North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (Calls May Be Recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6

Park North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (calls may be recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6 www.horsham.gov.uk

Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line: 01403 215465

Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 3RD APRIL 2012 AT 5.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman) Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey Ian Howard Andrew Baldwin David Jenkins Peter Burgess Christian Mitchell John Chidlow Josh Murphy Christine Costin Godfrey Newman Helena Croft Jim Rae Leonard Crosbie Stuart Ritchie Malcolm Curnock David Sheldon Laurence Deakins David Skipp Duncan England Simon Torn Frances Haigh Claire Vickers David Holmes Tricia Youtan

You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 6th March 2012 (attached)

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

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

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

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

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

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A01 Forest DC/11/2585 Old Doomsday Hammerpond Road Horsham

A02 Rusper and DC/12/0178 Durrants Drive Faygate Colgate A03 Southwater DC/11/2502 Easteds Barn Easteds Lane Southwater

A04 Horsham Park DC/12/0299 Ashton Grange Nursing Home 3 Richmond Road Horsham A05 Rusper and DC/11/0799 Rusper Nunnery Horsham Road Rusper Colgate A06 Roffey South DC/12/0386 Open Space at Junction With Oak Tree Way Redkiln Way Horsham A07 Roffey North DC/11/2699 Charmans Close Horsham

A08 Southwater DC/11/2698 Shipley Road Southwater

A09 Nuthurst DC/11/2517 Land Rear of 21 Woodlands Walk Mannings Heath

A10 Broadbridge DC/11/2074 Plot 1 Land South of Broadbridge Heath Old Heath Wickhurst Lane Broadbridge Heath A11 Denne S106/1825 Land East of A24 Worthing Road Horsham

A12 Broadbridge DC/11/2059 Plot 1 Land South of Broadbridge Heath Old Heath Wickhurst Lane Broadbridge Heath

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.

DCN120306

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 6TH MARCH 2012

Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Christine Costin, Helena Croft, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Laurence Deakins, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, David Holmes, Ian Howard, David Jenkins, Christian Mitchell, Josh Murphy, Godfrey Newman, Jim Rae, Stuart Ritchie, David Sheldon, Simon Torn, Claire Vickers, Tricia Youtan.

Apologies: Councillors: David Skipp

DCN/115 MINUTES

The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 7th and 21st February 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/116 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Peter DC/11/1660 Personal & prejudicial – in 2004 he Burgess had been the subject of a complaint to the Standards Board by the applicant in relationship to his chairmanship of North Horsham Parish Council Councillor Christian DC/11/1660 Personal – he knew the applicant’s Mitchell grandson

DCN/117 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCN/118 APPEALS

Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/11/2127 Lierre, Lambs Green, Rusper Mr and Mrs B Wells DC/11/1672 124 Woodlands Way, Southwater Mr John Douglas

Development Control (North) Committee 6th March 2012

DCN/119 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/11/1709 - SCHEME A WITH NO GLAZED LINK: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF 48 RETIREMENT APARTMENTS (32 X 1-BED AND 16 X 2-BED) WITH COMMUNAL FACILITIES, LANDSCAPING, CAR PARKING AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM CLARENCE ROAD DC/11/1710 - SCHEME B WITH GLAZED LINK: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF 48 RETIREMENT APARTMENTS (35 X 1-BED AND 13 X 2-BED) WITH COMMUNAL FACILITIES, LANDSCAPING, CAR PARKING AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM CLARENCE ROAD SITE: MID SUSSEX AREA PROFESSIONAL CENTRE CLARENCE ROAD HORSHAM APPLICANT: MCCARTHY AND STONE RETIREMENT LIFESTYLES LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that application DC/11/1709 (Scheme A - no glazed link) proposed the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 48 retirement apartments comprising 32 x 1-bed and 16 x 2-bed with communal facilities including laundry, refuse room, guest suite and internal residents’ lounge with kitchen, landscaping, car parking and new vehicular access from Clarence Road. Application DC/11/1710 (Scheme B - with glazed link) proposed the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 48 retirement apartments comprising 35 x 1-bed and 13 x 2-bed with communal facilities, landscaping, car parking and new vehicular access from Clarence Road.

Both schemes proposed retirement flats contained in one ‘U’ shaped building, set around an internal courtyard. The building frontage to Brighton Road would be three storeys high, with the projecting rear elements along Clarence Road and Moons Lane gradually reducing in height to two storey and single storey elements at the north eastern end of the site. The development proposed a combined vehicular and pedestrian access off Clarence Road, with a car parking area for twenty cars, and pedestrian access off both Brighton Road and Moons Lane.

The main differences between the two schemes were the number of one and two bedroom units proposed and the design of the front elevations facing Brighton Road. Whilst the visual appearance of the frontage in both schemes would be broken up to add visual interest and articulation to the mass of the building, Scheme A would have a solid frontage, broken up by recessed brick built stairwells between the main building blocks, and Scheme B would have a frontage broken up by glazed links between the main building blocks, which aimed to give the appearance of separate building blocks along this frontage.

The site currently comprised an existing West Sussex County Council building, known as the Mid Sussex Professional Centre. The area

2 Development Control (North) Committee 6th March 2012

DCN/119 Planning Applications: DC/11/1709 & DC/11/1710 (cont.)

surrounding the main building was generally tarmac surfaced, with the southern area of the site laid out as car parking with two access points off Clarence Road. The application site was located within the built-up area boundary of Horsham and was located in a sustainable area. The area surrounding the application site was generally characterised by residential development comprising houses and flats of two, three and four storeys in height.

Government Policies PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, PPS22 and PPS24; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP11, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC2, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18, DC19, DC31 and DC40; and South East Plan 2009 policies CC6, CC1, CC2 and CC4 were all relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

HU/31/55 Temporary hutted classroom for primary Granted school HU/31/61 Extension for meals service for primary Granted school HU/322/64 Vehicular access Granted DC/08/2562 Demolition of existing buildings and re- Withdrawn development with residential comprising 8 dwellings and 13 flats (21units in total) (outline)

The comments of the Housing Strategy & Development Manager, Public Health & Licensing, the Landscape Officer, the Design & Conservation Officer, the Drainage Section, Strategic & Community Planning, West Sussex County Council and Southern Water were noted. Sussex Police raised no objections. The Neighbourhood Council objected to the proposal and their comments were noted. Two letters of objection and two of support had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposal and the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The main issues for consideration in the determination of these applications were the principle of the development in this location; the impact of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area, the amenities of neighbour and future occupiers; parking and highway safety issues, together with sustainability; and whether affordable housing should be provided on site, or if it would be appropriate to provide such housing off site and, if so, what the level of contribution should be.

3 Development Control (North) Committee 6th March 2012

DCN/119 Planning Applications: DC/11/1709 & DC/11/1710 (cont.)

The site was located within a sustainable location with good access to local facilities and a range of services within the town centre and good links to public transport. Also, the existing building was not regarded as being of any significant architectural or historic importance and it was therefore considered that there was no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site.

The development would be a substantial building, extending 49.5 metres across the frontage to Brighton Road; 40 metres along Clarence Road; and 53 metres along Moons Lane, with reducing heights along the length of the rear projections from three to two and one storey high. However, the building would be heavily articulated with recesses and projections in order to break up its mass and bulk along all elevations and with consideration to local character and architectural influences in order to give it visual interest.

It was considered that the building would be adequately set back from the site boundaries and the road frontage and would not result in any appreciable harm to either the visual amenities of the street scene or to the private amenities of nearby residential occupiers. It was noted that the applicants had made some amendments to the details of the proposal in order to address various concerns raised during the application process. It was also considered that within the context of the area, which was generally characterised by two and three storey development with pitched and sloping roof profiles, the building would integrate satisfactorily with its surroundings.

It was considered that the separation distances between the existing and proposed developments would be acceptable and that there would be no material adverse effect in respect of overlooking or loss of privacy. The provision of adequate planting between the car parking area serving the development and the common boundary, in order to mitigate potential visual and acoustic impact of the proposed development, could be addressed by the imposition of a landscaping condition.

A Transport Statement had been submitted in support of the proposed development, which reviewed the highways and transportation implications of the development when compared to the existing use. West Sussex County Council Highways Department had advised that the proposed development of 48 sheltered housing flats would be a lower traffic generator than the authorised use of the buildings as offices and an adult education centre. Also, given the nature of the proposed retirement housing and likely car ownership, traffic generation was likely to be less, particularly during morning and evening peak hours, than open market housing.

Whilst the proposed provision of 20 parking spaces (0.4 per flat) would be slightly below the maximum recommended County Council standard of 0.5

4 Development Control (North) Committee 6th March 2012

DCN/119 Planning Applications: DC/11/1709 & DC/11/1710 (cont.)

spaces per flat plus one staff space, the applicant had produced survey evidence from three other sites of similar size indicating that this would be adequate to meet peak parking demand. Government policy guidance (PPG3) also advised that authorities should not require developers to provide more parking than they themselves wished, other than in exceptional circumstances. In this particular instance, the Highway Authority was satisfied that the proposed level of parking would be adequate and there would be no significant road safety implications.

Local Development Framework Core Strategy policy CP12 required the provision of affordable housing within new developments, where the relevant threshold was triggered. The applicant proposed that, having regard to the nature of the site and the development proposed, it would be inappropriate to provide affordable housing on site in this case and therefore suggested a contribution should be made to provide affordable dwellings off site. Negotiations had therefore taken place with the applicant and an affordable housing contribution of £523,400 for Scheme A had been agreed. However, a lesser sum had been offered in respect of Scheme B which was considered to be lower than would be expected. Therefore, the details of this commuted sum would need to be assessed further as part of any planning agreement negotiations if the proposal was otherwise considered acceptable.

Members considered that, in general, the proposed development complied with Local Development Framework policies and that it would represent an appropriate form of development in this location. However, it was considered that further clarification was required in respect of the provision and marking out of visitors’ parking spaces; the provision of and pedestrian access to a bus shelter adjacent to the site on Brighton Road; and the comments of Southern Water in respect of foul and surface water sewerage. It was also requested that the County Council be asked to consider the provision of a safe pedestrian crossing route to the bus stop on the opposite side of Brighton Road.

RESOLVED

(a) DC/11/1709

5 Development Control (North) Committee 6th March 2012

DCN/119 Planning Applications: DC/11/1709 & DC/11/1710 (cont.)

visitors’ parking spaces; the provision of and pedestrian access to a bus shelter adjacent to the site on Brighton Road; and the comments of Southern Water in respect of foul and surface water sewerage, application DC/11/1709 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

(b) DC/11/1710

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure the required contributions in respect of the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure. (ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above and clarification in respect of the provision of parking spaces generally and marking out of visitors’ parking spaces; the provision of and pedestrian access to a bus shelter adjacent to the site on Brighton Road; and the comments of Southern Water in respect of foul and surface water sewerage, application DC/11/1710 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

6 Development Control (North) Committee 6th March 2012

DCN/120 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1660 - CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL/OFFICE (USE CLASS A1/B1) TO A HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY (USE CLASS A5) AND ERECTION OF ASSOCIATED CHIMNEY TO SIDE ELEVATION TO SERVICE EXTRACT DUCT SITE: ENTERPRISE HOUSE, 80 LAMBS FARM ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR JOHN RELLEEN (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as, in 2004, he had been the subject of a complaint to the Standards Board by the applicant in relationship to his chairmanship of North Horsham Parish Council. He spoke in objection to the application and then withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the item, in accordance with Paragraph 12(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Members’ Conduct.

Councillor Christian Mitchell declared a personal interest in this application as he knew the applicant’s grandson.)

Councillor Helena Croft indicated that, whilst she had previously expressed strong opinions in respect of this proposal, she would give full and fresh consideration to the information contained within the current report and the arguments put forward during the debate thereon before reaching a decision.

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reminded Members that this application had previously been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 1st November 2011 (Minute No DCN/75 refers). At that time, the determination of the application had been deferred pending the receipt of further information in respect of the implications of the construction of a chimney adjacent to a staircase providing access to flats above; the adequacy of the proposed extract and ventilation system; the nature of the A5 use proposed to occupy the premises; any recent road traffic accidents in the vicinity; and re-consultation with West Sussex County Council on highway safety and parking issues.

Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal.

Three members of the public addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal.

Two different options for the construction of the proposed chimney had been provided by the applicant. Under option 1, the proposed chimney would extend to ground level whilst, under option 2, the base of the proposed chimney would finish at approximately the floor level of the first floor. Both options were considered acceptable by the Building Control Department. Also, the Fire Service had confirmed that it had no objection to the proposed

7 Development Control (North) Committee 6th March 2012

DCN/120 Planning Application: DC/11/1660 (cont.)

change of use: there was no objection to an A5 use under the flat or its access balcony or stairs, indeed there were a number of other A5 uses with flats above in the town, similar to the current proposal.

Although it was not known who the end user of the premises would be, the applicant had confirmed that the extract system could be upgraded to cope with any potential A5 use. This could be achieved without the requirement to change the dimensions, height or external appearance of the proposed chimney. The Public Health and Licensing Department had confirmed that it would be possible to run an adequate system through the proposed chimney stack and the imposition of a suitable condition, requiring that prior to the business commencing and before any system was installed details were submitted for approval, would enable it to ensure that a satisfactory efflux velocity could be achieved. Advice had also been sought from an environmental consultant, who had stated that noise, odour and smell could be controlled adequately by way of condition.

The applicant had provided amended plans, seeking to address the safety issues raised regarding cars driving across the pavement to gain access to the three parking bays on the forecourt, by proposing to block these spaces by the erection of bollards. Staff parking was available at the rear of the premises. West Sussex County Council’s Highways Department had agreed the principle of bollards being put in place as a measure to stop indiscriminate access onto the forecourt and had re-iterated that they had no objection to the proposal on highway grounds. They had also confirmed that there were no records of any accidents in the vicinity of the site. It was noted that, in the determination of the previously dismissed appeal, the Inspector had not considered highway or parking concerns to be a major issue.

Whilst it was noted that there had been a high level of public interest in this planning application, the merits of the proposal needed to be assessed on planning grounds. It was considered that the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed change of use would not have a material adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers, such as to justify a refusal of planning permission.

Amended plans had also been received removing the proposed provision of a soda bar from the scheme, which addressed some of the concerns expressed. However, Members considered that, if approved, an additional condition should be imposed requiring a litter management scheme in respect of the forecourt area.

Whilst the level of concern expressed by local residents was acknowledged,

8 Development Control (North) Committee 6th March 2012

DCN/120 Planning Application: DC/11/1660 (cont.)

Members considered that the proposal was, in principle, acceptable in terms of its planning merits subject to confirmation of both the end user and the approval of a suitable ventilation system.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1660 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the appropriate local Members, to allow the end user to be identified and details of the proposed extract and ventilation system to be submitted and assessed. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted subject to the conditions proposed and an additional condition requiring the submission and implementation of a litter management scheme.

The meeting closed at 7.17pm having commenced at 5.30pm.

CHAIRMAN

9 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 3RD APRIL 2012 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING & 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/11/2326 Erection of detached stable building. Chesworth House, Denne Road, Horsham For: Mr Joao Pita

DC/11/0797 Retention of use of land for valeting cars. Little Park Farm, Charlwood Road, Ifield, Crawley, RH11 0JZ. For: Mr Mark Vickers

DC/11/2482 Erection of a detached dwelling. Grey Walls, North Heath Lane, Horsham, RH12 5PQ. For: Duaris Developments Ltd

4. Appeal Decisions

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

DC/11/1548 Driveway gates moved back and re-siting of 2 metre high fencing. 18 Rowan Way, Horsham, RH12 4NX. For: Mr Graham Dance Appeal: DISMISSED (Committee)

DC/11/1713 2-storey front extension. 2 Beechwood, Southwater, Horsham, RH13 9JU. For: Mrs Amanda Marchant Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/1792 Alteration and part retention of existing building (former dwelling house) to form gym/pool within the garden area of the dwelling. Oakdean House, Sedgwick Lane, Horsham, RH13 6QE. For: Mr Robert Lammas Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/11/1672 Surgery to 1 x Oak tree. 124 Woodlands Way, Southwater, Horsham, RH13 9DR. For: Mr John Douglas Appeal: WITHDRAWN (Delegated)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: Demolition of 2 derelict houses, barn and stable and construction of 1 pair of semi-detached (1 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed) houses, 2 detached (4-bed) DEVELOPMENT: houses and 1 detached (3-bed) bungalow (total 5) with associated garages, parking and access SITE: Old Doomsday Hammerpond Road Horsham West Sussex WARD: Forest APPLICATION: DC/11/2585 APPLICANT: Hillreed Homes Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the completion of an appropriate S106 Legal Agreement.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for Demolition of 2 derelict houses, barn and stable and construction of 1 pair of semi-detached (1 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed) houses, 2 detached (4+bed) houses and 1 detached (3-bed) bungalow (total 5) with associated garages, parking and access

1.2 The application has been amended during the course of its consideration in order to address some concerns raised by consul tees and your officers. The amendments relate to the roof profile of the dwelling located on plot 3 and to the access arrangements serving the dwelling located on plot 5 which is approached directly from Hammerpond Road.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The site is located within the boundary of the Built up Area of Horsham. It is also adjacent to the boundary of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at its southern end. The site is long and narrow (approximately 195 metres long by 24 – 30 metres wide) with an area of approximately 0.48ha. It lies between Brambling Close to the north and

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

Hammerpond Road to the south. There are two existing dwellings on the site; one located to the south of the site with direct access from Hammerpond Road, this dwelling is derelict. The other is partially built, located at the northern end of the site, closest to Brambling Close.

