the same design measuring 6m in width by 9.9m in depth and would have a ridge height of 8.3m. Two of these dwellings would have single garages. The gardens would measure 10 – 12m in depth and approximately 6.5m in width. The fourth dwelling would measure 5.7m in width by 8.9m in depth and would have a ridge height of 9.6m. This dwelling would have an integral single garage and a garden measuring 10m in depth by 6.5m in width. All the dwellings would have two car parking spaces.

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

1.4 The block of flats would measure 32m in width by 6.6m - 4.9m in depth and would have a ridge height of between 9.4m – 11m in height. The ground floor would provide 1 x 3 bed flat with communal bike and bin stores, the first floor would consist of 2 x 2 bed flats and the second floor would consist of 2 x 2 bed flats. Each flat would have two car parking spaces.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The site is located within the built up area of Billingshurst and is outside any employment protection zone. The site is located to the south of Brookers Road which consists of residential properties to the northern side and commercial/industrial buildings to the southern side. The Huffwood Trading Estate is sited to the west of the application site and this area is an employment protection zone. There are four buildings sited on the western boundary of the site. To the east of the site are two blocks of flats with associated parking which were granted consent in 2003. To the south of the site is the railway line, Billinghurst Railway Station Car Park and a car park for the adjacent flats.

1.6 The site consists of two buildings, Nyewood Court to the western side of the site which is currently occupied and the former Beverley Environmental Engineering Limited building which is unoccupied. There is also a sub station within the north east corner of the site. There is a hedgerow that runs through the site from north to south.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 14 tells us that at its heart is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking’.

Paragraph 7 states that there “are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.” “An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.”

Paragraph 21 states “Investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations. Planning policies should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment, including a poor environment or any lack of infrastructure, services or housing. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should:

 Set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth;  Set criteria or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period;  Support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting and where possible identify and plan for new or emerging sectors likely to APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

locate in their area. Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances;  Plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries;  Identify priority areas for economic regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement; and  Facilitate flexible working practices such as the integration of residential and commercial uses within the same unit.”

Paragraph 22 states “Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.

Paragraph 51 states “Local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies and, where appropriate, acquire properties under compulsory purchase powers. They should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

Paragraph 56 states that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

Paragraph 59 states “design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally.”

Paragraph 61 states “Although visual appearance and architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.”

Paragraph 64 states “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

Paragraph 66 states “Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.” APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the quality of new development, CP5 – Built up areas and previously developed land, CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs, CP11 – Employment Site & Premises & CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC9 – Development principles, DC19 – Employment Site / Land Protection and DC40 – Transport & Access.

PLANNING HISTORY

BL/116/88 Removal of occupancy condition from permissions bl/24/88 PER + bl/121/87 Comment: Allum industries estates (From old Planning History)

BL/121/87 2-storey extension to offices PER Comment: Appeal withdrawn - computing techniques (From old Planning History)

BL/130/87 Reconstruction of building PER (From old Planning History)

BL/24/88 2-storey extension to offices PER Comment: Appeal withdrawn

BL/42/81 Small light industrial workshop units PER Comment: Alan studios - unit 28 (From old Planning History)

BL/38/84 Extension to existing premises, access/car parking PER Comment: Computing techniques (From old Planning History)

BL/65/81 12 small light industrial units with offices. block g PER (From old Planning History)

BL/69/83 Continued use of one portable office cabin PER Comment: Computing techniques (From old Planning History)

BL/71/86 12 light industrial units with offices. block g. PER (From old Planning History)

BL/74/89 Erection of light industrial building to form 2 workshop PER units.block g (From old Planning History)

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

BL/131/90 Removal of condition 6 on approval bl/74/89 to extend REF hours of working Site: Block G Huffwood Trading Est Brookers Rd Billingshurst

DC/14/0291 A Prior Notification for the Change of Use of Nyewood PENDING Court and the former Beverley Environmental Engineering Limited Building from B1a to C3 use under the provisions contained within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal and external consultation, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic & Community Planning have commented that one of the key planning principles of the NPPF is to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed. The principle of residential development in this location is considered acceptable provided that the applicant demonstrates that the site is no longer viable for employment use as per the requirements of Policy DC19 and that the proposal will not have a negative impact on the amenity of local residents.

3.2 Landscape Architect has verbally commented that he has no objection.

3.3 Public Health & Licensing have commented that they have no further comments to add with regard to the noise issues at the site and the applicant has now submitted a desk study for the site which provides sufficient information to allow this matter to be determined by condition.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 Natural England has stated that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species.

3.5 Southern Water has advised that the exact position of the public water main must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.

