Agenda Item 9

Report PC 15/14 Report to Planning Committee Date 13 February 2014 By Director of Planning Local Authority District Council Application Number SDNP/13/02293/FUL Applicant Current Asset Limited Application Demolition of existing B1(c) industrial building with ancillary offices and erection of a new mixed development with A1/A2, B1 and C3 uses. Provision of service yard and car parking. Address Dundee House, Bepton Road, Midhurst, , GU29 9LZ Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision.

Recommendation: That planning permission be refused for the reason set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report

Executive Summary The redevelopment of this brownfield site, to provide a mixed residential, retail, office and professional services use, is considered appropriate and sequentially preferable in this sustainable location within the built up area of Midhurst. However, the proposed development would result in a structure lacking in local distinctiveness that does not preserve or enhance the Midhurst Conservation Area or conserve or enhance the South Downs National Park. There would be an acceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties whilst other issues, such as highway safety, ecology, contaminated land and archaeology could be addressed by appropriate conditions.

1. Site Description 1.1 The application site forms a 0.11ha rectangular and flat parcel of land located in Midhurst in West Sussex. The site lies within the built up area of Midhurst located at the junction of Bepton Road and White City primarily fronting Bepton Road. Whilst the Local Plan 1999 does not define a town centre or primary shopping frontage for Midhurst the site lies in an area of sporadic retail development to the south-west of the majority of the retail provision in Midhurst. 1.2 The application site is encompassed to the south, east and north by roads with the road to the north forming the access to the adjacent Budgens supermarket. To the west of the site, following the pattern of development along Bepton Road, is a two-storey detached commercial building (Dean House) whilst to the south, across Bepton Road, are two and three storey buildings that have been converted to offices. 1.3 The site itself constitutes a two-story flat roofed commercial building, known as Dundee House, that is currently in mixed use forming predominantly use classes B1c (light industry) and ancillary B1 (office) accommodation. This is supplemented by an open parking area, enclosed by metal fencing, in the north-east corner of the site. 1.4 The site is prominent on the southern approach to the centre of Midhurst within the 42 Midhurst Conservation Area. It has a close association with the historic centre of Midhurst, with historic buildings neighbouring to the southwest and across Bepton Road to the south and east. The site area and the west side of the road up to the junction with West Street/Petersfield Road is of more recent construction and identified by the conservation area appraisal as having a negative impact on the character of the conservation area. This is due to both the fact that most of the space remained undeveloped until relatively recently and that the historic buildings near the junction with Petersfield Road were demolished after being hit by a bomb in World War Two. 1.5 This area of Bepton Road historically had a predominantly residential character with some retail and industrial uses. The principal building type within the area is of individual houses or pairs of houses forming terraces which are built hard to the back of the pavement without set backs. Opposite the site, the building types change to large Edwardian and Victorian Villas with small set backs behind low boundary walls. Further down Bepton Road, to the southeast, are two pairs of semis and two terraces, consisting of repeating terraced house types. The historic map of 1897 shows that the site was previously occupied by a pair of buildings, which appear to occupy their plot in the same way as the terraced house types to the northern end of Bepton Road. 1.6 The site also lies within the Midhurst Settlement boundary and the wider area is defined as Rother Farmland and Heath Mosaic by the South Downs Landscape Character Assessment 2011.

2. Relevant Planning History 2.1 There is no recent relevant planning history for the site. 2.2 A concurrent application (SDNP/13/02294/CON) has been submitted seeking conservation area consent for the demolition of the buildings on the site.

3. Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the demolition of Dundee House and the erection of a structure formed of two interconnecting but distinctive parts. The southern element of the building proposed contains 130m² of mixed retail (A1) and professional services (A2) floorspace on the ground floor and four open market one-bedroom residential units on the first floor. The northern element proposes 282m² of retail (A1) floorspace on the ground floor and 293m² of office space (B1) on the first floor (commensurate to approximately 20 full time jobs). 3.2 To the northern section of the site are 18 car parking spaces (including the four on White City and one reserved for disabled motorists), a cycle store for 16 cycles and space for parking a light goods vehicle. The retail, professional services, office and residential units would be accessed via three respective accesses onto Bepton Road. 3.3 The proposal would construct a two-storey building on the eastern part of the application site with the north-eastern corner rising to a height equivalent to a three-storey building. The building would be finished in a mixture of red facing brick, red brick detailing, vertical tile hanging, clay roof tiles and timber windows. 3.4 The existing metal fencing would be removed with new fencing only reinstated to the southern elevation facing the adjacent building. Two trees and an area of shrubs would be planted on the northern boundary. 3.5 The application form and drawings are accompanied by:  Acoustic Report;  Bat Report;  Contamination Report;  Design and Access Statement;  Drainage Strategy;  Energy Statement;  Heritage Impact Assessment; 43  Landscape Management Statement;  Planning Statement; and  Transport Statement (inc. road safety audit).