1.4 A public right of way runs on a north south axis along the sites western boundary. The land slopes gradually from north to south to the approximate mid point of the site, at which point it drops steeply southwards towards Hammerpond Road.

1.5 The area surrounding the application site within the Built Up Area Boundary is characterised by an eclectic mix of dwelling styles with various densities of development. To the east of the application site there are bungalows, to the north are a group of terraced and semi detached dwellings and to the west and south east lie larger detached dwellings.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3 PPS25

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP12 CP13 and CP19

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC2 DC3 DC6 DC7 DC8 DC9 DC18 DC40.

PLANNING HISTORY

HR/163/74 Erection of 1 dwelling. Permitted 26/11/1974

HR/162/74 Erection of 1 dwelling. Permitted 26/11/1974

HR/162/79 Renewal of HR/163/74. Refused 01/11/1979

HR/161/79 Renewal of HR/162/74. Refused 01/11/1979

HR/72/80 Dwelling. Permitted 05/06/1980

DC/07/0380 Erection of 10 dwellings (Outline). Withdrawn

DC/10/0760 Demolition of 2 derelict houses and replacement with one pair of 2/3-bed semi-detached and 2 x 3-bed bungalows, 2 x 4-bed and 1 x 5-bed detached houses (total 7), garages and access drive; Refused 21/10/2010 - Appeal dismissed 22nd March 2011. A copy of the appeal decision is appended.

The Council’s reasons for refusing the above application were as follows:

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

‘Having regard to the shape of the site and the relationship of proposed dwellings with the site boundaries, the proposal represents an inappropriate form of over-development and would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers by way of overlooking and loss of privacy, in particular to the private rear amenity areas of adjacent dwellings contrary in particular to policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)’.

‘The proposed development makes no provision for contribution towards improvements to transport, libraries, fire service infrastructure or community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).’

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Arboricultural Officer:

3.1 It is anticipated that the formal comments of the Councils Arboricultural Officer will be available at the meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council: Comments that it has no objection subject to conditions. Its full comments are as follows:

3.3 Highways: I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.

West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on highway matters for this location under planning application numbers DC/380/07 and DC760/10. The 2007 application sought to erect 10 dwellings on the site to which no objections were raised subject to the closure of the existing access point onto Hammerpond Road. The 2010 application sought to erect 7 dwellings on the site. More information and modifications to the proposal were requested by West Sussex and it appears that most of these issues were resolved however the application was refused by Horsham District Council. This decision was taken to appeal and dismissed for character, appearance and infrastructure reasons. Poor visibility at the Hammerpond Road access and the loss of on-street parking Brambling Close was mentioned by the inspectorate however it was not considered significant enough for contributing to the dismissal.

This application seeks to erect 5 dwellings on this site and can be considered to be similar to the previous proposals. The application incorporates a proposed private access drive, that will server the proposed properties, running along the line of footpath 1691. This path adjoins the public highway in two locations, to the north onto Brambling Close and to the south onto Hammerpond Road. Plots 1-4 of the development will be served by the access at Brambling Close while only Plot 5 will be accessed from Hammerpond Road.

As with the previous application, with regard to the access point at Hammerpond Road, it appears that visibility splays commensurate with a speed of 33mph can be achieved within the public highway. This proposed access point will also be widened to 4.8 metres to avoid the possibility of vehicles waiting on the public highway to enter the site. We would APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

consider this acceptable. From inspection of the plans it appears that visibility splays of 2.4m X 43m are achievable, as per guidance from Manual for Streets.

From inspection of the plans the northern access onto Brambling close will be widened to 4.1 metres, as per guidance issued within Manual for Streets. There will be a loss of on- street parking caused by this access works on Brambling Close, however as this was not raised as a concern in any previous consultations or by the inspectorate at the previous appeal there is no reason why it should be now.

Public Footpath 1691 runs from north to the south within the curtilage of the site. The public Rights of Way (PROW) runs between the defined features on the ground. The full width between the features must continue to be available to walkers after the site has been developed. In the event that planning permission is granted, the Public Rights of Way Officer would be willing to carry out a survey and accurately mark and record the width of the path to ensure clarity for all parities.

As with the 2010 application I would ask that the applicant supplies a detailed specification for the construction of the private drive and footpath which will show the visibility splays at the accesses to the individual driveways, again this should be secured via condition should approval be granted by the Local Planning Authority. This specification would need to be approved by the PROW team. Any future damage to the path surface arising from access other than as a PROW will not be the duty of the County Council as highway authority to repair.

WSCC would again ask that as this development provides the opportunity to improve accessibility for cyclists that the applicant should seek to upgrade the Footpath to a Bridleway in accordance with the Rights of Way Improvement Plan. WSCC is still of the opinion that this would not significantly affect the privacy of the adjoining dwellings, as was our stance in 2010. The applicant is therefore strongly advised to upgrade the status of the access road from Footpath to Bridleway.

I can confirm that the level of proposed parking for the development is considered to be appropriate according to the latest WSCC car parking policy for a development of this size in this location. I have also checked the most recently available verified accident records, which reveals there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing points of access. I am also unaware of any highways issues relating to this location that would change our opinion of a development such as this.

With regard for the sites previous history and given that this proposal is less intensive than that previously proposed, to which in principle appeared to be acceptable, I would consider this proposal to be difficult to resist from a highways perspective.

If the LPA are minded to approve this application conditions securing the following should be included.

 Visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m for the southern access onto Hammerpond Road  The new accesses  Turning and Parking  Surface water drainage prevention  Cycle parking  Detailed specification for the construction of the private drive and footpath to be supplied to the LPA

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5

INFORMATIVE The applicant is advised to contact the Gatwick Diamond Team, Community Development and Big Society, Communities and Infrastructure Directorate, 1st Floor, County Hall North, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1XA, Phone: 01243 642105,to obtain a license for the site access works.

Contributions are required pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal with the provision of additional County Council service infrastructure, highways and public transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development. Contributions required are Libraries £821, Fire and Rescue £360 and TAD £8,640 total: £9,821

All TAD (Total Access Demand) contributions have been calculated in accordance with the stipulated local threshold and the methodology adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in November 2003.

The calculations have been done on the basis of an increase in 3 Net dwellings.

And

The calculations have been done on the basis of an increase in an additional 12 car parking spaces.

Please ensure that applicants and their agents are advised that any alteration to the housing mix, size, nature or tenure, may generate a different population and thus require re-assessment of contributions. Such re-assessment should be sought as soon as the housing mix is known and not be left until signing of the section 106 Agreement is imminent.

It should be noted that the figures quoted in this letter are based on current information and will be adhered to for 3 months. Thereafter, if they are not consolidated in a signed S106 agreement they will be subject to revision as necessary to reflect the latest information as to cost and need. 3.4 Further comments received 14th March 2012 I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.

West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on highway matters for this location under the same planning application number, to which a response was issued on 09/01/2012. Since this consultation date the developer has made some amendments to the proposals which have been detailed in a letter to the case officer dated 08/02/2012. These amendments include:

 Amendments to the roof of plot 3 (no highways comments required)  Access width for plot 5 reduced to 3.0 metres  Gravel hardstanding for plot 5

The comments made by Local Planning Authority on 09/01/2012 are still relevant to this planning application and should still be considered when assessing the application. This consultation response will only deal with the amendments made by the developer on 08/02/2012.

Only Plot 5 will be served from the access that adjoins the public highway with Hammerpond Road. As this access will only be used by a single dwelling an access width APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6

of 3.0 metres would be considered appropriate, as it is far less likely that vehicles will be required to pass each other while using this access point. It does not appear that the previously approved visibility splays of 2.4 x 43 metres would be adversely affected by this amendment and therefore no concerns would be raised to this amendment for the Highways Authority.

The driveway for plot 5 is now to be constructed of gravel. This may result in material being dispersed onto the public highway affecting the surface of the road. The applicant should provide a gravel trap or area of block paving, or other bound material, at the point of access onto Hammerpond Road on land within the applicant’s control; not within the publicly maintained highway. This would appear to be achievable and subject to this being implemented no concerns would be raised from the highways perspective.

From the information available to me no highways concerns would be raised to any of the amendments submitted by the developer.

If the Local Planning Authority are minded to approve this application the conditions previously requested securing the following should be included:

3.5 Ecology Officer

No ecological objection subject to conditions.

Reptiles Prior to development or preparatory works beginning on site a suitably qualified ecologist shall be engaged to oversee land clearance operations that may have a detrimental affect on reptile species.

Bats Prior to development or preparatory works beginning on site a suitably licensed ecologist shall be engaged to oversee the demolition of Building 3 (as described in the submitted ecological report). No tree works shall be undertaken on the mature oaks on the western boundary without first undertaking a bat survey and taking appropriate mitigation as required. No security or other external lighting shall be installed to the detriment of commuting or foraging bats; all externally mounted light must not spill onto boundary vegetation.

Enhancement Prior to the demolition of the buildings and in accordance with PPS9 and the recommendations made within the submitted ecological report, nesting and roosting provision shall be erected for birds and bats respectively. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7

3.6 Environment Agency : The Environment Agency has no comment to make.

3.7 Southern Water: (Summarised Comments)

Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public Sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.

We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: ‘A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins LTD Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street Winchester S)23 9EH (Tel 01962 8586680, or www.southernwater.co.uk’

The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site is via a watercourse. The Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse.

3.8 Forest Neighbourhood Council: Commented that:

Initial Comments 17th January 2012:

This Neighbourhood Council objects to the position of house at Plot 4 as this is too close to the boundary of the bungalows that currently back on to this land. The entire development is better suited to bungalows thus avoiding any detriment to the visual amenities of residents in Heron Way.

We object to the layout of Plot 3 as this is too close to tree T31, Oak, and will disturb the root system. Plot 3 could be turned around to avoid this encroachment.

Due to the high pitch of all the roofs and if this development is permitted, Forest Neighbourhood Council request that an HDC condition is that any conversions or extensions into the roofs must have planning permission.

Further comments received 28th February 2012

Forest Neighbourhood Council appreciates the improvements that have been made in the amended plans – although the listed revisions are misleading. However, Forest Neighbourhood Council still maintain that the building plot 4 should be re-sited further away from the existing dwellings on Heron Way.

If planning permission is granted, Forest Neighbourhood Council would like a condition on plots 1-4 that no alterations can be made without planning permission being granted – this will prevent alterations being carried out, in particular the installation of dormers in the roof which would have an adverse effect on adjoining dwellings.

3.9 Environmental Management: Commented that

Having reviewed the plans the informal access road servicing the properties may prevent reasonable vehicular access which will require residents to present any Wheeled bins where the access road meets the highway – Brambling Way

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.10 33 letters of objection have been received on the grounds of :

 Overdevelopment  Ecology issues, wildlife  Garden grabbing  traffic noise and pollution along boundary  additional traffic in Brambling Close and loss of parking  loss of privacy and overlooking  loss of trees and hedges  damage to trees  the two-storey dwellings are inappropriate  affect on the rural character of the area  unsafe access to the site  damage to foundations of adjoining properties  disturbance from contractors  increased risk of flooding along Hammerpond Road as result of further hardsurfacing leading to run-off; and  over-burden on local amenities and services.  unsympathetic development  loss of woodland views

Following the submission of amended plans, a number of further objections were received raising similar objections to those set out above

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

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

It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main considerations are the principle of the proposed development in this location, the effect of the development on the character of the area, the impact on amenities of nearby residential occupiers and existing parking and traffic conditions in the area and the effect on existing trees.

Principle

6.2 Permission is sought for the demolition of two dwellings and the erection of 5 new dwellings (a net increase of three dwellings), within the built up area of Horsham, which is defined as a category 1 settlement area which is recognised as capable of sustaining expansion, infilling and redevelopment.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9

6.3 The application site is within a sustainable location with a good range of services and facilities as well as having good access to public transport the area is, where the principle of new residential dwellings is considered to be acceptable provided that proposed development is sympathetic to the character of the area and that all other details are considered acceptable.

6.4 Government guidance advises of amendments to PPS3, which has removed at Annex B, private residential gardens from the definition of previously developed land. Furthermore, the national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare has also been deleted from PPS3. The Government have advised that this is to prevent the overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and ‘garden grabbing’.

6.5 Development Plan policies, in particular policy CP3 and CP5 of the Core Strategy encourage new development to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas. In light of the amendments to PPS3 and the site being residential garden, no longer comprising ‘previously developed land’, the proposal meets the latter requirement being within the defined built-up area of Horsham, and therefore, the main issue is considered to be the appropriateness of the development and whether the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the character of the area.

6.6 The site has a total area of approximately 0.48 hectares; therefore with the 5 houses proposed the development would result in a density of approximately 10.5 dwellings per hectare. Therefore the principle of residential development on the site is considered acceptable and does not conflict with the overarching principles of PPS3 and meets the objectives of the policies within the LDF, subject to an assessment against all other development management criteria.

Design and Siting

6.7 The proposal comprises a mix of size and designs of houses of brick and tile construction, with elements of vertical tile hanging. Detailing includes curved brick window and door heads, brick quoins, tiled cills brick chimneys and canopies over front doors.

6.8 The character and pattern of development together with the density of dwellings within the area varies, comprising detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings. It is considered that the size, number and mix of dwellings, particularly having regard to the amendments to the roof profile of Plot 3 and the amendments to the access and driveway to Plot 5, is relatively commensurate with the variation in size and styles found within the area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development does not represent an overdevelopment of the site.

6.9 With regards to separation distances of Plots 1 & 2 from the common boundary with 64 - 66 Heron Way this is between 9.9m and 10.3m away, with an approximate total distance of 39 metres back to back. Plot 3 is approximately 11m from the common boundary with 68- 70 Heron Way, with an approximate total distance of 37 metres back to back. Plot 4 (bungalow) is between approximately 3.4m and 4.5metres from the common boundary with 72 and 74 Heron Way, with an approximate total distance of between 21m and 26 metres back to back. Although the dwelling to Plot 4 is relatively close to the common boundary with the adjacent properties in Heron way, all habitable rooms are on the ground floor and as such there are no windows that would overlook the private garden areas to the rear. A suitable planning condition could be imposed controlling the insertion of dormer windows.

6.10 Similar distances were proposed in the previous application and in this respect the Planning Inspector in his decision letter advised that ‘given the distances and orientation of involved, I find that the proposed development would not result in deterioration in privacy APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10

below the expected standards for a suburban area’ and that the ‘proposed development would not unacceptably affect the living conditions of adjoining occupiers in accordance with the requirements of Policy DC9 of the Development Plan’. In this respect your officers consider that the issues regarding the impact on ‘living conditions’ with regards to the current application are not dissimilar. Whilst it is recognised that the existing residents may be able to see the proposed houses where previously they have had open views through the site, this is not in itself considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal of the application as there are no ‘legal‘ rights to a view. It is also considered that adequate landscaping and planting could be provided between the existing and proposed units in order to mitigate some of these concerns.

6.11 The sitting and orientation of the semi-detached plots 1 and 2, sit adjacent to, and forward of, the terrace to the north within Brambling Close. It is considered that given the curvature of the road and the set back of the site from the road, that the dwellings would not appear overly dominant within the streetscene. Plots 1 and 2 are shown to sit further forward in the site closer to the western boundary than the footprint of the existing unfinished dwelling.