3.6 WSCC Rights of Way has no objection to the proposal. The public footpath (FP1938) is carried along a pavement on the opposite side of the road but it is also a D road. Contractors must be aware that people will be using the path so their safety must be considered and if necessary, they could apply to Rights of Way at West Sussex for a path closure.

3.7 Environment Agency has no comments to make.

3.8 WSCC Ecology has no objection to the proposed development. Further information has been supplied to support the application and the County Ecologist is satisfied that there is unlikely to be an offence committed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Habitat Regulations subject to a condition to control the timing of vegetation removal. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

3.9 WSCC Highways has no objections and has commented that “Following WSCC’s previous request for further information, the access arrangements have been the subject of a Stage One Road Safety Audit. The Auditor has raised three problems. These would require modifications to the layout. The first problem relates to poor access arrangements to the garage of unit 3, which the Auditor felt could have a potential for accidents. The Auditor has recommended that the garage access is deleted from the proposal. The Designer has acknowledged this problem, and proposes to revise the acute angle of the driveway.

The second problem regarded visibility being impaired by trees for drivers exiting plots 4-7. The Auditor is concerned that planting at this point could restrict sight lines and make it difficult for drivers entering the carriageway to see other vehicles entering the carriageway. The Auditor has recommended that no trees are planted near the parking areas or near the carriageway. As with the previous point the Designer has accepted the Auditors recommendations. Again, the required works can be secured via condition.

The third problem related to the narrow access road which it was felt may result in accidents. The Auditor is concerned that a 4.0 metre access road could result in vehicles colliding. The Auditor has recommended that the access road is realigned and widened to avoid this happening. The Designer has accepted the Auditors recommendations and proposed to widen the access to 4.8 metres. Again, the required works can be secured via an access condition.

Previously there were areas of the car parking calculator which were not completed correctly. The applicant has provided an updated version of the car parking calculator. A total of 33 car parking spaces will be provided on site. This provision has been considered against the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator (PDC). The proposed provision does not exceed the requirement generated by way of the PDC.

Current highway guidance uses Manual for Streets for urban locations with recorded speeds of less than 37mph. It is against this guidance that the adequacies of the Brookers Road junction should be assessed. The Applicant has demonstrated that sightlines and visibility splays of 2.4 by 36 metres can be achieved in each direction onto Gander Hill. These sightlines exceed the requirements set out within Manual for Streets given the 85 percentile recorded speed limit and recorded speeds. As such, this junction is considered to be adequate to accommodate the additional movements arising from this proposal.

The Design and Access Statement does consider access to services by other non-car modes. Billinghshurst train station and centre is within reasonable walking and cycling distance. There are continuous footways for pedestrians and whilst cyclists would have to use the carriageway, traffic conditions are not considered such to dissuade trips by this mode. Residents would have a realistic means to travel other than by the private car.”

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.10 Billingshurst Parish Council has objected on the grounds of:

 The Noise Assessment was carried out over the Bank Holiday weekend 3.00 pm Friday – 2pm Tuesday. This is not likely to give a realistic idea of the noise levels.  Page 17 of the Parish Plan for Billingshurst concentrates on business and employment opportunities in Billingshurst. Key Partners, Horsham District Council and Billingshurst Parish Council agreed to work together to maintain the current commercial and industrial footprint to provide local employment. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

 This planning application is contrary to paragraph 4.30 of the 2007 Adopted Core Strategy as it is not related to the relocation of the industrial areas as part of a comprehensive planning strategy for Billingshurst.  Page 15 of the Design Statement for Billingshurst Parish Council notes that ‘parking is in extremely short supply around the station. Workers park in the side roads for the many businesses in this small area’. It should be noted that West Sussex County Council has recently consulted on a residents parking scheme for the area around the station, including Brookers Road. An article in the West Sussex County Times newspaper (04/07/13) suggests that the introduction of the scheme could be imminent after receiving County Council approval to proceed.  Overdevelopment of the site  There is no turning space in the parking area;

3.11 3 letters of objection have been received on the ground of:

 It is impractical to have residential units so close to an industrial estate for reasons of noise and pollution;  The noise assessment has only been carried out over a relatively short period of time and has avoided the time of the week when our factory is in use;  The position of flats 11 to 14 are so close to our unit that it would be impossible for us to carry out any routine or necessary maintenance.  14 dwellings is overdevelopment of the site;  There is already an issue with parking in the area;  Loss of light;

3.12 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further representations received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be:

1) the principle of the development, 2) the viability of the existing commercial site, 3) the density, scale and design of the development, 4) Landscaping, 5) the effect of the development on the amenities of nearby occupiers and the character of the area, 6) access, traffic levels & highway safety; 7) noise and contamination APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8

Principle

6.2 In respect of strategic housing land supply within the Authority Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that:

‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’

In this regard, it has been accepted by the Council that it is unable to meet this requirement and for this reason the Council must rely upon the provisions of Paragraph 14 of the Framework to consider the submitted application. This states that:

“… at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date the Council must consider favourably applications for housing development and should grant permission unless:

 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

 specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

6.3 Therefore, the thrust of advice from National Government is that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location being within the built up area of Billingshurst which is a Category 1 Settlement under Policy CP5. Category 1 Settlements are considered to be towns and villages that are capable of infill and redevelopment due to the services and facilities they offer. Therefore, the principal of residential development in this location is considered acceptable.