4. Consultations The application was received in May 2013. Revised plans, amending the design in response to the Design Review Panels comments, were submitted in December 2013 and a full re- consultation was undertaken in January 2014. Updated and additional comments received are included below. 4.1 CDC Archaeologist: No objection. 4.2 CDC Ecologist: No objection. 4.3 CDC Environmental Health: No objection with regard to contaminated land and air quality 4.4 Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions regarding contaminated land 4.5 Midhurst Town Council: Support: Members were pleased to see that this application would extend the retail offer within the town linking North Street shops with West Street. It was felt to be a high quality development which would be of benefit to the town commercially and mirror existing architecture. 4.6 SDNPA Design Review Panel: The SDNPA Design Review Panel considered the application in June 2013 making the following points:  The application site is on a prominent corner with the potential to enhance the Conservation Area. The proposal should relate both to Bepton Road and the supermarket car park;  The proposal should reference the proposed uses as opposed to seeking to replicate the large former residential buildings opposite the site on Bepton Road;  The relationship between the commercial and residential elements proposed is challenging to ensure residential amenity is acceptable;  The proposal is not considered of an appropriate design to enhance amenity of the areas or character of the Conservation Area.  Concern regarding the way in which the building sits on the site, addresses the corner and responds to the conditions at the back through its approach to bulk, scale, mass and materials;   Concern that the design is based on neighbouring housing – a holistic design approach is needed that is in scale with the use;  The roof form, which appears to big;  The character and planting of the service yard;  The quality of amenity space for residential uses and the layout of the apartments Amended plans were subsequently submitted in December 2013 alongside a written response stating how the proposal had sought to address the Design Review Panels concerns which is available on the online planning register. The proposal was not considered further by the Design Review Panel but the SDNPA Design Officer has confirmed that many of the observations made remain relevant. 4.7 SDNPA Design Officer: Object on the following grounds:  Uncharacteristic building forms, scale, massing and width;  Uncharacteristic roof form, height;  Uncharacteristic building character;  The poor quality and character of the area to the rear.

44 4.8 SDNPA Historic Buildings Advisor: Object: The proposed building would introduce an element of discordant massing into this part of the Midhurst Conservation Area that is characterised by Victorian cottages and suburban housing. 4.9 WSCC Highways Officer: No objection. 4.10 Southern Water: No objection.

5. Representations 5.1 Chichester Access Group: All accesses should be level and doorways 900mm wide to facilitate access. 5.2 One third-party representation has been received objecting on the grounds that the proposed shop windows are of an inappropriate design. 5.3 Three third-party representations have been received neither in support or objection but raising the following points:  A secure pedestrian footpath should be maintained;  Controls should be placed on the construction works to ensure that noise and dust levels are acceptable;  Controls should be placed to ensure the construction works do not restrict access to Midhurst or result in traffic delays.

6. Planning Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester District Council Local Plan 1999 and the relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below. National Park Purposes 6.2 The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:  To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas;  To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. 6.3 If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 2010  Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the national parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. Paragraph 116 states that planning permission for major developments within National Parks should be refused except in exceptional circumstances. 6.4 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 requires that “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the area”. 6.5 The development plan policies listed below have been assessed for their compliance with the NPPF and are considered to be compliant. South Downs Partnership Management Plan 6.6 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year 45 Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan.