6.12 The proposed two storey dwelling (Plot 3) sits marginally further forward from the front building line of the semi-detached pair but it is considered would have little visual impact on the streetscene. The roof profile to this dwelling has been amended during the consideration of this application, given the concerns raised by residents and your officers. It is noted that residents still have concerns regarding the height and size of this dwelling; however, your officers consider that the separation distance of 37 metres is adequate and as such the dwelling would not result in any material adverse impact in terms of overlooking.

6.13 The proposed bungalow (Plot 4) has a larger footprint then units 1-3. The unit projects further forward than the building line of plots 1 – 3, but given the single storey nature and the limited built form at this point, it is considered that its visual impact would be appropriate.

6.14 The ‘replacement‘ dwelling sited at the southern end of the site (Plot 5) is in a similar position to the existing derelict dwelling to be removed. It is oriented on a north-west/south- east axis reflecting the dog-leg of the site. The proposal includes an associated two bay garage with attic storage above. The access to the garage has been reduced to 3 metres in width with the agreement of WSCC, to reflect the reduction in the size of the garage from the previously proposed three bay garage and also the number of dwellings it will serve. The steepest part of the existing track to the south west of the site will remain as a public foot path only, which also avoids any interference with the root protection area of the preserved trees.

Access

6.15 The proposed development intends to enlarge the existing access from Brambling Close together with widening of the footpath between units 1-4, to provide vehicular access to these dwellings. The amended access to Brambling Close indicates an access width of 4.1m in accordance with the County Surveyor’s comments. The number of vehicles utilising the access and drive would diminish the further south, as the number of dwellings decreases.

6.16 Access to units 6 would be via Hammerpond Road. This access is already in existence, and in agreement with WSVCC Highways will be realigned, with a width of 3 metres which is considered acceptable for access to the one dwelling proposed at this end of the site. It is proposed that the boundary treatment is to be retained but may require cut back where necessary, however full details can be controlled by condition.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11

6.17 Subject to a condition securing the implementation of acceptable visibility splays to both accesses, it is considered that the issue of highway safety has been acceptably addressed by the applicant.

6.18 It is considered that the vehicular access arrangements along the Public Right of Way for the proposed dwellings, being ‘split’ and not forming a through route, will limit the traffic movements along the western boundary and therefore the level of disturbance etc which may arise would be less than were it to be utilised as a through route.

6.19 Any new development would attract a degree of increase in traffic movements, however this needs to be assessed on its own merits taking into account the constraints and characteristics of the area. The proposed access point to the site from Brambling Close would be for Units 1-4, and as such there would be a net increase of 3 units utilising this access. The access would remain as private access drive to be maintained by future residents. It is considered that having regard to the residential location, residential type of development proposed together with the location of the site within the built-up area boundary, that the increase would not be such to justify a sole reason for refusal

6.20 The County Rights of Way Officer has previously advised that the proposed development offers an opportunity to improve accessibility along the footpath by upgrading to a bridleway and suggests that the applicant should again reconsider this element of the proposal. Furthermore, it is also requested that the applicant remove the barriers as indicated on the plan from the footpath.

Amenity

6.21 A number of objections have been received on grounds of loss of privacy and overlooking. However, it is considered that the layout and orientation of the proposed dwellings provides sufficient distance to existing adjacent dwellings so as to not result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy. The concern for future pressure to develop within the roof slopes of the dwellings giving rise to overlooking and loss of privacy is noted. As such it is recommended that a condition be attached removing permitted development rights for roof alterations.

6.22 The site is currently overgrown and has dense boundary treatment comprising a mix of trees and hedges. The applicant proposes to retain the existing tree/ hedge screen to the majority of the site; however some trees are to be removed. As the boundary treatment provides screening between the site and adjoining properties, it is considered that a condition be attached to secure the retention of this screening together with the requirement to provide further landscaping plan detailing all new planting within the site with a requirement for this to be retained.

6.23 Each of the proposed dwellings are shown to have reasonable sized plots, providing each dwelling with private amenity space suitable for family dwelling units.

Trees

6.24 A number of trees on the site are covered by Tree Preservation Orders. The applicant as part of the original submission included a site survey together with an Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement. The Arboricultural Officer has been consulted on the proposed development and was involved in pre-application discussions. The Arboricultural Officer has considered the amended plans and assessed the impact of the proposed development on the trees, in particular those covered by TPOs. No objections have been raised, subject to the attachment of relevant conditions to secure the APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12

protection of these trees during construction. It is anticipated his formal comments will be reported at the Committee meeting.

. 6.25 A number of conditions can be recommended by the Arboricultural Officer following his formal assessment, such conditions amongst other things, will require all works to be executed in full accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement, which should include details of the protection measures to be applied during the course of construction and in accordance with BS 5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’ (2005). Furthermore, these conditions will require no felling of trees, hedges, or shrubs on the site, other than those agreed to be felled as part of any permission as well as precluding the burning of any material from site clearance or from any source within 10m of the furthest extent of the canopy of any tree, group of trees or hedgerow targeted for retention. A further condition is also attached requiring the submission of details of the material to be used for the upgrading of the Public Right of Way and which is to be completed prior to any other works taking place on site for the implementation of the development.

Ecology

6.26 An Environmental Assessment has been carried out by PJC Ecology (Ecological and Arboricultural Consultants (January 2012) and submitted for consideration. The survey has been assessed by the Ecology Officer at West Sussex County Council who has raised no objections subject to the imposition conditions requiring mitigation and appropriate overseeing of works.

Sustainability

6.27 The applicant has confirmed within the Sustainability and Renewable Energy Statement that a number of construction features are to be incorporated within the proposed 5 new dwellings are to exceed current Building Regulations. The Council expects all new residential development to meet Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, which can be secured by condition.

6.28 As previously mentioned, the location of the site is within the boundary of a Category 1 settlement which benefits from a good range of services and facilities together with access to public transport.

6.29 Each of the proposed dwellings would have off-street parking together with cycle storage. Plots 1 and 2 have attached garages with parking to the front, a double garage is attached to the garage of plot 2 (effectively providing a triple garage), two of the garages are associated with plot 3 with 2 parking spaces to the front. Plot 4 has an attached garage with a parking space to the front. Plot 5 is shown to have an attached double car barn with attic storage above together with hard surfacing to the front which could be utilised for further parking. The proposed parking would be within the County maximum standards. The County Surveyor has not raised any objections on highway safety grounds subject to visibility splays being adequately provided.

Archaeology

6.30 The derelict dwelling located at the southern end of the site is shown on the similar footprint as the present house, as well as on earlier maps including the 1840 Horsham Tithe Map and the 1792 Ordnance Survey Drawings mapping. The County Archaeologist has previously visited the site and following an inspection has raised no objection to the proposed development, as the present derelict house would appear to be wholly 20th- century in date, and has evidently replaced the earlier house. Furthermore, there has been APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13

considerable previous ground excavation into the natural slope of the ground to accommodate the present building; as a result it is expected that buried archaeological remains of the earlier house will only have survived in poor condition, if at all.

6.31 Other Matters

It is considered suitable conditions could ensure satisfactory drainage of the site. Concerns regarding the proposal resulting in an over burden on local services are noted, however it is not considered the net increase of 3 dwellings would result in unacceptable pressure on such services. Impact on adjacent foundations is a matter controlled through other legislation.

Contributions

6.31 The proposal if approved would trigger the requirement to enter into a S106 agreement to secure the payment of contributions toward education, libraries, transport, and fire service infrastructure together with community facilities contributions. The applicants have submitted a unilateral undertaking which at the time of writing this report is currently being considered. The County contributions which have been requested are £9,821 (Libraries £821, Fire and Rescue £360 and TAD £8,640). A District contribution of £8,138 comprising £6,113 open space and recreation, £1.350 community centres and halls and £675 Local recycling. This figure is based upon the net increase of three dwellings.

Conclusion

6.32 The current planning application differs from that previously dismissed on appeal (DC/10/0670) which proposed 7 properties: a pair of semi detached houses, 2 bungalows, and 3 detached houses, with garages and access drive. In the current proposal the number of dwellings has been reduced to 5 and thus parts of the application site remain ‘undeveloped’ in order to retain a more open character.

6.33 The current scheme proposes a pair of semi detached 2/3 bed properties at the northern end of the site (Plot 1and Plot 2) on a similar footprint of the existing partially built dwelling to be demolished, a four bed detached dwelling (Plot 3) to the rear of no 68 and 70 Heron Way, and a 3 bed detached bungalow (Plot 4) to the rear of 72 and 74 Heron Way. The proposed 5 bed dwelling to Plot 5 would essentially be a replacement dwelling in respect of the existing ‘Old Doomsday’ property which is currently derelict.

6.34 The appeal decision in respect of the previously refused scheme (DC/10/0780) is a material consideration in the determination of the current application.

6.35 In paragraph 6 of the appeal decision the site is described as having acquired a ‘semi – rural appearance’ with the site parting ‘characteristic suburban residential development on both sides, a feature that is reinforced by a wide, rural public footpath with the appeal site along one side… ’ and that ’the whole scene contributes to the urban fringe and landscape’.

6.36 In paragraph 8 the Planning Inspector stated ‘The principle of redevelopment the site is not disputed and I have no reason to take a different view. Having regard to all I have read and seen, I consider the nub of the issue to be whether the appeal scheme would amount to overdevelopment’.

6.37 It was further noted by the Planning Inspector in paragraph 11 that ‘Most of the green corridor is proposed for redevelopment. The proposed development facing Hammerpond Road would create an urban edge to the built up area where none currently exists; due to APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14

the considerable area of hardstanding serving the quadruple garage (with attic storage accommodation), in combination with the dwelling at plot 6, whose scale, mass and height would dominate the topography across virtually the full width of the appeal site. The proposed dwellings in the middle part of the site (plots 5 and 6) would be in proximity of existing ones on either side, (‘Dickens’ and no.68 Glebe Crescent, respectively). Effectively the proposed development here would bridge and sever the green corridor. Moreover, the public footpath from Hammerpond Road would survive as a rural path for a short distance to the middle of the site only and thereafter it would become unrecognisable and indistinct.’

6.38 In respect of the comments made by the Planning Inspector as set out above, the current scheme has sought to reduce the level of built form through the reduction in the number of units proposed and the deletion of the dwellings previously proposed on Plots 5 and 6, in order to maintain the openness of the green corridor particularly between the ‘middle part’ of the site between ‘Dickens’ and ‘68 Glebe Crescent’ thus seeking to maintain the semi – rural character of the public footpath at this point through from Hammerpond Road.

6.39 Furthermore, in order to reduce the impact of the previously proposed access off Hammerpond Road, the width of the access currently proposed off Hammerpond Road has been reduced in width to 3 metres. The proposed garage has been reduced to a two bay garage (with attic storage accommodation) and the extent of the driveway reduced. It is also proposed that a more permeable material be used for the driveway treatment to reduce its visual impact and ‘urbanisation’ along Hammerpond Road.

6.40 With regards to ‘living conditions’ as considered by the Planning Inspector in relation to the previously refused scheme, he stated that ‘given the distances and orientation of involved, I find that the proposed development would not result in deterioration in privacy below the expected standards for a suburban area’ and that the ‘proposed development would not unacceptably affect the living conditions of adjoining occupiers in accordance with the requirements of Policy DC9 of the Development Plan’.

6.41 The relationship of the existing dwellings located along Heron Way with the currently proposed dwellings, particularly those that are located on Plot 1, 2, 3, (two storey houses) and Plot 4 (Bungalow), is such that your officers consider that there would be no appreciable harm caused to the living conditions of properties in Heron Way. It is appreciated that the development of the site as proposed would result in increased built form, however it is considered that the ‘living conditions’ of the existing residents along Heron Way would not be significantly or detrimentally affected by the proposed development.

6.42 It is therefore considered that the current proposal represents an appropriate form of development in this location.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated for approval subject to the following conditions and completion of an appropriate S106 Legal Agreement with regard to the provision of infrastructure requirements generated by the proposal:

1. A2 Full Permission 2. D6 Finished Floor Levels 3. E3 Fencing 4. G3 Parking, Turning and Access 5. G4 Site Surface APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15

6. G6 Recycling (dwellings) 7. H1 Access (General) 8. H4 On Site Parking 9. H6 Wheel Washing 10. H10 Cycling Provision 11. J13 Removal of permitted development – windows 12 J10 Removal of permitted development – dwellings B F 13 Hard and Soft landscaping 14 L3 Trenches 15 L6 Burning of materials 16 L8 No felling 17 L10 Arboricultural Method Statement 18 The upgrading of the Public Right of Way as shown on drawing 304/10F received 26 July 2010 shall be completed prior to commencement of development of the hereby approved dwellings. Reason: To protect roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 19 M1 Approval of materials 20 M8 Sustainable Construction (residential development) 21 O1 Hours of working 22 The developer must advise the Local Authority, in consultation with Southern Water, of the measures which will be undertaken to protect the public water supply main, prior to the commencement of the development. Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 23 All existing buildings and structures [shown annotated on plan 304/10F and 304/11F] on the application site at the date of this permission shall be demolished, the debris removed from the site and the site cleared before any other works for the implementation of the development hereby permitted commence. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 24 Prior to commencement of development details of the specification for the construction of the private drive and footpath shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall also include visibility splays at the accesses to the individual driveway from the footpath. The construction of the private drive and footpath shall be constructed in strict accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained as such. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Together with other appropriate conditions recommended by consultees

1. Note to Applicant:

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16

For further advice on construction, mounding or tree planting within 3 metres of the public water main together with protection of all existing infrastructure, including protective coatings and cathodic protection, the applicant is advised to contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester S023 9EH (tel: 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

2. Note to Applicant:

The applicant is advised to contact the Area Engineer, West Sussex County Council, Worthing Road, Broadbridge Heath, Horsham, RH12 3LZ, Tel No: 01243 642105 to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway.

3. Note to Applicant:

The applicant is advised to contact the West Sussex County Council Rights of Way Team to apply for the relevant permission in respect of barriers on the public footpath and any future upgrade to a bridleway.

Reasons:

1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

2 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/2585 and DC/10/0760 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Erection of six retirement dwellings and a triple bay garage

SITE: Durrants Drive, Faygate (land formerly known as Faygate Sawmills)

WARD: Rusper and Colgate

APPLICATION: DC/12/0178

APPLICANT: Helical (Faygate) Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate the decision to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for the completion of an appropriate Unilateral Undertaking and thereafter to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This full planning application relates to part of the retirement village proposed at Faygate and proposes the erection of six retirement dwellings and a triple bay garage. The original outline consent for the whole of the retirement village (DC/08/0316) approved on appeal and the subsequent reserved matters application (DC/10/0088), included eight affordable homes on this part of the site. The six units now proposed as retirement dwellings would be an alternative to those eight affordable housing units.

1.2 The retirement units would each have two bedrooms and will be occupied by people aged 55 or over who require extra care and all women over 60 and all men over 65. The Design and Access Statement indicates that this application for

Contact: Val Cheesman Extension:5163 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

retirement units has been designed in accordance with the original design strategy for the whole of the site. The design of the dwellings is a selection of the approved house types in use elsewhere in the retirement village. The external materials to be used are as approved at reserved matters with the walls being a mix of facing brick, concrete tile hanging and render and the roofing to be concrete roof tiles. The proposed buildings will be 1.5 storeys high measuring 7.7m to the ridge with a maximum width of 9m and a length of 13.4m, except for the corner unit which has a maximum width of 40m and a length of 10m. The three bay garage is proposed in the parking court, this measures 9.85m wide and 5.84m deep, it is of timber framed construction with facing brickwork and tiled roof.

1.3 As with the approved retirement village units, the houses will be fitted with solar water heating panels. The development will connect to the drainage system serving the wider retirement village.

1.4 Vehicular access is via the approved site access road off Faygate Lane. The parking for the eight affordable units was approved as reserved matters. The current proposal involves the removal of the parking court allocated for the affordable houses and instead expands an adjoining parking court to accommodate nine parking spaces and a block of three garages. This represents an overall reduction of eight parking spaces.

1.5 The intention of this application is to integrate the proposed six units into the adjoining retirement village. The applicant proposes to provide a Unilateral Undertaking in respect of this application. That part of the original site, which is unaffected by this application, is still subject to the original Undertaking. A draft Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted with the application and is currently under consideration.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The overall site extends to some 12.19 hectares and lies to the north of Faygate village and is accessed off of Faygate Lane. The overall site has contained a number of uses over the many years. The existing buildings have recently been demolished and preparatory works for the construction of the retirement village are underway. The current application site is located to the front of the site, facing onto Faygate Lane and is 0.296 hectares in area.