6.4 However, paragraph 20 of the NPPF states “To help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century.” The policies in the Core Strategy seek to meet the development needs of businesses in the Council’s area. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states "Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support local communities."

6.5 This links in with the requirements of Policy DC19 which states that the redevelopment of commercial land within the built up area will only be permitted if the Council is satisfied that the commercial unit(s) are no longer needed and/or viable for employment use. The policy requires the applicant to market the site at current market value for at least 12 months prior to the application being submitted. The proposal should also result in significant environmental improvements to the character of the area and improve the relationship with nearby residential occupiers. It is considered that Policy DC19 is consistent with national guidance, permitting sites within and outside Employment Protection Zones (EPZs) to change to alternative uses where the evidence shows there is no need for them to remain in employment use.

Viability of Existing Commercial Site

6.6 Policy DC19 states that “redevelopment of commercial land within the built up area boundary, but outside of the EPZs will be permitted in the following circumstances: APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9

1) The Council is satisfied that the commercial unit(s) are no longer needed and/or viable for employment use. Evidence showing that the units(s) have been marketed at the current market value for at least 12 months prior to the application submission should accompany any such application.”

6.7 The applicant has supplied marketing information prepared by Stiles Harold Williams which has been assessed by the District Valuer. The report sets out an overview of the office market in Billingshurst and its environs and comments specifically on the two subject buildings. The report makes no mention of either property having been marketed either for rent or sale. Nyewood Court is still in occupation by the applicant’s parent company and does not appear to have been marketed. The Genco Building has been vacant for 2 ½ years which would have given ample opportunity for the property to be placed on the market. However, no mention or evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that marketing has taken place. The District Valuer concludes that the requirements of Policy DC19 have not been met.

6.8 In terms of viability the District Valuer has commented that “if the property (Nyewood Court) was marketed properly at a reasonable figure and for an adequate period it could attract interest. The fact is that this has not been tested.” The energy rating of Nyewood Court is below that which will be required in future years under the 2011 Energy Act, the rating only needs to improve by one level from ‘F’ to ‘E’. The District Valuer has stated that the “Genco Building is much older and dated building and does not provide the type of accommodation which most office occupiers would be seeking in the current market. The layout is of an inflexible cellular design which is simply not a configuration which fits well with modern office usage.” The building has a poor ‘F’ energy rating and the District Valuer has commented that notwithstanding the lack of energy rating compliance information and any market testing she is of the opinion that it would be difficult to find an occupier for this property in its current use and its viability is questionable.

6.9 The applicant considers that Policy DC19 fails to comply with the NPPF 2012, however the Local Planning Authority has sought Counsel advice on this matter and Counsel has concluded that there is no inconsistency between the guidance in paragraph 51 of the NPPF and the requirement in Policy DC19 to provide 12 months marketing evidence. There is also no inconsistency between the Council’s employment protection policies as a whole and the guidance in the NPPF on economic development. The applicant has argued that where an application is made for the redevelopment of an employment site, the onus is on the Local Planning Authority to adduce evidence showing that the site is still needed for employment purposes. Counsel has advised that “there is nothing in the NPPF that says or implies this. While it is undoubtedly national policy that redundant employment sites should be allowed to change use, it is in my opinion for local planning authorities to decide how to assess whether a site no longer serves the employment needs of their areas. A requirement that applicants provide marketing evidence appears to me to be a permissible approach, involving no conflict with the NPPF.”

6.10 Therefore, it is acknowledged that the Council has not met its housing land supply target and the site is within a sustainable location. However, the site is currently used as an employment site and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the commercial units are no longer needed and/or viable for employment use.

Design / Scale / Density

6.11 Policy DC9 (c) states that “Planning permission will be granted for developments which ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings, APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10

open spaces and routes within and adjoining the site, including any impact on the skyline and important views.”

6.12 The application has been amended since being initially submitted for consideration. A detached house has been removed from the scheme in order to provide car parking requirements but an additional flat has been provided within the proposed block. There are four 3 bed dwellings proposed which are considered to be of a scale and design that would be in keeping with the character of the area.