7. Development Plan Policies 7.1 The relevant Saved Policies in the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 are: B8: Safeguarding business floorspace; BE1: Settlement policy areas BE3: Archaeology BE4: Buildings of architectural or historic merit BE6: Conservation areas BE11: New development BE14: Ecology, trees and landscape BE16: Energy conservation H8: Social and low cost housing in settlement policy areas S6: East Wittering, Midhurst, and Selsey Shopping Centres 7.2 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance are relevant to this application: Midhurst Conservation Area Character Appraisal – Update March 2012 Chichester District Council Interim Statement on planning for Affordable Housing 2007 Chichester District Council Interim Statement on planning and Climate Change 2012 Chichester District Council Planning Guidance Note 5 – Parking Standards 2007 Chichester District Council Service Infrastructure SPG 2004 West Sussex County Council The provision of service infrastructure related to new development in West Sussex 1999

8. Planning Assessment Principle of development 8.1 Paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that “planning permission should be refused for major developments in designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:  the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;  the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and  any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated”. 8.2 The application site is within the urban framework of Midhurst and is currently in use as a light industrial unit with associated office accommodation. This reflects the sites sustainable location within an established major settlement in the National Park and its redevelopment, to enhance the conservation area, is considered sequentially preferable. 8.3 Accordingly, the proposed residential accommodation is considered acceptable as it is in a sustainable location within the settlement boundary of Midhurst. No affordable housing would be required as the proposal does not meet the applicable threshold of five dwellings. 8.4 Furthermore, the proposed office, professional services and retail floorspace is considered acceptable in that they would be located in a sustainable location within the settlement boundary with good transport links. These uses, which could include food retail are considered consistent with the use of other commercial units along Bepton Road.

46 8.5 Given that the proposal is for the redevelopment of an urban brownfield site, that currently detracts form the character and appearance of the conservation area, and will support the local economy it is considered that the proposal meets the first two considerations (the cost and whether the site is sequentially preferable) of Paragraph 116 of the NPPF. The third consideration (landscape impact) is considered below. Impact upon the landscape Character of the National Park and setting of the Midhurst Conservation Area 8.6 The redevelopment of the site provides an opportunity to repair a portion of lost streetscape quality in Midhurst. However, the geometry of the entrance to the supermarket, the poor townscape qualities of the police station adjacent to the site, the public nature of the supermarket forecourt and the need to provide a quality of amenity space for residents present challenging design issues. 8.7 The southern portion of the proposal consists of a retail use, with residential units above, within a part of the building that is of a scale and type that relates well to the characteristic buildings of the conservation area. It would be preferable for the first floor windows to be both the same, square type, but this is not a significant cause for concern. Similarly, it would be more characteristic for the roof to be rotated by 180 degrees as it is more characteristic for building ranges to follow the line of the street on the front and to be perpendicular at the rear. In addition, the glazed connection between this part of the development and the larger structure to its north is uncharacteristic of Midhurst. 8.8 The main part of the proposed building is considered out of scale with the historically characteristic buildings of Midhurst; the built form includes a span of some 24m fronting Bepton road which is considered too wide whilst the uncharacteristically tall roof results from the depth of the building. The roof is not composed of individual building volumes like the characteristic buildings of Midhurst but consists of single spans of which one is flat roofed in the middle. This building type proposed, with tile-hung double gables and deep fascia’s, is not considered to relate well to the characteristic retail/residential buildings of Midhurst, which have narrower plots and are not formed as large, singly composed buildings. 8.9 The visual impact of the parking and servicing functions at the rear of the proposal are considered to be compromised by the unsatisfactory resolution of the range of functions the space is required to fulfil: access for store servicing; residential amenity space; residential parking; store parking; pedestrian access for store users; storage of refuse and landscaping. In particular:  The rear pedestrian access to retail unit one is considered poor; the landscaping to either side of the path is uncharacteristic of Midhurst where backs and side of rear courts are typically enclosed. Without this quality of enclosure, the space leaks into the surrounding area at the back and rear in a way that is uncharacteristic;  The turning head into the site creates a wide opening into the site which exacerbates this quality of leakiness. There is insufficient differentiation between the public area outside the site and the private area of parking and servicing within. A semi-public semi- private area is uncharacteristic of Midhurst;  The location of refuse and pallet storage at the entrance to the rear of the site is not considered compatible with an appropriate public interface at the rear;  The dominance of the rear court by parking is not considered compatible with the provision of a good quality of amenity space for residents. 8.10 Given the above it is considered that the proposal would result in a building that does not preserve or enhance the Midhurst conservation area or conserve or enhance the South Downs National Park. This is considered to be in conflict with the third consideration of Paragraph 116 of the NPPF. Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties 8.11 It is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact upon the amenity of any neighbouring property - the application site is bounded on three sides by highway and, to the southern elevation, the proposal would not unduly impact upon the amenity of the adjacent 47 Dean House which is in commercial use. Highway Safety and parking provision 8.12 The proposed access to the site is not considered by the WSCC Highways Officer to result in any highway safety issues. With regards to vehicle movements the trip rate for the proposed development, as set out in the submitted transport statement, indicates that the proposal would generate 20 vehicles within the morning peak hour (8am-9am) and 30 vehicle movements within the afternoon peak hour (5pm-6pm). This equates to approximately one movement every three minutes in the morning peak and one movement every two minutes in the afternoon peak. The WSCC Highways Officer considers that, notwithstanding the movements generated by the existing use, the trip generation proposed would not have a material impact upon White City or the junction with Bepton Road. 8.13 The application site falls within parking zone 3 as defined by the Chichester District Council Planning Guidance Note 5 – Parking Standards 2007. The uses proposed equate to a requirement for 32 parking spaces. However, when consideration is given to the sustainable location of the site and the nearby Grange car park the proposed provision of 18 car parking spaces is considered acceptable. Furthermore, the WSCC Highways Officer has not raised any concerns with the proposed servicing arrangements. Infrastructure 8.14 The proposal does not meet the threshold for either transport, public art, affordable housing or open spaces contributions whilst no contributions for education, library facilities or recycling have been requested. Other material considerations 8.15 The CDC Interim Statement on Planning and Climate Change states that new developments must meet Level 3 of the code for sustainable homes for dwellings and BREEAM Very Good for commercial properties. The submitted energy statement confirms that the proposal will meet these standards. 8.16 The application includes a bat survey which conclude that no bats were found on site. The CDC ecologist has confirmed they have no objections. 8.17 With regards to archaeology there is evidence that the Midhurst medieval settlement continued for some distance south of the West Street/Petersfield Road junction on either side of Bepton Road. Therefore, it would be appropriate to secure, via planning condition, that any significant ground-works be archaeologically monitored so that any deposits of interest would be properly recorded. 8.18 A phase one desktop study revealed that there was not a high risk of contamination on site. Therefore, as agreed by the CDC Environmental Health Officer and Environment Agency, there is no objection subject to a condition requiring a more intrusive survey.