1.7 The southern boundary of the overall site abuts the Faygate Business Centre consisting of 14 industrial/commercial units. Public Footpath No. 1593 lies along this boundary. Beyond this is Faygate Railway Station and further to the southwest the site boundary abuts the railway line. To the south-east, north of the railway line and south of the access road to the station, are four residential dwellings. To the north of the main site are four detached dwellings fronting onto Faygate Lane.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS7, PPS9, PG13.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP11, CP12, CP13, CP16.

2.4 Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18, DC31.

2.5 South East Plan 2009: SP3, CC1, CC4, CC5, CC6, 3H4 and NRM5, NRM7, GAT3.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 There is an extensive planning history relating to previous uses of the site. With regard to the development of a continuing care retirement community the following applications are relevant:

DC/05/1685 Demolition of existing buildings, erection of building providing 116 assisted living apartments, 40 bed nursing facility and 15 bed nursing facility, 32 assisted living bungalows and community venue, access, parking and landscaping – refused.

DC/08/0316 Demolition of existing buildings, construction of 148 retirement units, eight affordable housing units, one warden’s flat, 52 bed care home, visitor accommodation, central facilities building, shop, medical centre, provision of formal ‘open space’, balancing pond, associated landscaping and access works. This was refused and was the subject of a Public Inquiry in March/April 2009. Outline planning permission was granted by the Inspector.

Section 106/1728 A Unilateral Undertaking was completed by the applicant in respect of the appeal. This relates to the provision of permitted footpaths and open space, public art, together with village shops, surgery/medical centre, library, each of which will be made to fit the residents of Faygate as well as residents of the development. It further secures the provision of a community bus service to serve the development and the wider community of Faygate and provides a total of £128,000 towards the off-site highway, footpaths, cycle and public transport infrastructure improvements. In respect of affordable housing, it relates to APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

the provision of eight affordable housing units on the site and the payment of a contribution of £3.26M towards the provision of affordable housing off-site.

DC/08/2614 Outline – demolition of existing buildings and construction of 148 retirement units, eight affordable housing units, 1 warden’s flat unit, 50 bed care home, visitor accommodation, central facilities building, shop, medical centre, provision of open space, balancing pond, associated landscaping improvements to existing access. This was submitted in December 2008 prior to the Public Inquiry and has been superseded by the appeal approval and since has been withdrawn.

DC/10/0088 Approval of reserved matters relating to DC/08/0316 was permitted on 5th August 2010.

DC/10/0834 Variation of Condition 07 of DC/08/0316 (relating to access). Application withdrawn.

DC/11/1229 Non-material amendment to outline permission DC/08/0316 consisting of revised access design pursuant to Condition 07 – permitted on 5th July 2011.

DC/11/1857 Approval of reserved matters of previous outline application DC/08/0316 – application withdrawn.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1 West Sussex County Council - From a highways and transportation point of view there is no objection to this planning application, however, there may need to be an adjustment to the current Section 106 Agreement to reflect this change if approved – this is with the County Council’s Solicitor for comment.

3.2 Southern Water comment that there are no public sewers in the vicinity of this site. They comment on the use of a sustainable urban drainage system. (Note: Details of such a system have been approved pursuant to the conditions attached to the outline permission.)

3.3 Housing Strategy and Development Manager -

‘ Housing Officers note the disappointment expressed by the Parish Council at the loss of on site provision of 8 affordable housing units.

However, the applicant adhered to the tendering process set out in the Unilateral Agreement.

In April 2010 the applicant approached ten affordable housing providers including: Saxon Weald, Hyde, London & Quadrant, Southdown, Housing 21, Southern, Moat, Raglan, Sanctuary and Affinity Sutton inviting offers for the affordable housing. In response to the invitation to tender a total of four affordable housing providers APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.

submitted offers including Saxon Weald, Southern, Moat and Raglan. None of the offers received met the minimum price as set out in the legal agreement.

In June 2010 the applicant contacted the same ten affordable housing providers as listed above plus English Rural Housing Association; the affordable housing provider tender letter was sent out again with an updated deadline given. From the eleven affordable housing providers contacted the applicant received four offers, three of which were from affordable housing providers that had offered in April: Raglan, Moat and Saxon Weald. Again none of the offers received met the minimum price set out in the legal agreement.

The legal agreement provides for £700,000 to be paid to the Council in lieu of the on site affordable homes. This amount is in addition to the existing affordable housing contribution payable to the Council of £3,260,000.

The Parish Council has asked for the additional £700,000 to be ring fenced to fund an affordable housing scheme for the Parish. A housing needs survey has been recently carried out by Action in Rural Sussex and site selection is under way.’

3.4 Colgate Parish Council –

‘Decision: The Parish Council had no objections.

Comments: The Parish Council requests that at least the additional commuted sum of £750,000 to be paid to HDC in regards to the 8 affordable homes that this application replaces, be ring-fenced for affordable homes in this Parish.

The Parish Council also wishes it to be noted that it is very unfortunate that HDC did not act after this Council had first advised it of problems with the tendering process to build the previously agreed 8 affordable homes in October 2010 and several times thereafter. ‘

3.5 Three letters of objection have been received from local residents commenting that there is a clear need for affordable housing for local people. The approved application for affordable housing should be honoured. Also referring to changes to the arrangements for access to the amenities, such as the gym, swimming pool, library and computer facilities and bus services, requiring reinstatement of the conditions in which the people of Faygate would not object to this encroaching development.

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

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.

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

It is not considered that the proposed development would have any impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The principle of a Retirement Village as a whole

6.1 The principle of the development of retirement housing at the whole site was established with the grant of the outline planning permission DC/08/0316. Thus issues in respect of the principle of the whole of the development, its compatibility with the spatial strategy for the District, the release of land for housing and housing need and the need for additional greenfield development and protection of employment sites, infrastructure provision and the overall rural and landscape impact, were examined at the Public Inquiry and were approved by the Inspector. The access arrangements were agreed following the submission of details to the Highway Authority. With regard to the need to make infrastructure contributions to mitigate the impact of the development, this was addressed by the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking. Similarly, the Inspector did not feel that sustainability reasons were valid, given the nature of the occupation of the facilities.

6.2 The Appeal Inspector considered that whilst the development would conflict with the Development Plan as it was in the countryside adjacent to a Category 2 Settlement, he considered there was currently a significant need for extra care or other similar housing for the elderly and inform in the district and that in the absence of the appeal scheme, this is not likely to be met elsewhere in the district for several years. He further concluded that the scheme would not be unsustainable to the extent that that would be the case were the site to be developed for normal market housing, given the nature of the proposed development and various measures proposed to enhance its sustainability in the Section 106 undertaking. He gave these two matters significant weight in the overall planning balance. He further commented that the proposal would secure eight houses for affordable housing on site plus a significant financial contribution to be used to secure some 54 affordable housing units elsewhere in the District. He considered that these matters should be attributed some weight in the overall planning balance, alongside the clear support for the scheme by the Parish Council.

6.3 The key issues therefore in the consideration of this application are the policy implications of the change from the eight affordable units, on this part of the development site, to six retirement units, together with the impact of the revised proposal on the character and visual amenities of the street scene and locality, parking arrangements and landscaping proposals.

Change from on-site affordable units to retirement dwellings on this part of the site

6.4 With regard to the loss of the affordable on-site units, firstly it is necessary to examine the detail of the Unilateral Undertaking. This was submitted by the APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.

applicant at the time of the appeal and was taken into account by the Appeal Inspector in granting the planning permission. Schedule 2 of the obligation relates to affordable housing and requires a financial contribution for 54 off-site affordable dwellings (£3.26M) with the remaining eight units to be provided on the site, subject to the conclusion of a contract to enable the units to be transferred to an RSL. The undertaking sets out the mechanism by which the developer has to tender the on- site units for transfer to providers of affordable housing and specifies a minimum price. It also provides that subject to the receipt for a qualifying offer, the owner shall use reasonable endeavours to enter into a contract for the transfer. However if no qualifying offer is received, or should it not be possible to enter into a contract with the relevant RSL, a cascade mechanism is set out and the on-site requirement falls away in favour of an enhanced off-site contribution totalling £3.96M.

6.5 The Design and Access Statement advises that on behalf of Helical (Faygate) Pioneer Property Services were instructed to undertake the tender process, and they tendered the affordable housing units for transfer in accordance with the Unilateral Undertaking clauses. No qualifying offer was received and hence the cascade mechanism applies. Evidence of this process has been provided and it is considered that the terms of the legal agreement have been met in terms of seeking to provide affordable housing on the site.

6.6 Accordingly, this application has been submitted and proposes the replacement of the approved eight affordable units with six retirement units. Whilst no affordable units will now be provided on the site, there will be an increase in the financial contributions as required by the original Unilateral Undertaking. This is an increase from £3.26m (equates to 54 affordable units) to £3.96m (equates to 62 affordable units). These circumstances were allowed for in the original legal agreement, in the event that a ‘qualifying offer’ for affordable housing was not received.

6.7 With regard to the principle of retirement dwellings on this part of the site, the Inspector’s reasoning for the appeal decision on the whole of the site is relevant and is set out above. Whilst he considered that the scheme would conflict with policy, (as it was development within the countryside adjacent to a Category 2 settlement), he placed significant weight to the need for extra care of similar housing for the elderly and infirm in the district. He also referred to the various measures proposed to enhance the sustainability of the proposal as set out under Section 106 Undertaking, including the proposals to make the community bus, the shop, the library and the surgery/medical centre available for all residents in Faygate to use in perpetuity. Existing ground contamination would be remediated and the ecological value of the site would be improved by long term management. The public footpath along the site would be improved and further permitted paths and open space on the site provided for the public to use. It would also provide employment for some 70 people. Accordingly he granted permission for the scheme as a whole.

6.8 With regard to this application for six retirement homes, on part of the site, without the grant of planning permission for the overall development, then the principle of such a development would be contrary to the restrictive countryside policies that apply and in themselves the provision of 6 such units would be unlikely to carry sufficient weight to outweigh this policy conflict. Neither would such a scheme APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.

achieve or be able to justify the package of benefits and measures secured with the whole scheme.

6.9 However, the proposal has been submitted on the basis that it will be part of the wider Durrants Village development. Thus, given the arguments advanced by the appeal Inspector in granting planning permission for the 148 units, it is considered that it would be difficult to substantiate a refusal on the principal of this development for six units, subject to it being an integral part of the overall retirement scheme, being controlled as retirement dwellings and not open market housing and subject to the package of measures set out in the original Unilateral Undertaking and an agreed unilateral Undertaking relating to this application site.

Design and Appearance

6.10 The affordable housing shown on the approved plan had a terrace of six units facing onto Faygate Lane and two further units at the junction of Faygate Lane with the proposed new access forming a feature corner unit. Each unit had its own enclosed rear garden with a shared washing line and patio area. Open plan front gardens were proposed. To the rear a communal parking area of 13 car parking spaces, including two to accessible standard, were proposed.

6.11 The current layout for the six retirement units are a pair of semi-detached units fronting onto Faygate Lane and with a corner block of four facing both Faygate Lane and onto the access road forming a corner feature. To the rear of the units a revised car parking area has been shown with a garage (three internal spaces) and nine further spaces. Each unit has a private patio area, which looks out onto the communal gardens, thus the rear boundary fences are no longer proposed and the landscaping of this part of the site is to be integrated with the approach taken on the remainder of the development. The design of the units reflects those used on the remainder of the development with an individually designed corner unit adjacent to the access and it is considered that the layout provides good natural surveillance with entrances to each individual dwelling facing onto Faygate Lane and the main access road. . The palette of materials to be used are as approved at reserved matters, comprising a mixture of facing bricks, concrete tile hanging and render with roof tiles.

6.12 It is considered that the design and appearance of the proposal is acceptable in this location and reflects the character of the remainder of the development

Parking and Access Arrangements

6.13 Vehicular access is via the approved site access road off Faygate Lane.

6.14 The parking for the eight affordable units comprised a separate 13 space car park. Adjacent to this was a further car park area to serve residential block C23 , comprising a garage for three cars plus four parking spaces, giving 7 spaces. Thus in this part of the overall site there would have been 20 spaces.

6.15 The current proposal involves the deletion of the specific car park to serve the frontage units from the layout and an expansion of the adjoining parking area. Thus APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9.

the proposal is for one area to accommodate nine car parking spaces and a garage block of three giving a total of 12 spaces. This results in a net reduction of 8 parking spaces. However, whilst 13 spaces are lost from the original layout, they were to serve 8 separate affordable units. As the proposal is for 6 retirement units which are to be an integral part of the overall development and would have a lower parking requirement, it is considered that the five spaces for these units is acceptable.

Landscaping Proposals

6.16 The landscaping approach for the six units has been designed to integrate into that adopted for the whole of the retirement village. Thus following that approach, these units would not have gardens to each individual units, but would have private patio areas which overlook the communal gardens to the rear. In addition, there are landscaped communal gardens to the front. Along the road frontage of the development it is proposed to erect a 1.3m high post and rail fence with a mixed native hedge planted in front. The hedge is to be a mixture of holly, hawthorn and blackthorn. The hedge is set back from the road with a grass verge in front which shall be planted with bulbs. A small section of wall and iron railings is proposed adjacent to the main entrance into the site by the gate. A hedge will also be planted in front of the wall and railings and continue up to the entrance gate.

6.17 It is considered that this approach provides sufficient security for each of the individual dwellings, but also respects the rural nature of the site and its location within Faygate village.

Unilateral Undertaking

6.18 The outline permission for the development of the whole site is subject to a signed Unilateral Undertaking submitted with the appeal scheme. As set out above, the Unilateral Undertaking ensures the delivery of open space and permitted footpaths, highways and transport works, community facilities and on site public art, landscape and bio-diversity management plans and financial contributions for the site for affordable housing. The Design and Access Statement advises that:

“The intention of this application is to integrate the proposed six units into the adjoining retirement village. The applicant would supplement the legal agreement to reflect this alteration to the approved scheme. This would ensure that the application site is committed to the existing planning obligations.”

6.19 A draft Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted and is currently under consideration by your officers with a view to ensuring that the relevant package of measures are obtained and retained with regard to the original outline application and this particular application. Furthermore, a letter from the agent confirms that the applicant remains committed to delivering all other elements of the package of measures set out in the original obligation and he has not indicated that he is not seeking to revisit or re-negotiate any other element of the existing 106 obligation. It is his client’s intention that the six dwellings, for which consent is currently sought, are developed as part of the wider Durrants Village development. He has advised that his client has no intention of developing these units separately or alone. He APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10.

considers that a further planning obligation in respect of the current application should i) restrict the use of the six units to use as a restricted extra care accommodation only; ii) to prevent the applicant from developing the six units other than as part of the wider development of Durrants Village, and iii) ensure that the commencement /development/ occupation of the six units counts towards the trigger point of the obligations established in the existing planning obligation.

6.20 Subject to these objectives being achieved it is considered that such a Unilateral Undertaking would be acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that subject to completion of an appropriate revision to the Unilateral Undertaking, that the planning permission be granted subject to appropriate conditions to reflect those imposed on the original permission for the whole development and any other additional conditions considered to be appropriate.

8. REASONS

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

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

ITHP2 The proposal includes satisfactory provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and would not impinge upon the safety and convenience of other highway users.

Background Papers: DC/12/0178 vrc.DC 12 0178/wk2/jlt Contact Officer: Val Cheesman APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Single storey extension to existing building and variation of Condition 10 of SQ/61/95 (Use of building for meeting room purposes only), to facilitate use of overall premises for general D1 (Non residential Institutions) and D2 (Assembly and Leisure) purposes

SITE: Easteds Barn, Easteds Lane, Southwater

WARD: Southwater

APPLICATION: DC/11/2502

APPLICANT: Southwater Parish Council

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application on behalf of Parish Council

RECOMMENDATION: That the application be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to the variation of Legal Agreement S106/813

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for a single storey extension to existing building and variation of Condition 10 of SQ/61/95 (Use of building for meeting room purposes only), to facilitate use of overall premises for general D1 (Non residential Institutions) and D2 (Assembly and Leisure) purposes at Easteds Barn. Condition 10 of SQ/61/95 states, “The meeting room hereby approved shall not be used other than as a meeting room and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Easteds Barn was originally constructed in order to provide a facility for local residents in an area that had undergone relatively extensive residential development

Contact: David Taylor Extension: 5166 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site contains a single storey timber clad, barn like structure with a brick built outshot all under a clay tiled roof. The site has vehicular access from Easteds Lane sited directly to the west of the existing building and pedestrian access from Nutham Lane to the east. The site benefits from a car park that adjoins the building which has 23 parking spaces. Recycling facilities are also provided on the site, adjacent to hedging that runs along the southern boundary of the site.