6.13 The Genco building would be split into five dwellings with 3 x 3 beds and 2 x 2 bed dwellings. These dwellings would have rear gardens of 10 – 11.5m in depth by 6 – 7m in width. The building is to be converted to residential use so the only alterations proposed would be to the external facades of the building and the creation of a pitched roof. It is proposed that the pitched roof be 9.3m in height, however the existing adjacent block of flats has varying ridge heights of 11.1m, 9.8m and 7.2m. It is therefore considered that the scale and character of the building would not be out of character with the area.

6.14 The proposed block of flats would be sited within extremely close proximity to two of the commercial buildings on the adjacent Huffwood Trading Estate retaining less than 0.3m to the western boundary and the adjacent commercial building. It is considered that the block of flats represents overdevelopment of a small piece of land only retaining approximately 0.3m to the western boundary and 2 – 5m to the eastern red edge of the site. It is considered that the block of flats would dominate the adjacent commercial buildings by being located so close and having such a high ridge height. It is considered that the flats would be highly prominent when viewed from the railway line and the adjacent footpath and given their high ridge height and shallow depth would appear out of proportion especially when viewed from the side elevation. The rear elevation of the building would have no windows/doors and is considered to be of poor design and have no architectural merit contrary to Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

Landscaping / Trees

6.15 The application proposes to remove the hedge that runs through the site at present. The site plan shows the planting of 13 new trees but no other soft landscaping is shown. A detailed landscape plan has not been submitted but could be conditioned if the application was permitted.

Impact on nearby occupiers / Character of the Area

6.16 Policy DC9 (b) states “Planning permission will be granted for developments which do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers /users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking or noise, whilst having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development.”

6.17 The houses that would front onto Brookers Road would be set back by 3 – 6m from the Highway and are considered to be in keeping with the street scene provided additional soft landscaping is provided to the front boundaries of the properties. It is considered that the houses would not materially affect neighbouring occupiers amenities as 18 metres would be retained between the dwellings on the northern side of Brookers Road and the proposed houses. The converted ‘Genco’ building is set back 3 – 7m from the Highway and is considered to be in keeping with the character of the area. Juliet balconies are proposed on the rear of the building at first floor level but these are not considered to give rise to a greater degree of overlooking than standard openings. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 11

6.18 The dwelling on Plot 9 is sited 4m further back than the Genco building and would project beyond the rear façade of the Genco Building by 6.5m which would cause loss of outlook, loss of light and have an overbearing impact on the amenities of the occupiers of Plot 8 which is contrary to Policy DC9. This relationship is worsened due to Plot 9 being sited to the south of Plot 8.

6.19 The block of flats would be sited extremely close to the industrial / commercial buildings to the west of the site. The block plan submitted shows the buildings almost touching. This relationship is considered to be unacceptable and would be out of character with the area contrary to Policy DC9.

Access / Parking / Traffic Levels

6.20 Policy DC40 states “Development will be permitted if:

a) it provides a safe and adequate means of access; b) it is appropriate in scale to the transport infrastructure, including public transport; c) it is integrated with the wider network of routes including public rights of way and cycle paths where appropriate; d) it makes adequate provision for all users, including for car and other vehicle parking, giving priority to people with mobility difficulties, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians; e) it includes, where appropriate, provision for public transport either within the scheme or through contributions; and f) the proposal is accompanied by an agreed Green Travel Plan where it is necessary to minimise a potentially significant impact of the development on the wider area or as a result of needing to address an existing local traffic problem.”

6.21 The Highway Authority has been consulted as part of the proposals and has raised no objections with regard to access, parking and traffic levels but has requested that numerous conditions be attached to address the following concerns:

 The poor access arrangements to the garage of unit 3;  visibility being impaired by trees for drivers exiting plots 4-7;  the narrow access road to the larger car park area may result in accidents. A 4.0 metre access road could result in vehicles colliding, it should be amended to 4.8m in width.

6.22 A total of 33 car parking spaces would be provided on the site. This provision has been considered against the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator (PDC) and the Highway Authority has stated that the proposed provision does not exceed the requirement generated by way of the Parking Demand Calculator.

Noise & Contamination

6.23 The applicant has designed the block of flats to provide a noise buffer from the roof mounted plant on the adjoining business park. The Local Planning Authority requested that the block of flats be reduced in height, however the agent has stated that the height of the flats is at the minimum required to mitigate against the noise impact from the adjacent Huffwood Industrial Estate.

6.24 Public Health & Licensing have been consulted on the application and they have commented that they have no further comments to add with regard to the noise issues at the site and for the ground contamination the applicant has now submitted a desk study for APPENDIX A/ 3 - 12

the site which provides sufficient information to allow this matter to be determined by condition which is in accordance with Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy 2007 and Paragraph 120 of the NPPF 2012.