8.19 Should consent be granted conditions could be placed to ensure that construction works have an acceptable impact upon neighbouring amenity and vehicular access to local services.

9. Conclusion 9.1 The proposed redevelopment of this brownfield site, to provide a mixed residential, retail, office and professional services use, is considered appropriate and sequentially preferable in this sustainable location within the built up area of Midhurst.

9.2 In addition, it is considered that there will be an acceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties whilst other issues, such as highway safety, ecology, contaminated land and archaeology could be addressed by appropriate conditions. No infrastructure contributions are required. 9.3 However, the proposed development would result in a large structure lacking in local distinctiveness and a layout that that does not preserve or enhance the Midhurst Conservation Area or conserve or enhance the South Downs National Park and accordingly

48 permission should not be granted.

10. Reason for Recommendation and conditions 10.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reason: 1. The proposed development, by reason its uncharacteristic form, scale, height, width and massing would result in a structure lacking in local character and distinctiveness that does not preserve or enhance the Midhurst Conservation Area or conserve or enhance the South Downs National Park. This is contrary to Saved Policies BE6 and BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 and the NPPF.

11. Crime and Disorder Implication 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not raise any crime and disorder implications.

12. Human Rights Implications 12.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual’s human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

13 Equalities Act 2010 13.1 Due regard, where relevant, has been taken to the South Downs National Park Authority’s equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.

14 Proactive Working 14.1 In reaching this decision the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF. This has included the provision of advice during the application and the opportunity to provide additional information to seek clarification on a number of issues.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Contact Officer: David Cranmer Tel: 01730 234120 email: [email protected] Appendices 1. Site Location Map SDNPA Consultees Director of Planning & Legal Services

Background Documents http://planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MMUKN4TU1V000

49

Agenda Item 9 Report PC15/14 Appendix 1 Site Location Map

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)

50