1.3 The surrounding area is predominantly residential although a playground and large area of open space is situated to the south of the site. The site is within the built up area boundary of Southwater.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS4, PPG13, PPG17

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1, CP3 and CP14.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document 2007 are DC3, DC9, and DC40.

2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan 2001-2016 are CC1 and CC4

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 SQ/14/92 Outline planning permission granted for the erection of 135 dwellings (including 15 social units) conversion of barn to meeting room, car park, open space, access, associated works (outline) on 16/06/1993.

SQ/61/95 Planning permission granted for the erection of community building and 23 space car park on 30/08/1995.

DC/10/0468 Planning permission refused for a change of use to infants school and single storey extension and erection of fencing on 13/07/2010.

DC/10/2398 Planning permission refused for a change of use to a combined use of community facility to use as an infant school, with single storey extension and erection of fencing on 07/02/2011

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Leisure and Economic Development – Supports the application from a community development perspective

3.2 Housing and Community Services – Support the application

3.3 Access Officer – “Improvements to the entrance for wheelchair users would be welcomed”

3.4 Public Health and Licensing – Initial comments received on 21/12/2011: “The Noise Impact Assessment dated June 2011 has raised concerns. The results show that surrounding residents are likely to be affected by noise emanating from Easteds Barn. It may also result in a loss of amenity to surrounding residents. The applicant should submit details of the mitigation measures to be implemented, as well as their predicted effectiveness, to address our concerns over the noise impacts on local residents.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 Southwater Parish Council – No comment, as Southwater Parish Council is the applicant

3.6 West Sussex County Council Highways – No Objection to the variation of Condition 10 to permit general D1 and D2 uses in this existing community building.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.7 7 letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of nearby properties on the following grounds:  Increase in vehicles at the site  Highway safety  Access and parking issues  Application site includes a large area of public open space  Impact on local ecology  Noise  Increased likelihood of anti-social behaviour  Repeat of previous applications on the site

1 letter of support has been received from the occupiers of a nearby property on the following grounds:  Benefit to community as will enhance the barns facilities and make it of greater and wider use to groups and individuals in the community  Will not cause roads in the immediate area to be flooded with cars morning and evening every day like previous applications  Other than the temporary building works, no inconvenience would be caused to those living nearby APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4.

2 letters of comment have been received from the occupiers of a nearby property on the following grounds:  Noise mitigation measures should be provided  Opening hours of the barn should be restricted on any approval

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

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

It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

a) the principle of the proposed use of the building b) the impact on the amenities of the nearby residential occupiers c) the impact on highway safety d) the impact on the character of the area and the visual amenities of the street scene

Principle of the Development

6.2 With regard to the principle of the change of use of the building to an open D1 and D2 Use Class, it is necessary to examine the lawful use of the building. Condition 10 of application SQ/61/95 restricts the use of the building. It states; “The meeting room hereby approved shall not be used other than as a meeting room and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class in the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987). Reason: Change of use permitted by the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Orders 1995 are not considered appropriate in this case.”

6.3 Meeting rooms can fall within a D1 use class, defined as Non-Residential Institutions and includes medical & health services, clinics and health centres, crèche, day nursery, day centres and consulting rooms (not attached to the consultants or doctors house), museums, public libraries, art galleries, exhibition halls, non-residential education and training centres, places of worship, religious instruction and church halls.

6.4 It would also appear that some of the current uses of the building undertaken include D2 uses (Assembly and Leisure) which are defined as “cinemas, dance and concert halls, sports halls, swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums, bingo halls APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5.

& casinos and other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure uses, not involving motorised vehicles or firearms.” In any event, the building is specifically limited by condition 10 attached to the planning permission SQ/61/95 to use as a meeting room. Changes of use ordinarily allowed by the Use Classes Order are thus restricted by that condition and hence this application is required.

6.5 By way of background, a previous application for a change of use to a combined community facility and to use as an infant school was refused for the following reason: The proposal would result in the loss of a valued community meeting room, that would be detrimental to the community facilities available to serve the wider community, in particular of Southwater, contrary to policy CP14 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and it has not been demonstrated that the continued use for such wider community facility purposes is no longer feasible.

6.6 It should be noted that previous applications submitted under reference DC/10/0468 and DC/10/2398 which related to the use of the building as an infants school were both refused planning permission. Under a general D1 use, such a facility would be able to be provided. However, the precise use of the building would be at the discretion of the owner of the building, who in this case is Southwater Parish Council, who are a public body.

6.7 In this situation, it is important to understand the use of the facility and also to examine the definition of a community facility. The building was originally granted planning permission in 1995 to be used as a meeting room facility for the community. The definition of a community facility is set out in the LDF Core Strategy document which states: “Facilities or services for the community, including open space, sport and recreation facilities, community halls and buildings, doctors surgeries, libraries, pubs, churches and children’s play areas.” The application building is a meeting room or a hall and currently would satisfy the definition of a community facility. Considering the wide definition for a community facility given in the LDF, it is concluded that the proposed use for uses within the D1 and D2 use classes as set out by the applicant can also be regarded as a community facility. For this reason, it is considered the proposal does not represent the loss of a community facility but represents a potential alternative and expanded community facility use of the building.

6.8 It is then necessary in assessing the proposal to consider the relevant policies and the impact of the proposed use. Planning Policy Guidance 17 “Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG 17) was published in 2002. The local “PPG17 assessment” was published in 2005; this informed LDF Core Strategy Policy CP14 which was adopted in 2007. Therefore local policy CP14 is compliant with and reflects the issues and aims of PPG17. Policy CP14 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) deals with the Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services. The policy advocates the use of sites within defined built-up areas for the provision of such facilities. It also states that “development proposals that would result in the loss of sites and premises currently or last used for the provision of community facilities or services, leisure or cultural activities for the community will be resisted.” It is noted in the application details that the applicant has stated that it is no longer financially viable to continue using APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6.

the premises for the limited activity as restricted by condition 10 of SQ/61/95. It is thus considered that allowing the building to be ‘opened up’ for a wider range of uses, that this established community building could be preserved for the community.

6.9 The Council’s “PPG17 assessment” says that community halls and community centres are often the focus of community life and are suitable for a wide variety of purposes from public meetings to play groups and as such, accessibility is more important than quantity. With regard to accessibility of community halls, the council’s “PPG 17 assessment” recommends such facilities should be no more than 1000m, as a straight line, in distance from the dwellings they serve. It should be noted that Southwater Sports Centre is approximately 450m from the application site and the village centre, including Beeson House, is approximately 580m from the application site.

6.10 Paragraph 10 of PPG17 states “existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which is clearly shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements.” It should be noted that the principal aspects of the current proposal do not involve building on existing open space, sport and recreation facilities, but principally involve an expansion in the uses that this facility could be used for. Concerns were raised by members of the public that the proposal involved an area of the public open space to the south of the building, however, the applicant has submitted amended plans to show this isn’t the case and that this area of land, which incorporates a playground, is unaffected by the proposal.

Residential Amenities

6.11 It is noted that Easteds Barn is located in what is primarily a residential area. The closest residential properties are situated to the north (Old Well House and Valebrook House) which are located approximately 20m from the barn. Other properties that would be directly affected by the proposal include dwellings in Easteds Lane, Nutham Lane, Porchester Close, Windsor Close and Eversfield. As the site already has certain community activities taking place, the site already generates certain amounts of noise and activity and traffic movements. It is noted the proposal would allow for a wide variety of uses, many of which would have the potential to generate noise and disturbance to the occupiers of adjoining residential properties. However, provided the use of the building is adequately controlled in terms of emanation of noise, hours of use etc, it is not considered that the nature and scale of the new expanded use as compared to the existing use would justify a refusal of planning permission in this instance in respect of residential amenities.

6.12 It is also noted that many other similar facilities operate successfully in the District with their use adequately controlled by way of condition. Such properties include the Roffey Millenium Hall, Holbrook Tythe Barn and North Heath Hall which are all located within residential areas. Furthermore, current uses taking place at the barn including yoga, fitness classes and arts and crafts could be construed as being in breach of the condition as they do not represent a meeting use. Your officers are of the view that the current application would allow this situation to be regularised and APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7.

enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the community building while also enabling the facility to better serve the wider community.

Highway Safety

6.13 In terms of access and parking arrangements, the site is accessed by vehicle from Easteds Lane. The property benefits from a car park on the site which currently has 23 spaces. The proposal would result in no changes to the parking arrangements at the site. West Sussex County Council Highways have confirmed that the level of parking provided is acceptable and there is no objection to the proposal. It is noted that the site is within the built up area boundary and therefore does represent an opportunity for users of the site to travel by sustainable modes of transport and there is a bus stop located within walking distance of the site.

Visual Amenities

6.14 The proposed single storey extension would be constructed parallel to the existing barn. It would measure 8.8m in length, 2.1m in depth and its roofline would be a continuation of the existing pitch of the barn roof. Due to the scale and positioning of the proposed extension, it is not considered the structure would have any material adverse impact on the character of the area or the visual amenities of the streetscene. It is considered the site is of a sufficient scale to absorb an extension of this scale.

Legal Agreement

6.15 There is a legal agreement in place relating to the building under S106/813. Section 12.4.3.2 restricts the use of the building “for community purposes including without prejudice to the generality of this description uses falling within Class D1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987…” It is evident that the legal agreement conflicts with the restriction as laid down by the planning condition. It is considered that if the proposal is deemed to be acceptable, the legal agreement would need to be varied to reflect the proposed changes.

Conclusion

6.16 In conclusion, the principle of the scheme is considered acceptable. The site has an existing lawful use as a meeting room and an established access and parking area. It is not considered the expanded use of the building would result in such an intensification of the use of the site or a material adverse impact on the character of the area to justify a refusal of planning permission. The site lies in a sustainable location, within the built up area boundary of Southwater. It has been stated that the barn has had declining usage in recent years and is currently underused and is becoming financially unsound due to lack of bookings in its current use. It is considered that by allowing the barn to be used for uses within the D1 and D2 Use Class, the barn would be able to better serve the wider community as a community facility. It is therefore considered planning permission should be granted to vary the condition as requested and to amend the legal agreement accordingly.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8.

7. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the application be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M1 Approval of Materials…for the extension 03 G5 Recycling 04 H10 Cycling Provision 05 O1 Hours of Working – Implementation of Development 06 The premises shall be used only for purposes within Use Classes D1 and D2 as defined in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and because other uses would be contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 07 The building shall not be used except between the hours of 8.00am and 11pm Mondays to Thursdays and 8am to 11.30pm on Fridays and Saturdays and 8am to 11pm on Sundays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and there shall be no external illumination of the premises except between these hours. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining properties and in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007. 08 Any public address system installed on the site shall be used for operational announcements only and at no time shall it be used for purposes of advertisement or the relaying of music, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 09 Before the development hereby permitted commences a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the use of the site. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the site does not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Note to Applicant: You are advised to ensure that level access and disabled (accessible) toilet meets the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations.

Background Papers: DC/11/2502 Contact Officer: David Taylor

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Proposed single and two storey extension to rear of building to provide 11 no additional bedrooms with en-suite facilities, together with communal day room and internal alterations

SITE: Ashton Grange Nursing Home, 3 Richmond Road, Horsham

WARD: Horsham Park

APPLICATION: DC/12/0299

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs G Ragunathan

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single and two storey extension on the north west end elevation of this detached nursing home.

1.2 The existing single storey rear extension has a central corridor with rooms off either side. The proposal is to extend the central corridor to form first a single storey addition providing two bedrooms with en-suite and also a two storey extension. The two storey element contains two bedrooms and a day room at ground floor level with stairs and lift leading to a further five bedrooms and en-suite bathrooms at first floor level. The existing day room is to be converted into two bedrooms making a total of 11 new bedrooms in all.

Contact: Peter Harwood Extension: 5167 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2.

1.3 The footprint of the proposal is 13.1m x 11.4m to a maximum ridge height of 6.75m. The two storey element is shown to be constructed in brick with vertical tile hanging on the rear (north west elevation) and also on the forward facing south east elevation under a false pitched slate roof.

1.4 With regard to the layout of the building, the Design and Access Statement states the following:

"The proposed extension would be used as an integral part of the existing nursing home facility. Eleven additional bedrooms are proposed with six on the ground floor, and five on the first floor, each with en-suite WC, basin and shower. The rooms would all be of a good size ranging from 12 sqm to 15.1 sqm internally. There would be a new day room, measuring some 38.3 sqm, thereby being significantly larger than the existing day room facilities."

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site represents a substantial Edwardian former house located on the north west side of Richmond Road being a short distance to the north of its junction with Hurst Road. It is a two storey, double bayed building currently in use as a nursing home. The front of the building is put over to car parking whilst at the rear, there is a substantial single storey flat roof extension that extends for much of the rear garden. This extension has been constructed with a dummy pitch to the flat roof.

1.6 Richmond Road is a predominantly residential road located on the edge of the town centre of Horsham. It has a tranquil character that is enhanced by the existence of a number of attractive Edwardian villa properties. The area has accommodated significant modern residential infilling, although much of this later development is of less interest in architectural terms. No. 1 Richmond Road is a detached dwelling situated to the south of the application site. To the north east, the application site abuts a modern terraced housing development contained within St Christopher's Close. The existing rear extension runs parallel to and in front of nos. 1 to 6 St Christoper's Close and is also visible from the end of the turning head in this road. The boundary to the north west of the application site is also the boundary of the Horsham (Richmond Road) Conservation Area, although the application site is outside the Conservation Area.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS12, PPS3 and PPG13.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3.

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - The following policies are of particular relevance to the current proposal: CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP17.

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document 2007 - The following policies are of particular relevance: DC9, DC31 and DC40.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 The relevant history is listed below:

HU/362/65 - Permission - 30.11.65 - Change of use of dwelling to nursing home HU/72/96 - Permission - 5.6.96 - Single storey extension DC/07/0198 – Refused – 9.8.07 ( Part allowed at Appeal)- First Floor Extension and Conversion of existing roof space. DC/09/2203 - Refused - 11.3.10 - Proposed two storey rear extension to existing nursing home DC/11/0485 – Refused - 9.5.11(Allowed at Appeal) - Single storey extension to rear of building to provide six additional bedrooms with en-suite facilities together with communal day room and internal alterations to kitchen area to improve facilities

2.6 The Inspector stated with regard to the above application:

"The site is quite close to the centre of Horsham to which it is connected by bus services. Whilst Richmond Road is primarily residential in nature, the nursing home is a well-established feature within the road. There appears to be no in principle objection by the Council to the extension of the nursing home, or dispute about the desirability of making provision for additional care facilities of this kind given the aging nature of the population. Council concerns centre on the visual effect of what is proposed on the character and appearance of the immediately surrounding area, which includes a Conservation Area to the north west of the site."

2.7 The Inspector went on to state:

"The area to the rear of the house is not readily apparent from the public realm being contained on all sides by walls, private dwellings and their garden areas. The design of what is proposed would essentially mimic what already exists which, because of its single storey nature, has a rather discreet presence within the overall local townscape context.

Although the design of what is proposed could not be considered to be exceptional, it would be functional for its purpose and of necessity consistent with what already exists. It would provide for a slightly raised roof level at its end accommodating a design feature that would mark the north westerly end of the building and provide a small measure of architectural distinctiveness.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4.

I acknowledge that the site abuts a Conservation Area to the north west. However, views of the site from this area cannot readily be obtained and houses within Wimblehurst Road are set some distance away from the appeal site with intervening long, landscaped gardens. As such, I consider that there would be no negative impact of what is proposed on the character or appearance of the designated area.

The Council is also concerned that by eroding the existing external amenity space the proposal represents something of an over-development of the site. Whilst I acknowledge and respect such concerns, I was informed that given the nature of the occupancy of the nursing home and the fact that the considerable majority of residents are not mobile and in some cases bedridden, there is very little demand for use of the external areas of the site. I have no reason to doubt this assertion.

Given the retention of some garden land and the revised day room arrangement, I form the view that there would be a net improvement for residents in terms of the facilities to be provided for their benefit. Whilst built development would cover the majority of the site, the proposal would make effective and efficient use of the area available without harmful consequences in terms of the character or appearance of the surrounding area."