Legal Agreement & Financial Contributions

6.25 The requirement for contributions arises not only out of adopted Development Plan policy (policy CP13 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy 2007) but is also backed by detailed Supplementary Planning Guidance contained within the document ‘Planning Obligations 2007’. This SPG forms part of a suite of documents that constitute the LDF and it should, therefore, be afforded considerable weight. These contributions meet the tests as set out in Circular 5/05 by the Secretary of State, as explained within Chapter 2 of the SPD. The CIL regulation, April 2010 placed into law the Government’s policy tests on the use of policy obligations.

6.26 Section 106 agreements are required to meet the following three tests:

A: Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; B: Directly related to the development; and C: Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.27 The community contributions sought would consist of open space, sport and recreation £21,109, community centres and halls £4,662 and local recycling £2331. The use of funds towards improvements to the upgrading and refurbishment of the play, skate and sports equipment at Lower Station Road Recreation Ground or the improvements to facilities and replacement of equipment at Billingshurst Bowling Club are considered to meet the statutory tests. The application site is located within Billingshurst Parish and the dwellings proposed would be likely to be occupied by families with children who would utilise the Lower Station Road Recreation Ground or older people who would utilise the Bowling Club facilities. The community contributions required are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms as, in line with policy CP13, it would enable the provision of improved facilities at the identified location.

6.28 West Sussex Highway Authority has also requested contributions of £75,536 which breaks down as a Primary Education Contribution of £30,315, Secondary Education Contribution of £32,627, a Sixth Form Education Contribution of £7,643, a Libraries Contribution of £3,631 and a Fire & Rescue Contribution of £1,320.

6.29 The applicant has not submitted a S106 legal agreement to secure the above contributions, therefore refusal reason four relates to the above.

Prior Notification

6.30 Members should note that the applicant has submitted a Notification (Reference DC/14/0291) to change the two existing buildings on site from B1a (Office Use) to C3 (Residential Use) under the provisions of Class J of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended. This was submitted on 17th February 2014 and has 56 days to be determined (14th April) by the Local Planning Authority. The planning application can be determined on its own merits as the Prior Notification is a separate matter that is assessed against the requirements of Class J of the General Permitted Development Order. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 13

Summary

6.31 In conclusion, it is considered that the principle of the change of use from commercial buildings to residential is not acceptable in this instance as the applicant has not provided evidence to show that the site is no longer required for commercial purposes contrary to Policy DC19 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. It is considered that the proposed block of flats would be out of keeping with the character of the area due to its design, scale and height contrary to Policy DC9 of the Development Control Policies 2007. It is also considered that the dwelling on Plot 9 would result in the loss of light and outlook and have an overbearing impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling on Plot 8 contrary to Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application be refused on the following grounds:

1) The proposed block of flats due to their siting, design, scale and height would fail to be in keeping with the character of the area and would result in overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would also be highly prominent when viewed from the railway line and from the footpath and would relate poorly to the adjacent buildings on the Huffwood Industrial Estate contrary to Policy DC9 of the Development Control Policies 2007.

2) The dwelling on Plot 9 due to its siting, height and massing would result in the loss of light and outlook and have an overbearing impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling on Plot 8 contrary to Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

3) It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the commercial units are no longer needed and/or viable for employment use contrary to the requirements of Policy DC19 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

4) 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 Core Strategy 2007 as it is not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

Background Papers: DC/13/1090

Case Officer: Kathryn Sadler

DC/13/1090 Nyewood Court

Scale : 1:1250

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 06 March 2014

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th March 2014 Construction of ponds on land at Capon Hill Farm with associated wildlife ponds, wetlands, amenity space, informal parking and planting changing DEVELOPMENT: the use of the land from agricultural (turf production) to quiet informal leisure use SITE: Capons Hill Farm Station Road Cowfold Horsham WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/09/2129 APPLICANT: Mr Anthony Verbeeten

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 4 fishing ponds, 2 shallow wildlife ponds, 2 wetland areas, a public amenity space and an area of informal parking and associated planting, thereby changing the use of the land from an agricultural use to a leisure use.

1.2 The area of the site is 18.24ha and the total area to be re-graded to create the ponds and other features would be approx. 8.5ha. It is anticipated that the works would take 12-18 months to complete subject to a suitable and reliable supply of materials. To achieve this target it is anticipated that approx. 1100 cubic metres of materials would be deployed on the site per day resulting in a maximum of 55 lorry movements per day. It is maintained that the materials used for the construction of the ponds and re-grading of the site would be clean, uncontaminated materials which would be quality checked.