2.8 The appeal Inspector concluded that:

I have also examined local living conditions and car parking issues as raised by local residents but find no reason to be resistant to the proposal in these terms."

2.9 The current application, the subject of this report, differs from the previous application, the subject of the above appeal, in that the current proposal will be 3.9m in height where it adjoins the existing building, which is the same height as the existing single storey rear addition. The two storey element will be a maximum height of 6.7m which is 0.9m higher than the approved single storey extension allowed at appeal (DC/11/0485).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Public Health and Licensing Department objected to the proposal as the increased kitchen facilities which were proposed on an earlier application, are not shown on the current submitted plan. Amended plans indicating the improved kitchen facilities have now been submitted and the objections of Public Health and Licensing have now been lifted. They have confirmed verbally that no complaints APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5.

have been received from nearby residents relating to noise / smells emanating from these premises.

3.2 The Councils Equalities Officer has raised concerns at the proposed layout of the en-suite bathrooms.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 West Sussex County Council: No objection raised. Commented that:

"The proposal may result in a greater demand for parking in this location, however it is not expected that this intensification would give rise to a highway safety issue. Nursing homes are not normally associated with significant traffic volumes; Richmond Road operates with parking restrictions, however there is existing parking available at the frontage of the site and nearby surroundings without parking restrictions in place."

3.4 Southern Water: No objections raised but requested that a note to applicant be included on any subsequent planning approval stating that:

"A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH."

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 Neighbour Notifications: 13 letters of objection have been received including one letter from the Wimblehurst Road Residents Association and one from the Horsham Society, the comments and reasons for objection are noted as follows:

 commercial over-development of the site in close proximity to Conservation Area  overlooking, loss of privacy  noise and smells  highway safety implications  area is a natural habitat for bats  design unsympathetic to the surrounding area  lack of parking provision on site  concern at more staff plus more deliveries at unsociable hours  noise of construction  effect on trees and landscaping  loss of general amenity

Any further representations received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6.

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

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

It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development in this location; the impact and scale of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area including the adjacent Richmond Road Conservation Area, the amenities of neighbours and parking and highway safety issues.

6.2 The current proposal is to extend an established nursing home situated within the defined built-up area of Horsham.

6.3 Development Plan policies, in particular policies CP3 and CP5 of the Core Strategy, encourage new development to take place on previously-developed land and within defined built-up areas. The site is situated centrally within the built-up area boundary of Horsham, a category 1 settlement, with good access to local facilities and a range of services within the town centre, together with good links to public transport. As such the site is considered to be in a sustainable location and should be assessed against the usual development control policy criteria contained within the adopted Local Development Framework and the overarching principles of PPS1.

6.4 In order to put the current proposal in context it is necessary to look at the previous applications for extensions to this site.

6.5 In 2007 this private nursing home was the subject of an appeal against the refusal for a first floor extension over part of the existing single storey flat roof edition attached to the rear of the main/original Edwardian property (DC/07/0198 refers). The Inspector allowed the appeal in part relating to the conversion of the existing roofspace into staff offices and a staff room. He considered the main issue relating to the extension, was an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy caused by side bedroom windows on neighbouring occupiers at 1-6 St Christopher's Close. He also expressed concern at the appearance of the proposal in that "the design would not reflect the existing scale or features of the house." This part of the appeal was dismissed.

6.6 A later application (DC/09/2203) was submitted for a two storey addition at the end of the rear linear single storey addition (and is in a similar position to the current application). This proposal was refused for the following reason: APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7.

"The proposed extension and resultant building by reason of its size, siting and design would represent an unsympathetic form of development, having regard to the form and footprint of the existing building, the relationship with site boundaries and the pattern of adjacent development and the adjoining Richmond Road Conservation Area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would represent an inappropriate and incongruous form of development, thereby causing material harm to the character and visual amenities of the area, contrary to the aims of policies within the Development Plan, in particular policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework; Core Strategy (2007), policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework; General Development Control Policies (2007) and policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009."

6.7 Planning application DC/11/0485 was submitted with a view to overcoming the above previous concerns and related to a single storey addition at the end of the existing single storey extension further extending the linear form of the rear extension. The proposed extension was the same width as existing and incorporated a pitched roof design over the end part of the extension. The addition was 11.5m wide x 12.4m in length and provided (with other internal alterations) a further six bedrooms and a day room and increased kitchen space. The proposed extension and internal works would have resulted in the nursing home having provision for 31 persons to be cared for at this site. Following careful consideration this application was refused for similar reasons to the earlier application. The proposal went to appeal and the Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The Inspector concluded that:

"Given the nature of the existing development on the rear of the site, its rather discreet positioning and the low key nature of the further extension proposed, I consider that the works can be achieved without harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding area and as such is consistent with the Development Plan in this regard. I have also examined local living conditions and car parking issues as raised by local residents but find no reason to be resistant to the proposal in these terms. For the reasons set out above and having had full regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that this appeal should succeed."

6.8 Whilst the principle of extending a nursing home in a category 1 settlement is not disputed (Policy DC31 refers); of relevance is whether the development scheme and the proposal's associated details integrate successfully and sympathetically with the character and visual amenities of the area. These requirements are set out in detail in Policy DC9 (Development Principles).

6.9 The application site is surrounded by residential properties of varying ages and styles, the nearest of which is a three storey town house at no. 12 St Christopher's Close. The proposed two storey extension is sited adjacent to and in alignment with its blank gable end.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8.

6.10 With regard to the design of the proposal, the resultant form of the addition would extend the already linear form of the existing single storey addition to the rear of the premises together with a two storey element which would add architectural interest to an otherwise bland design on this part of the premises. Whilst concern remains at the pattern of development in this location, the Local Planning Authority are mindful of the views expressed by the appeal Inspector on the previous application (DC/11/0485) who stated that:

"The area to the rear of the property is not readily apparent from the public realm being contained on all sides by walls, private dwellings and their garden areas. The design of what is proposed would essentially mimic what already exists which, because of its single storey nature, has a rather discreet presence within the overall townscape context.

Although the design of what is proposed could not be considered to be exceptional, it would be functional for its purpose and of necessity consistent with what already exists. It would provide for a slightly raised roof level at its end accommodating a design feature which would mark the north westerly end of the building and provide a small measure of architectural distinctiveness."

6.11 It is accepted that the current proposal is for a two storey addition. However, it contains a low profile false hipped roof which is lower than the eaves height on the main dwelling. The height to its ridge is only some 0.9m higher than that of the ridge on the single storey extension which was approved by the appeal Inspector. Whilst the Local Planning Authority have consistently been concerned at further intensification of this nursing home, it should be noted that the views and decision of the appeal Inspector relating to an earlier extension to these premises is a material consideration in the determination of the current proposal.

6.12 It is considered therefore, on balance, that the proposed extension by reason of its height and position, does not cause material harm to the character and visual amenities of the area to a significant degree to justify a refusal of planning permission in this case.

6.13 The applicants have sought to provide a proposal which does not have an adverse impact on nearby residents. There are no first floor windows proposed in the north west elevation and a bathroom window is sited within the south west side elevation of the proposed extension. Three first floor bedroom windows are proposed to face towards the rear of the property and by reason of their oblique view and distance to properties to the rear, it is considered that no material harm would be caused by reason of overlooking/loss of privacy to nearby residents in this case. Similarly, the windows in the south east elevation, which consists of two bedroom windows, a stairway window and an en-suite window, face towards the rear of the main building and by reason of their position would not result in a loss of amenity to residents on either side of the application site due to their orientation and distance away from the proposed extension.

6.14 The proposal is to increase the number of bedrooms from 24 to 35 which represents an additional five rooms over that previously allowed at appeal. The applicant has confirmed that the staff will be increased from 25 to 37. It is APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9.

considered that there is no objection in principle to extending private nursing homes situated within the urban area and as such are supported by Policy DC31. In the past concern has been expressed by the Local Planning Authority at further additions to this particular private nursing home situated on a restricted site. However in light of the appeal Inspector's comments relating to an earlier scheme, it is considered that the increase in bedrooms and staff will not represent an intensification of residential activity to such a degree to cause material harm to the amenities and quiet enjoyment of nearby residential occupiers. Public Health and Licensing, following earlier concerns relating to the kitchen provision at the home, (now resolved) have advised they have not received any complaints from nearby residents regarding noise/smells emanating from these premises and have confirmed they have no objection to the development as proposed.

6.15 Concern at the level of parking provision on site has also been raised. The West Sussex County Council have been consistent with their view that a residential care home does not generate significant traffic volumes and therefore do not object to the limited on site parking provision of seven spaces fronting onto Richmond Road. However following these local concerns, the West Sussex County Council have been requested to consider the matter further, including a site visit, and it is anticipated its comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

6.16 The applicants have confirmed that no existing trees/landscaping of the site will be affected by the proposal and therefore any possible bats in this location will not be adversely affected in this case.

6.17 It should be noted that many of the issues raised by the current proposal have been raised by the LPA in defending the previous appeal. However the appeal inspector did not consider that these matters justified the refusal of the application (DC/11/0485) and subsequently allowed the appeal. It is accepted that the current proposal is larger in terms of its bulk and size and provides for an additional 5 bedrooms to that previously allowed at appeal. However due to the current proposals siting adjacent to the blank gable end of No.12 St Christopher’s Close and its overall height , it is considered difficult to justify a refusal of planning permission in this case .

Conclusion

6.18 It is considered therefore that the proposed extension constructed in brick under a low profile false hipped roof, when viewed from the wider area, is considered to be in keeping with the character and visual amenities of the streetscape in this instance. Also due to the application's form and position, it is considered that the character of the nearby Conservation Area will not be adversely affected by the development as proposed. The proposed extension by reason of its size, siting and design and in relation to the positioning of windows, are considered not to cause material harm to the amenities of nearby residents.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Subject to the satisfactory comments of West Sussex Highways, the preliminary view is that the proposed extension is considered, on balance, to be acceptable and is recommended for permission subject to the following conditions.

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M1 Approval of Materials

03 D5 No Windows …shall be formed in the north east and south west (side) elevations of the development …

04 No construction work shall take place outside 0730hrs to 1800hrs Mondays to Fridays and 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with the aims of Policy DC9 of the LDF General Development Control Policies Document 2007.

Note to applicant

8. REASONS

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/12/0299 Contact Officer: Peter Harwood

ITEM A5 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April 2012 Restoration of listed barn and use for agricultural purposes, replacement of modern open machinery store with traditional building for same use but to include grooms accommodation, office/rest room for maintenance manager, extension and use of existing office building by yard staff, provision of three-bay open DEVELOPMENT: barn for car parking and cycle storage, conversion of hovel into stables for stallions, demolition of cow shed, erection of two stable buildings and the provision of a spur access and reprofiling/landscaping of immediately adjoining land. (Full Planning) and (LBC) SITE: Rusper Nunnery, Horsham Road, Rusper Horsham

WARD: Rusper and Colgate

APPLICATION: DC/11/0799 (Full App) and DC/11/0832 (LBC)

APPLICANT: Mrs Karin Cooper

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to Speak

RECOMMENDATION: DC/11/0799 (Full) That the application be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DC/11/0832 (LBC) That the application be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning applications.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The applications seek both planning permission and listed building consent for the for the restoration of a listed barn and use for agricultural purposes, the replacement of a modern open machinery store with a traditional style building for the same use but to include grooms accommodation, an office/rest room for a maintenance manager, the extension and use of an existing office building by yard

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 ITEM A5 - 2

staff, the provision of a three-bay open barn for car parking and cycle storage, the conversion of a hovel into stables, demolition of a cow shed, erection of two stable buildings and the provision of a spur access together with the reprofiling/landscaping of immediately adjoining land.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The application site lies outside of any built up area boundary within the Countryside. Access to ‘The Nunnery’ is from Rusper Road via a long drive. Rusper Nunnery itself is set within grounds, with the immediate land area surrounding the dwelling comprising manicured gardens, the wider area within the applicant’s ownership forming a wider landscaped area. Immediately to the west of the main dwelling are various ponds beyond which the land rises and at its peak Nunnery Farm is located. Nunnery Farm comprises the Old Dairy, Hovel, an agricultural building (Machinery Store) and a Listed barn. To the east of the of the application site the dwelling known as ‘The Lodge’ is sited at the entrance point providing access to the Nunnery. To the north of the application site lies a wooded area known as Nuns Wood and also a pond. To the south lies woodland known as South Wood in which are various tracks. Curtis Farm, Curtis Cottages, Clement Cottage and Curtis Farm House are located to the far north of the application dwelling. The site is identified as a defined archaeological site.

1.3 There are two Public Footpaths that run adjacent to the application site dwelling, one along a northeast –southwest axis (Row 1492) and one along a north-south axis (Row 1495).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS5, PPS7, PPG13

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1 Landscape and Townscape Character, CP2 Environmental Quality, CP3 Improving the Quality of New Development

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1 Countryside Protection and Enhancement, DC2 Landscape Character, DC5 Biodiversity and Geology, DC9 Development Principles, DC10 Archaeological Site and Ancient Monuments.

2.5 South East Plan 2009, CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment CC1 Sustainable Development,

ITEM A5 - 3

2.6 PLANNING HISTORY

RS/25/72 PERMIT New single storey lodge, site of existing lodge to the nunnery RS/1/73 PERMIT Layout, siting, design + external appearance of the lodge + means of access from the site to the highway RS/18/78 PERMIT Erection of single storey lodge dwelling, site of demolished lodge at entrance RS/44/88 PERMIT Erection of a garage block with games room over, and a swimming pool with changing room DC/11/0677 PERMIT Demolition of various parts of the building including swimming pool roof, associated runners, existing walkway and section of existing roof on main house. Replacement roof over swimming pool, new condenser unit to pool, provision of covered walkway to include an orangery part way along its length and new roof "well" to main house. Provision of portico on front elevation. Infilling of carport and replacement of garage doors with walls, fenestration and a door. The provision of an insulating rendered coat to the exterior of the house with a finish to match existing.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Tree Officer: Commented that

In summary, in order to satisfactorily retain the tree to the north it would be preferable to lose one tree rather than damage both. However, to fully accord with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007), it would be necessary to retain both, and as this scheme conflicts with this, I raise an OBJECTION to it.

Full Comments as follows

You asked me specifically to comment on the large oak tree proposed to be removed at the top end of Nunnery Lane to facilitate the erection of one of the stable blocks.

 The tree is a very large old specimen, exhibiting a trunk diameter at chest height of 1287mm. I would therefore estimate it to be around 150 to 175 years old. It is in excellent health and condition, given its age; it is free from fungal ingress. ITEM A5 - 4

 It is one of a line of five individual oaks, clearly planted deliberately, along the eastern side of Nunnery Lane. The line of trees as a whole makes a highly positive contribution to the locality, and indeed dominates the sylvan landscape.  Nunnery Lane is a gated private lane, and public access is restricted to the public footpath which runs along it. The area is off the beaten track, the trees being primarily countryside specimens. However, the five trees are prominent when viewed from the FP, and accordingly have amenity value, albeit impaired by the low level of public access in the vicinity. Should the group be threatened with removal, they would meet the criteria for protection by TPO, their slightly impaired amenity value being counter-balanced by their sheer size, age, quality, and group value.  The tree in question, being at the northern end of the group of five, has very slightly lower amenity value than the others further south, as close to it the FP turns to the west away from the tree. It's still noticeable, but is less imposing and dominant. Nonetheless, it remains a tree of considerable significance.  In development terms, the tree (and its neighbours) would clearly qualify as an "existing important landscaping feature" as defined under policy DC9 (f) of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). However, there is a further large impressive oak tree to the north constraining the development site, with a similarly large RPA. If development pressures are irresistible, it would be preferable to properly retain the northerly specimen at the cost of losing the southerly tree of the two, rather than attempt to squeeze development between them, damaging both.  In regard to the northern tree, I note that the position of the proposed building shows it being placed 9.5m away. This equates to an ingress into the RPA of 36.7%, well in excess of the 20% allowance for individual open grown trees (as this one is) set out within BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005). This is unsatisfactory; the building should not come any closer to the tree than the 20%, which equates to a distance of 12m.

3.2 Design and Conservation Officer: Commented that

The reorganisation of the application buildings has been informed by a historic farmstead layout, and takes its reference from the other farm buildings onsite, creating a second courtyard arrangement. This is found in a number of locations in the weald and would generally be characteristic of an organic development of a farm. Although the buildings are large, their general design and bulk, including use of materials and local vernacular is sensible and on balance would not detract from the setting of the listed building. The reconstruction of the machinery shed and the design of this is also acceptable in principle. Full comments as follows

Description: Restoration of listed barn and use for agricultural purposes, replacement of modern open machinery store with traditional building for same use ITEM A5 - 5 but to include office/rest room for maintenance manager, extension and use of existing office building by yard staff, provision of three-bay open barn for car parking and cycle storage, conversion of hovel into grooms accommodation, demolition of cow shed, erection of two stable buildings and the provision of a spur access and reprofiling/landscaping of immediately adjoining land (Listed Building Consent) The restoration to enable the continuing storage use of the existing listed barn, as proposed is welcomed. The application includes an interesting and useful historic building report and survey and the proposed repairs are in principle acceptable. It is noted however, that most of the work is repair work, which could be carried out without permission and would normally be necessary for any building, not just this particular property. The conversion of the hovel to grooms accommodation is also acceptable in principle as although it affects the setting of the listed barn, (and the hovel itself if listed as being within the curtilage of the barn or farmhouse), the use being connected to the farmstead. The use of the building as “grooms accommodation should be retained; its conversion to an independent residential accommodation is likely to impact on the setting and character of the listed barns and the complex as a historic farmstead. This would need to be considered under a separate application. However, the design of the converted hovel is overly domestic; and a redesign of this element of the application to reduce the number of windows and use the existing open hovel character of the building would be welcomed. This could include simple full height glazing behind the openings on the west elevation and a rationalisation of the windows on the east. The demolition of the modern machinery shed would better reveal the historic significance of the barn, and the replacement design is of traditional character, using locally found features, to complement the barn, Nunnery Farm and the rural setting. The demolition of the large southern barn would be an improvement to the setting of the historic farm complex, removing a bulky modern intrusion. Turning to the proposed stable buildings, there is concern regarding their location and size in relation to the listed farmhouse and barn. The pattern of development of the farmstead has traditionally from historic map evidence provided in the heritage report by Dr Annabel Hughes, followed a linear plan north/south. The arrangement of buildings around a courtyard with a large double height barn is one common to the Weald area. The cumulative impact of the positioning and size of the proposed stables adjacent to courtyard, at its closest point 12 metres away to the east, spreads this development away from the existing pattern of the farmstead and would appear at odds with the historic grain of the farmyard. This is further intensified by the proposals for two large stable buildings and a paddock with ramps and new embankments. Individual design of the stable buildings, although utilising traditional local materials and features, are considered to be out of scale with the remaining buildings in the farmstead. The relationship of the listed barn in particular would be compromised by the scale and positioning of the stallions stable. In conclusion, there are merits to this scheme; the re-use and repair of the historic barn and the replacement of the modern machinery store with a building of more traditional appearance, however harm to the pattern of development and setting of ITEM A5 - 6

the listed buildings on the site is considered to be unacceptable and is not considered outweigh the more positive parts of the application. Therefore, the application does not meet the criteria of DC13 nor the wider remit of PPS5 and refusal is recommended. Suggestion: As explained above, there are elements of the scheme which are positive – it may be in the applicants’ interest to withdraw this application to resubmit having redesigned some elements of the scheme. There may also be scope to relocate the stallions and mares stabling to another part of the site, utilising the historic pattern of development which has occurred in a linear fashion over the years. It is noted that the large southern barn is to be demolished; subject to revisions, design, amount etc and on a without prejudice basis, this part of the site may be suitable for some stabling as it would follow the historic pattern of the farmstead. This may help tackle some of the issues in relation to the historic conservation and design elements of the scheme. Further comments received: 21st March 2012 The reorganisation of the application buildings has been informed by a historic farmstead layout, and takes its reference from the other farm buildings onsite, creating a second courtyard arrangement. This is found in a number of locations in the weald and would generally be characteristic of an organic development of a farm. Although the buildings are large, their general design and bulk, including use of materials and local vernacular is sensible and on balance would not detract from the setting of the listed building. The reconstruction of the machinery shed and the design of this is also acceptable in principle. Please request by condition a sample panel of stone with brick quoins to be erected on site and inspected and agreed by the LPA prior to commencement of development. Please also request by condition a sample of tile and detailed elevations of the doors and windows of the new buildings (mares and fouls and Stallion buildings). Please also secure by way of condition 1:1 sections and 1:20 elevations of windows and doors for the office building, machinery shed, as well as joinery details for the timber frame repairs and reconstruction. This should be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of development.

3.3 Landscape Architect:

ITEM A5 - 7

On balance I do not consider the stables complex proposals and the new access roads/driveway will either conserve or enhance the parkland landscape character area of the area

Full comments below:

Initial comments received 12th July 2011

Whilst it is acknowledged that the present day parkland is likely to have been the subject of considerable relatively recent change, both in terms of earthworks and planting, and it is not a registered historic park and garden nevertheless it is considered the stables complex in terms of the scale, form and prominent location of the buildings and small ranch style fenced paddocks will undermine/erode the open sweeping parkland character. The proposed woodland style infill planting, hedge planting and wildflower meadow planting are welcomed but it is considered will not provide the degree of integration suggested that would mitigate the impact of stables buildings and paddocks.

I am also concerned about the landscape impact of earthworks for the spur access drive, although in the absence of supporting long and cross sections it is difficult to be sure how the steep slopes crossed are dealt with

If the applicants had come forward with buildings more closely related in layout, scale and form to the existing farm complex together with a detailed long term landscape management for the enhancement of the estate I would have been in a better position to offer support for the proposals.

Further comments received 21st March 2012

I am satisfied the proposed layout of stable buildings is mow much more sympathetically related to the existing farm buildings and they are in a less visually prominent position in the Nunnery parkland than was previously proposed. It is of course unfortunate that the layout changes have resulted in the loss of one fairly large oak tree. However, I would expect the detailed landscape scheme submitted by condition to make provision for an oak tree of at least 50-60cm girth (semi mature size) to compensate for this along with other planting. The need for this should be identified by means of an informative on the decision notice. I would be happy if there is still some provision for other English oaks in the planting for this semi mature tree to be a more ornamental variety of Oak e.g. Pin Oak which would be complementary to the parkland character.

The oak tree being retained to the north of the new stables has some earthworks shown within the RPA of the tree. The earthworks drawing either needs to be amended to preferable avoid any earthworks within the RPA of the tree or it needs to be demonstrated satisfactorily in the arboricultural assessment that the level changes can be achieved without harm to the tree.

I am satisfied that the levels, long sections details of the new driveway to the Nunnery House.

ITEM A5 - 8

I understand car parking for stable hands is within the machinery store so there is no risk of the courtyard appearance being adversely affected by car parking.

The submitted landscape strategy in respect of the Stables is satisfactory in terms of the broad structure , extent of planting areas shown but we would reserve the right to comment further on precise planting locations, species etc when a detailed planting scheme is submitted. The strategy has not currently included the previously indicated enhancements to the existing avenue of parkland trees lying to the east of the house. This needs to be included in the submitted detailed planting and management plans.

We reserve the right to comment further on precise hard surfacing details when submitted

Please apply these conditions:

Detailed Landscape scheme No works or demolition shall take place until full details of hard and soft landscape scheme have been submitted and approved ion writing by the local planning authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete and shall comprise:

 A detailed plan and specification for topsoil; stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice  Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying, planting size, densities, and plant numbers  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details.  A written hard and soft specification(national Building Specification complaint) including methods of ground preparation, cultivation, planting, and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Hard surfacing materials, layout, colour, size , texture, coursing levels  Walls, fencing, and railings – location, type, heights and materials  ,minor artefacts and structures – any 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.

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)

Underground Services No works or development shall take place until full details of underground services – locations, dimensions, depths have been submitted to and approved by the Local ITEM A5 - 9

Planning Authority. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the detailed landscape scheme submitted pursuant to the relevant condition. Reason: To ensure the underground services do not conflict with satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan Prior to the commencement of any works on the site a details 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 maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for.

It shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and aboricultural 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.

3.4 Building Control: Commented that:

I have carried out desk top study of the submitted planning application documents which is available on line. Documents indicate repair and replacing existing structure and introducing additional structures for strengthening. From building control’s point when the work is carried out we would seek further design and method statement. Generally If work is carried out with sympathetic approach to maintain existing structure, it appear proposed conversion could be carried out without major replacement of existing material.

I hope this fulfil your requirement and elucidate the nature of your queries.

If you require us to make a site visit please contact the owner to gain access and we can carry out joint inspection.

3.5 Public Health and Licensing: Commented that:

I have no objections to the proposal subject to the following.

1. Construction/demolition activities to be restricted to: 0800-1800 Monday - Friday 0800-1300 Saturday No work Sundays and Bank Holidays

ITEM A5 - 10

2. No open burning of waste on site.

3. A scheme for management of stable waste to be submitted, approved, implemented and maintained. This will include details of methods and frequency of stable cleaning and storage, collection and disposal of the stable waste. Within the management plan it would be expected that storage of stable wastes (muck heaps) be located no closer than 30m from any residential boundary. Burning of stable waste is not an appropriate or acceptable disposal method.

4. No livery.

5. The proposal states that the hovel is to be converted into accommodation for the grooms and therefore the accommodation units are ancillary to the main use. If these units were let or sold to third parties there would be the potential for loss of amenity and even nuisance.

6. No exterior floodlighting without prior written approval.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.6 Rusper Parish Council: Commented that:

Rusper Parish Council support the development on the condition that the legislations relevant to habitats of protected species in the area are adhered to and that is does not have a long term negative ecological impact.

3.7 West Sussex County Council –

No objection subject to conditions

Full comments as follows

Highways: commented that Initial comments received 3rd May 2011 West Sussex County Council has been consulted on this application and considers issues of highway safety, capacity and archaeology.

This proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information. A site visit can be arranged on request. Archaeological advice has been sought in addition to highways.

The proposal is for the redevelopment of Rusper Nunnery with access onto Green Lane via an existing access point.

It is appreciated that the applicant intends the changes to the site to result in a less intensive use. However it is unclear how the changes will result in less vehicular activity. Page 4 of the consultant’s Report and Assessment contains a breakdown of what appears to be proposed vehicle movements, but it is also stated that this would be unlikely to pursue this farming or equestrian use. The applicant is ITEM A5 - 11

therefore requested to provide a breakdown of the existing and proposed vehicular movements to further assess whether there would be an intensification to the site.

Further to the monetary contributions The County Fire Officer advises that the proposed development may need to include the provision of a fire hydrant connected to adequate supplies of water for fire fighting (Contact: David Boarer – Fire Services 01243 813667). It should also include suitable access for fire brigade vehicles and equipment.

Further Highway Comments received 6th March 2012

You will be aware that WSCC previously commented on proposals at this site under this application number in May 2011. Further information at this time was requested on vehicular movements to and from the site.

We are now in receipt of this information. The existing agricultural use at the site will have experienced its own level of vehicular activity. It is anticipated that the existing agricultural use would generate about 30 car and 2 lorry movements a week and an additional 42 lorry movements per year. Balanced against this with the proposed movements down to 16 car movements a week and 18 lorry movements per annum. Visibility from the access onto Green Lane is not to standard; however we did observe that traffic speeds were slow and vehicular movements light. Based on the information we have, we consider that a conversion of the barns to stables is likely to result in a reduction in vehicular activity when compared to the potential agricultural usage.

From the highway point of view overall the proposal would be difficult to resist and sustain at Appeal, therefore no objections would be raised to these proposals.

3.8 Archaeology Officer - No objection. The site of the proposed new works, new build and landscaping lies some 150 metres west of the location of the medieval Benedictine nunnery and across the valley of a small stream which feeds into Porter's Gill. When a cellar was being excavated in 1840 at the site of the Nunnery itself, a number of skeletons and coffins were found suggesting the location of the monastic graveyard. From the contour map, the Nunnery sits on a spur of land with the aforementioned valley to the west and Porter's gill to the north. There is a series of ponds to the north which may well be the successors to medieval monastic fishponds. Because of the formulaic layout of Benedictine monastic precincts and conventual enclosures it would be necessary to build on relatively level ground but proximity to a water supply was very important. As the site of the proposed works lies across the ITEM A5 - 12

valley, it is highly unlikely that any medieval monastic features or deposits associated with the nunnery itself will be disturbed by the works.

According to Dr. Annabelle Hughes assessment report the listed barn is considered to date to the first half of the 17th century and served the equivalent of the 'home farm' to the Tudor/ Jacobean house. This was built by the Stones family when the surviving monastic buildings (ie those not deliberately destroyed by the Dissolution in 1536) were adapted to a high status private country seat. Thus the farmstead, to which the listed barn belongs, may date from the mid 16th century but it is possible that there was a medieval predecessor in the same vicinity which served as a home farm to supply the medieval convent.

As the proposals involve significant landscaping and groundworks I suggest that a watching brief should be kept (more on the basis of a call out arrangement rather than a constant archaeological presence) to observe and record any evidence for such medieval activity. I recommend a condition based on the example given in Circular 11/95. App. A, cond. 55.

I am pleased to note that alongside the development proposals repairs are to be carried out to address the structural issues of the listed barn. This is consistent with best practice in PPS5 and policy HE11.

Further Archaeology comments received 20th February 2012 Advice: Further to my earlier email of 27th July 2011 in connection with Rusper Nunnery my previous comments regarding archaeological monitoring covered by planning still stand. I or my colleague John Mills would be happy to comment to Horsham DC on the suitability of the WSI (written scheme of investigation), prepared by the applicant's archaeological contractor, for the monitoring work.

3.9 Ecology Officer: Commented that:

No ecological objection subject to conditions.

With additional reference to Natural England’s standing Advice. All surveys have been completed and no further surveys are required beyond a final check for key species prior to the implementation of the development. Works affecting bats and their mitigation will be managed through a European Protected Species Licence.

Recommended Condition Prior to the start of development or preparatory works on site a consultant ecologist shall be engaged as an Ecological Clerk of Works to supervise all works likely to affect bats, reptiles and birds.

Recommended Condition Prior to the start of and development affecting the barn a check for barn owls will be made by the consultant ecologist and if they are found to be breeding works shall be delayed until the young have fledged; should works be undertaken during the breeding season temporary nesting provision shall be provided. Long term provision for barn owls will be maintained within the barn alongside the installation of bird boxes for other species on new and renovated buildings. No vegetation ITEM A5 - 13

shall be removed during the bird breeding season unless deemed clear of breeding birds by the consultant ecologist.

Recommended Condition Works to the barn, hovel and mature oak tree shall be undertaken in a precautionary manner with regards to bats. Prior to the commencement of development or preparatory works on-site and in accordance with the bat survey an Ecological Clerk of Works will be commissioned to undertake a final check for bats and oversee the refurbishment works 17th century barn and ‘soft-stripping' of both barn and hovel roofs as required and only between November and early March in any year. Prior to the removal of the mature oak a detailed check for bats shall be made. Should protected bat species be present work must stop and Natural England informed. A license may be required from Natural England before works can re-commence, Natural England will advise. Prior to the commencement of development or preparatory works on-site a scheme showing a bat sensitive lighting strategy produced in liaison with the consultant ecologist will be submitted along with a detailed plan of how additional roosting features will be provided.

3.10 Natural England : Standing Advice relevant- No objections

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.11 Neighour Notifications: 4 letters of objection received (three regarding the original scheme) objecting to the use of use of Green Lane and the privately owned Nunnery Farm Track by construction and maintenance vehicles. 1 letter of objection has been received regarding the revised scheme. Reasons for objections include:

 Noise associated with the residential element for grooms accommodation  Loss of privacy  Increased vehicle activity

Two of the objectors have commented that they have no objection to the stabling/ restoration of the barn.

All objectors have also commented that they support the proposed new spur road off of the current driveway to the Nunnery which is accessed from Horsham Road.

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

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

It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.

ITEM A5 - 14

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in this case are considered to be:

 the principle of the development and the need for the residential element within the proposal.  the effect on residential amenity  the effect of the development on the character of the rural area  sustainability  the effect on the character and setting of the listed barn  Impact on trees

Background

6.2 The application site known as ‘The Nunnery’ comprises the main house with its domestic curtilage which is primarily accessed via Horsham Road, with approximately 110 ha of land which is set out as either informal parkland setting to the house or is in agricultural use. The group of farm buildings to the west of the main house is served by an access under the ownership of the Nunnery Farmhouse which runs north from Green Lane.