1.3 It is proposed that the existing farm access off the A272 would be used to serve the development. Disabled access within the site would be provided in the form of surfaced pathways, 1.5m wide with a gradient no greater than 1:15 to fishing platforms on the south eastern pond edge designed for wheelchair users.

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

1.4 The parking area would be informal and would accommodate a maximum of 28 cars and 32 cycles. The area would be planted with trees so that parking would take place amongst and under trees.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 Capons Hill Farm is situated in a countryside location on the northern side of the A272 and to the west of the village of Cowfold. The application site is roughly rectangular in shape and comprises a number of fields which for a number of years have been used for the growing, cutting and selling of turf. It is maintained that the land has been stripped many times in this process which has left the land in a barren and impoverished condition of no use for arable or grazing.

1.6 The land rises to the north from the A272 to a slight ridge to the location of the application site where a telecom mast and compound is located in the north east corner of the proposed car parking area. A number of farm buildings are located immediately to the east of this area but outside the application site. From this point the land then falls and rises again in a northward direction to form a shallow valley. Footpath FP1745 crosses the site in an east west direction and from which branches footpath FP1746.

1.7 Capons Hill Farm, a residential property, is situated to the south of the application site and to the east of the access track, close to its junction with the A272. The farm buildings are in a variety of uses which are now probably lawful but do not have the benefit of planning permission. The surrounding area is characterised by fields delineated by hedgerows, mature trees and woodland with sporadic residential development.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development – Sections 3, 7 & 11 are relevant to the proposal.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP5, CP15 & CP18 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.4 Policies DC1, DC2, DC39 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies are relevant to the determination of the application.

PLANNING HISTORY

CF/25/90 Conversion of redundant farm buildings into 3 holiday cottages REF and lecture room/play area and parking Site: Capons Hill Farm Rd Cowfold

CF/46/90 Conversion of redundant farm buildings into holiday cottages, REF lecture room etc Site: Capons Hill Farm Coolham Rd Cowfold

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

CF/33/91 Change of use of farm land to golf course, redundant barn to REF club house & erection of greenkeeper's shed Site: Capons Hill Farm Station Rd Cowfold

CF/40/92 Alterations and extension to building to change use from REF agricultural to distribution and storage of vegetables & fruit Site: Capons Hill Farm Station Rd Cowfold

CF/27/93 Alterations & extension to building to change use from REF agricultural to agricultural & storage/distribution of fruit & vegetables Site: Capons Hill Farm Coolham Rd Cowfold

CF/10/94 Erection of 1 house WDN Site: Capons Cottage Capons Hill Farm Station Rd Cowfold

CF/34/94 Erection of one 2-bedroomed agricultural worker's house with REF garage Site: Capons Hill Farm Coolham Road Cowfold

CF/7/94 Alteration to vehicular access PER Site: Capons Hill Farm Station Rd Cowfold

CF/27/97 Erection of a 20m high telecommunications mast with antennae REF equipment cabin and fencing Site: Capons Hill Farm Coolham Road Cowfold

CF/30/98 Prior notification to construct an access track PER Site: Capons Hill Farm Station Road Cowfold

CF/6/98 Overhead line and pole PER Site: Capons Hill Farm Coolham Road Cowfold

DC/09/1396 Overhead Line (Land North of Capons Hill Farm, Station Road, PER Cowfold)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal and external consultations, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which area available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic Planning Policy Manager: No strategic policy objection is raised to the proposal in principle provided the proposal has appropriate measures in place to address any environmental issues.

3.2 Landscape Architect: objects to the proposal as whilst the concept/aerial plan possibly suggests a more complex pattern of wet areas this is not reflected in the detailed contour plans and cross sections. The detailed plans also do not show any proposed hedgerow or areas of scrub enhancement. Concern is also expressed regarding the importation and spreading of inert waste over a potentially long period of time and the resultant adverse landscape and visual impacts. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

3.3 Head of Public Health & Licensing: whilst no formal objection is raised to the proposal nevertheless a number of concerns have been identified in respect of noise, dust and the importation of materials. It is considered that the construction phase of the development is likely to cause disturbance to neighbouring residents arising from the use of plant machinery and HGV movements. No details of dust control strategies have been submitted and there is concern that the scheme may result in the contamination of previously green field sites through the importation of contaminated soils.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 Environment Agency: originally objected to the proposal as no assessment of the risks to nature conservation had been provided. However, following discussions with the applicant no objection is now raised to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions.

3.5 West Sussex County Council as Highways Authority objects to the proposal on the grounds of highway safety during the period of construction. The proposed development would result in an intensification of large vehicle movements through the site access and whilst the access is considered suitable in terms of visibility, insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that during the construction phase, large vehicles would be able to enter/exit the site without crossing the centre line and entering the opposite carriageway, thus increasing the risk of vehicle/vehicle conflict.

With regard to the proposed leisure use of the site, it is not possible to advise whether this would result in an intensification of traffic movements as no evidence has been provided of the former (agricultural) use of the site. However, the County Surveyor has made no comments as to whether the access would be suitable for the proposed use and if the proposed car parking layout is satisfactory. A verbal update will be given at the Committee meeting in respect of these issues.

3.6 County Ecologist has no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions.

3.7 County Archaeologist: raises no objection on archaeological grounds as the proposal is not expected to have significant archaeological impact.

3.8 Natural England: has no objection to the proposal as the site does not appear to be in or close to any designated sites.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.9 Cowfold Parish Council objects to the proposal with particular regard to the proposed importation of materials.

3.10 3 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents on the grounds of highway safety, dust and noise, the importation of materials and impact on wildlife.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application are (i) whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government and development plan policy (ii) the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area (iii) highway safety and (iv) the impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

Policy context

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set’s out the government planning policy. In this regard, the NPPF has the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through it as a golden thread. Para.7 of the NPPF explains that there are 3 dimensions to sustainable development – an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. Para.8 advises that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well designed buildings and places can improve the lives of peoples and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life.

6.3 Specific advice in Para.64 states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

6.4 The site lies outside any defined built-up area and is therefore subject to the countryside policies of the Local Development Framework. Policies CP1 & CP2 of the Core Strategy, along with Policies DC1, DC2 & DC5 of the General Development Control Policies seek to not only protect but also to enhance the diverse character and local distinctiveness of the District, and to integrate the need for the protection of the natural environment of the District together with the need to allow the continued evolution of the countryside.

Principle of development

6.5 The application proposes the construction of 4 fishing ponds, 2 shallow wildlife ponds, 2 wetland areas, a public amenity space and an area of informal parking and associated planting. The water features would be fed by rainwater as are the existing ponds in the area. The site was formerly in agricultural use but for some considerable time has been repeatedly stripped for turf production. It is maintained that this cultivation and stripping of turf has left the land barren and impoverished and of no ecological value.

6.6 However, there are a number of features on the site which are considered to have some ecological value namely its hedgerows, trees and a small pond in the north central area of the site. It is proposed that this area would be excluded from any works and would be permanently fenced thereby preventing any public access. All existing trees and hedgerows would be retained and protected during the construction works. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6

6.7 The provision of the 2 wildlife ponds would be in accordance with the Million Ponds project which seeks to create an extensive network of new ponds across the UK. Other wildlife features comprise the 2 wetland areas, the planting of a hazel copse and the provision of bat boxes and bird nesting boxes. These areas would be financed by the revenue from the fishing ponds but would remain separate from the fishing and main public access areas and so would remain largely undisturbed.

6.8 It is acknowledged that there may be certain circumstances where development is necessary to ensure the continued sustainable development of rural areas. Such development might include that which is required to sustain the countryside as a place of varied and productive social and economic activity, such as leisure and tourism. In this case, it is anticipated that the resultant use of the land would be relatively low-key leisure activities: angling and walking. In this respect, the proposal appears to be in general conformity with criterion c) of Policy DC1 as it would provide for quiet informal recreational use.

Landscape impact

6.9 Whilst there is no objection in principle to the development of the site as proposed, normal development control criteria must also be fulfilled to ensure that the landscape character is protected and/or conserved and/or enhanced in accordance with Policy DC2.

6.10 It is proposed that the 4 fishing ponds would be cut into the slope of the land ie on the slopes of the valley which have a relatively steep gradient. All spoil generated by this operation would be used in situ with no material being removed from the site. However, the applicant considers that the existing contours of the land would necessitate the importation of additional material to complete the ponds and the remaining features shown on the plans. It is estimated that 67,572 cubic metres of material would be required to complete the works and construction is expected to take 12-18 months. It should be noted that this proposed time frame would be dependent on the weather and the availability of materials. It is anticipated that the maximum number of lorry movements per day would be about 55. In addition to the construction of pond banks and the associated re-grading works, it is also proposed to construct temporary haul roads.

6.11 The Landscape Architect has expressed serious concerns regarding the impacts of the earthworks as proposed which are considered inappropriate to the landscape character of the area. The pond designs as proposed do not reflect many aspects of the Million Pond design guidance or EA design guidance, despite the applicant’s statement that the ponds have been designed on the basis of this guidance. Furthermore, whilst the submitted concept/aerial plan possibly suggests a more complex pattern of wet areas this is not reflected in the detailed contour plans and cross sections provided. The plans also do not show the planting of hedgerows or enhancement of any areas of scrub. Whilst it is acknowledged that it is intended to restore Weald meadow land, nevertheless, this restoration would be just around the margins of the ponds where earthworks would be taking place rather than a more general commitment to enhance the biodiversity of the rest of the grassland on the site.

6.12 Discussions have taken place with the applicant with a view to re-locating the ponds to the valley floor, however, this suggestion was not considered acceptable to the applicant who considered that the creation of ponds within the valley would destroy the public footpath, notwithstanding the ponds could be designed in scale and shape to avoid impacting on the footpath. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7

6.13 The Landscape Architect does not therefore support the scheme as submitted as in his view, the level of proposed earthworks and resultant landform would have an adverse impact on the key characteristics of the landscape and would therefore conflict with the aims and objectives of Policies DC1 & DC2.

Highway Safety

6.14 Policy DC40 criterion (a) states that development will be permitted if ‘it provides a safe and adequate means of access.’ In this respect, Members will note that an objection to the proposal has been raised by the Highway Authority on the grounds of highway safety. The proposed development, during the construction phase in particular, would result in an intensification of use of the existing access. The section of Station Road on which the access is located is subject to a 50mph speed limit and it would be necessary for large vehicles to enter and exit the site without the need to cross the centre point/line of the A272. The access should also be wide enough for a large vehicle to stand clear of the highway upon entering the access should another vehicle be waiting to exit. Whilst additional information has been submitted to satisfy the County Surveyor that the requisite visibility splays are achievable, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the largest vehicles could access the site safely. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC40.

6.15 It should also be noted that no evidence has been submitted regarding the traffic generation in connection with the existing use of the land for turf production so it is not possible to accurately assess whether the proposed leisure use would generate a lower level of vehicular activity than the existing use.

Impact on neighbouring residents

6.16 Policy DC9 criterion (b) states that ‘Planning permission will be granted for development which does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land, for example, through overlooking or noise…’ In this regard, the Head of Public Health & Licensing has identified areas of concern in respect of noise, dust and the importation of materials. In terms of noise, the construction phase is likely to cause disturbance to neighbouring residents arising from the use of plant machinery and HGV movements. However, in the absence of any detailed noise assessment it is not possible to quantify the scale of environmental noise impacts associated with the development. Soil stockpiles and placing or moving of soils at the site offer a potential for significant dust nuisance to be caused but no details of dust control strategies for the development have been provided.

6.17 With regard to the importation of materials, there is concern that the scheme may result in the contamination of previously green field sites through the importation of contaminated soils. An absence of reliable information about the imported materials may mean that this site has to be regarded as potentially contaminated for the purposes of the statutory contaminated land provisions.

6.18 In terms of the use of the fishing ponds, there is a significant lack of detail in respect of the proposed method of operation, and in particular with regard to the hours of use. It has been highlighted that this could potentially mean that the fishing activities could take place 24 hours a day all year round. Having regard to the location of Capons Hill Farm at the entrance to the site, there is concern that unrestricted use of the access could have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling in terms of noise and disturbance. It is not therefore considered that the proposal meets the requirements of Policy DC9. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8

Conclusion

6.19 There is no objection in principle to the creation of fishing ponds, wildlife ponds and wetlands as the ponds and walkers’ amenity area would provide for quiet informal recreational use which is in accordance with the requirements of Policy DC1. However, leisure and tourism development must be sensitive to the environment in which it is located and not reduce the attractiveness of the countryside, or negatively affect the amenity of local residents. In this respect, the proposed scheme would also necessitate the importation of large volumes of material which has given rise to concerns regarding the proposal’s adverse impact on the character of the landscape and highway safety, particularly during the construction phase of the development. In addition, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of dust, noise and disturbance. In the circumstances, whilst the resultant land use may be acceptable in principle, it is considered that the application should be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development due to the unsympathetic location, scale, design and appearance of the proposed landform and ponds would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The resultant landform would introduce a discordant and prominent feature in the landscape which would be visually intrusive. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies CP1 & CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy; Policies DC2 & DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies and Paras.17 & 64 of the NPPF.

2. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of dust, noise and disturbance during the construction phase of the development. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies

3. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on highway safety during the construction phase of the development as insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the largest vehicles could access the site safely. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies.

4. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the use of the access in association with the proposed leisure use of the site would not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of Capons Hill Farm in terms of noise and disturbance as insufficient detail has been submitted in respect of the proposed method of operation. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies

Background Papers: DC/09/2129 DC/09/2129 Capons Hill Farm

Scale : 1:10000

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 06 March 2014

SLA Number 100023865