6.3 The application has evolved since it was originally submitted last year in response to the initial comments made by the Design and Conservation Officer, and the Landscape Officer as the initial scheme was considered to detrimentally impact the setting of the Grade II Listed Barn dating from the Circ.1600. Furthermore the initial scheme was also considered to detrimentally affect the Parkland Setting of the estate.

6.4 As amended your officers consider the revised proposals, which have been informed by a historic farmstead layout, and taking its reference from the other farm buildings on the site, with the creation of a second courtyard arrangement is more appropriate in this location. Other examples of similar stable courtyards can be found in a number of locations in the weald and would generally be characteristic of an organic development of a farm. 6.5 Although the buildings are substantial, their general design and bulk, including the use of materials and local vernacular design is considered sensible and on balance would not detract from the setting of the listed building. The reconstruction of the machinery shed and the design is also acceptable in principle. 6.6 The proposal involves the retention and renovation of the existing Grade II listed building for storage of straw and hay, the replacement of the existing modern open machinery store with a new machinery store, tack and grooms accommodation, the retention of the existing office building as an office and rest area, and conversion of the existing Hovel to provide stable accommodation. The proposal also includes the erection of two new stable blocks set around a new courtyard to the east of the application site. Car parking is to be provided within the new Machinery Store.

6.7 The proposed stable blocks set around a new courtyard (adjacent to the existing courtyard) comprise a ‘mare and foal block’ measuring 23m x 8.5m and a height of 6 metres, it has a side projection of 3.6m x 13.6m with a maximum height of 4 metres. The ‘stallion block’ measures approximately 20m x 8m with a side ITEM A5 - 15

projection of 2m x 9.6m and a maximum height of 4 metres. Ground works involving some excavation works to set the stables down from existing land levels is proposed in order to reduce the visual impact of the height of the stable blocks as viewed from Nunnery Lane. The works involve some areas of ‘cut and fill’, further landscaping around the stable buildings is proposed to help its integration with the existing complex.

6.8 The proposed materials for the new machinery store and grooms accommodation reflect the local vernacular with use of local stone, timber cladding, and clay tile roof.

6.9 The existing utilitarian cow shed to be demolished is located to the south of the historic courtyard. It is enclosed on three sides with a double pitched roof and a height of approximately 5 metres. It measures 17.5m x 17x5m with a side projection.

Principle of development and impact on character of area

6.10 The proposal should be assessed against the usual development management policy criteria contained within the adopted Local Development Framework and the overarching principles of PPS7.

6.11 The application has been assessed against current national policy and local planning policies within the relevant Horsham District Council Local Development Framework in particular the Core Strategy Document (2007) and the General Development Control Policies Document (2007). With regard to the principle of the development, the site lies within the countryside and LDF countryside policies are relevant to the application, specifically DC1 Countryside Protection and Enhancement

6.12 DC1 states that outside Built up Area Boundaries only development that is essential to its countryside location and supports the needs of agriculture or forestry, the extraction of minerals, or provides for the quiet informal recreational use; and ensures the sustainable development of rural areas, will be allowed.

6.13 PPS4 advises that re-use of buildings within the countryside should preferably be for economic development purposes, but in some locations and for some types of buildings, residential conversions may be more appropriate.

6.14 In respect of PPS7, the functional test is used to establish whether there is an established need for one or more workers to be readily available at most times for the proper functioning of the enterprise. Financial tests are also applied in order to assess whether a commercial enterprise is likely to be viable in the longer term. The current application is however for the owners extensive ‘hobby’ and is not considered to be a ‘commercial’ enterprise, as such in this particular case, a full assessment against the requirements of PPS7 are not considered to be appropriate. Having regard to the number of stables proposed however, it is considered that a case for an element of on site accommodation can be made in the interests of animal welfare, resulting in a functional need for limited additional on site accommodation.

ITEM A5 - 16

6.15 LDF Policy DC1 Countryside Protection and Enhancement is restrictive in nature only allowing development essential to its countryside location and which does not individually or cumulatively lead to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside.

6.16 Policy DC27 Essential Rural Workers Dwellings states that outside of the defined built up areas new housing for rural workers will be permitted in accordance with national planning policy (PPS7), which would include that in connection with the breeding and care of horses on a commercial basis. As previously mentioned, the requirements of PPS7 require that the viability of any commercial enterprise be tested against the functional and financial tests set out in Annex A of PPS7.

6.17 The applicant states that that this is a personal ‘hobby’ and not a commercial enterprise. The requirements of DC27 state that rural workers dwellings will be permitted in accordance with national planning policy (PPS7), which would include that in connection with the breeding and care of horses on a commercial basis. However, given the nature of the application, it is considered that a case for on site accommodation as proposed on animal welfare grounds can be made and it would appear that on the basis of the investment to be made and the nature of the use, that the use has the opportunity to be viable in the longer term.

6.18 The groom’s accommodation (1 x 2 bedroom unit) is accommodated in one of the proposed new buildings that also form a Machinery Store. The groom’s accommodation within the building is located at both ground and first floor levels. In this case, the grooms accommodation is considered by the applicants to be an essential requirement for the upkeep and animal welfare needs of the horses and it is not considered that off site accommodation would be appropriate in this case. Furthermore, if this were the case then this would only add to the number of journeys to and from the application site which would not support the objectives of sustainable development.

6.19 LDF Policy DC29 Equestrian Development states that planning permission will be granted for equestrian related development provided that it can be demonstrated that the reuse of existing buildings on site can be reused before new or replacement buildings are considered; that the proposal is appropriate in scale and activity and in keeping with its location and surroundings; and, does not result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside. In this respect the proposed development is considered to comply with the requirements of LDF policy DC29.

6.20 Where it has been possible the applicants have retained the existing buildings, including the Hovel (to be converted for stabling for the Stallions), the Grade II listed Barn (to be used for hay and straw storage), and the existing office building (to be used for office / sitting facilities in association with the keeping and breeding of the horses).

6.21 The new buildings effectively replace the existing machinery store and will provide new accommodation for the new machinery store and grooms accommodation. Two new stable blocks are proposed to the east of the existing courtyard. After lengthy negotiations with the applicants, these new buildings have been sited to minimize any visual impact on the parkland setting and on the historic character of ITEM A5 - 17

the existing stable yard and the Barn which is a Grade II listed building. The Landscape architect is now content with the proposal.

Impact on Listed Barn

6.22 The objective of PPS5 is to conserve assets for the benefit of this and future generations. This is done by supporting their maintenance and by requiring that change to them is managed in ways that sustain and where appropriate enhances their heritage significance. In this respect it is considered that the current scheme sustains and enhances the significance of the heritage asset and the contribution to its setting. The scheme has been revised in order to overcome concerns originally expressed by the Design and Conservation Officer, who now raises no objection to the proposal.

Impact on Trees

6.23 The proposal as amended results in the removal of a substantial oak tree. This tree is one of a line of similar trees. The Arboricultural Officer comments that in order to retain the tree to the north it would be preferable to lose one tree rather than damage both, however to fully accord with DC9 both should be retained, as such an objection is raised. In the circumstances of this case, taking into account the need to balance the impact of any proposal on the wider rural landscape together with the setting of the Listed Barn, together with the character of the site as a whole, it is considered, on balance, that the loss of the tree is acceptable, having regard to the overall character of the scheme and the area as a whole. It is the view of your officers that there is merit in the argument that in this case it is preferable to lose one tree than potentially damage both trees by placing development in close proximity to both trees.

Impact on Residential and Visual Amenity

6.24 In respect of noise associated with the use of the courtyard and associated buildings together with the proposed new stabling accommodation it is considered by your officers that the proposed private equestrian use of the site compared to a potential agricultural use is likely to generate less activity and therefore a less intensive use of the site.

6.25 Concern has been raised by a nearby resident regarding the impact of the proposed grooms accommodation in proximity to their dwelling (a Grade II listed house and barn). Two other objection letters have been received regarding the use of Green Lane and the Nunnery Track to access the application site. It has been advised that the Nunnery Track and the associated verges are in private ownership. There is some dispute between the parties over Rights of Way, however this is a private matter between the owners and the applicants and is not a matter for consideration under planning controls. Should the issue not be resolved then access through to the stables from Horsham Road and through the Nunnery estate itself would be possible.

6.26 Your officers consider that there is sufficient separation distance between the neighbouring dwelling and the proposed groom’s accommodation and that disturbance resulting from day to day use of the groom’s accommodation would be ITEM A5 - 18

that associated with normal residential living and as such is not a justifiable reason for refusal.

6.27 The applicants have advised in an email dated 12th March 2012, that they do not intend to use the Green Lane approach for construction purposes. They further advise that the stable complex construction traffic will be directed from Horsham Road through the Nunnery Estate and onto the internal spur road (which forms part of this application). Use of the Green Lane access would occur when the existing utilitarian barn is demolished.

6.28 The proposed new stable blocks have been located away from the existing residential properties that are close to the application site boundaries. Ground- works are to be undertaken in order to set the stable blocks into the ground to reduce views of the stable blocks from Nunnery Lane.

Parking and Access Arrangements

6.29 A spur access is proposed off of the Horsham Road access that leads to the existing garages, associated with the main dwellings known as The Nunnery. The spur access would involve some re-profiling/landscaping of immediately adjoining land. The Council’s Landscape Architect has assessed the proposed new access and has confirmed that in principle he is satisfied that the levels, long sections details of the new driveway to the Nunnery House are appropriate.

6.30 If the private matter of rights of way can not be agreed between both parties than the new access off of the existing spur from Horsham Road could be used, as such the scheme is not totally reliant on the access from Green Lane.

6.31 Two parking spaces are proposed. The parking associated with the proposed private equestrian use is relatively low, and as such will be contained within the machinery store, out of view and out of the ‘historic’ courtyard. The number of parking spaces reflects the private nature of the development and the requirements for the proposed use.

Traffic Implications

6.32 West Sussex County Council have confirmed that they have no objections to the proposed development and that the existing agricultural use at the site will have experienced its own level of vehicular activity. It is anticipated that the existing agricultural use would generate about 30 car and 2 lorry movements a week and an additional 42 lorry movements per year. This has been balanced against the proposed traffic movements which would be 16 car movements a week and 18 lorry movements per annum. Visibility from the access onto Green Lane is below current standards; however traffic speeds are generally slow and vehicular movements light. Highways therefore consider that the conversion of the existing buildings to stables is likely to result in a reduction in vehicular activity when compared to the potential agricultural usage and that from a highway point of view overall, the proposal would be difficult to resist and sustain at Appeal.

Sustainability

ITEM A5 - 19

6.33 The applicants have confirmed that they will use locally sourced building materials and will use as many renewable materials in the construction of the development as is possible. The applicants have confirmed that the residential element of the dwelling will be constructed to level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

S106 Contributions

6.34 West Sussex County Council and District Contributions are attracted by the development. Contributions are required pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposals in terms of demand on Highways and Sustainable Transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development. Total Access Demand contribution would be sought by WSCC of £1,435 comprising Libraries £99, Fire and Rescue £44 and TAD £1,292 (the number of fire hydrants to be confirmed).

6.35 District contributions are required towards Open space, Sport and Recreation, comprising £1,431 Community Centres and Halls, £324 Local Recycling £162, total £1,917. Further consideration is being given to specific requirements that would justify such infrastructure contributions associated with the development.

Conclusion

6.36 The proposed stable complex arrangement succeeds in retaining a number of the existing buildings including the renovation of the Listed Barn and where new buildings are proposed they retain the existing courtyard character and on balance the setting of the Grade II listed barn.

6.37 It is not considered that the revised proposal would result in any appreciable harm or detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the wider rural landscape and as such for the reasons set out above the development is considered appropriate in this case.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

DC/11/0799 7.1 That the application be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the following conditions and further consideration as to the completion of a S106 Legal agreement

1 A2 Full Permission (3 years) 2. D6 Finished Floor Levels 3. D10 Floodlighting No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval by way of an application to the Local Planning Authority. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: in the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). ITEM A5 - 20

4. D13 Prior to the commencement of development of the building hereby permitted the existing building(s) shown as building 7 edged red on plan [657(P)740 B] shall cease to be used for any purpose whatsoever and shall be demolished (including the removal of foundations) and all materials arising from such demolition removed from the site. Reason: The site lies in an area where, under policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), permission for new development would not normally be granted. 5. D14 Non-severance The grooms accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes ancillary to the occupation and enjoyment of the main house and stable accommodation as a dwelling and shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation. Reason: The site is located within a rural area where the formation of additional independent units of residential accommodation would be contrary to policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 6. E3 Fencing No development shall take place until details of screen walls and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7. G2 Parking Provision

8. G3 Parking, Turning and Access

9. G6 Recycling

10. H6 Wheel Washing

11. J7(a) Stables

12. J7(b) Stables

13. No works or demolition shall take place until full details of hard and soft landscape scheme have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete and shall comprise:

 Tree pit and staking/underground guying details.  A written hard and soft specification(national Building Specification complaint) including methods of ground preparation, cultivation, planting, and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Hard surfacing materials, layout, colour, size , texture, coursing levels  Walls, fencing, and railings – location, type, heights and materials  ,minor artefacts and structures – any lighting columns and lanterns

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 in 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)

14. No works or development shall take place until full details of underground services – locations, dimensions, depths have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the detailed landscape scheme submitted pursuant to the relevant condition. Reason: To ensure the underground services do not conflict with satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) 15. Prior to the commencement of any works on the site a details landscape management and maintenance Plan for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA

It shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, bio-diversity 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 in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: general Development Control Policies (2007)

16. L2b Protection of trees - with inspection by Arboricultural Officer

ITEM A5 - 22

17. L3 Trenches

18. L7a Replanting (single tree)

19. Prior to the start of development or preparatory works on site a consultant ecologist shall be engaged as an Ecological Clerk of Works to supervise all works likely to affect bats, reptiles and birds. Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development. 20. Prior to the start of and development affecting the barn a check for barn owls will be made by the consultant ecologist and if they are found to be breeding works shall be delayed until the young have fledged; should works be undertaken during the breeding season temporary nesting provision shall be provided. Long term provision for barn owls will be maintained within the barn alongside the installation of bird boxes for other species on new and renovated buildings. No vegetation shall be removed during the bird breeding season unless deemed clear of breeding birds by the consultant ecologist. Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.

21. Works to the barn, hovel and mature oak tree shall be undertaken in a precautionary manner with regards to bats. Prior to the commencement of development or preparatory works on-site and in accordance with the bat survey an Ecological Clerk of Works will be commissioned to undertake a final check for bats and oversee the refurbishment works 17th century barn and ‘soft-stripping' of both barn and hovel roofs as required and only between November and early March in any year. Prior to the removal of the mature oak a detailed check for bats shall be made. Should protected bat species be present work must stop and Natural England informed. A license may be required from Natural England before works can re-commence, Natural England will advise. Prior to the commencement of development or preparatory works on-site a scheme showing a bat sensitive lighting strategy produced in liaison with the consultant ecologist will be submitted along with a detailed plan of how additional roosting features will be provided. Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.

22. M1 Approval of Materials

ITEM A5 - 23

23. M8 Sustainable Construction (residential development)

24. N15 No Public Address Systems

25. O1 Hours of Working

26. O2 Burning of Materials

27. Q1 Archaeological Safeguards

28. S4 Surface water details

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

ICAB2 IDP1

DC/11/0832

7.2 That the application be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to the following conditions

1 LB1 Listed Building 3 Year Time Limit

2. No development shall be commenced unless and until a sample panel of stone with brick quoins shall be erected on site and inspected and agreed by the LPA prior to commencement of development and have been approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: In the interests of the local environment and in accordance with policy DC12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. No development shall be commenced unless and until a sample of tile and detailed elevations of the doors and windows of the new buildings (mares and fouls and Stallion buildings) have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: In the interests of the local environment and in accordance with policy DC12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. Prior to the commencement of development 1:1 sections and 1:20 elevations of windows and doors for the office building, machinery shed, as well as joinery details for the timber frame repairs and reconstruction shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: In the interests of the local environment and in accordance with policy DC12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). ITEM A5 - 24

. INF8 Wildlife Protection

The applicants attention is drawn to the provisions of both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. Under the 2000 Act, it is an offence both to intentionally or recklessly destroy a bat roost, regardless of whether the bat is in the roost at the time of inspection. All trees should therefore be thoroughly checked for the existence of bat roosts prior to any works taking place. If in doubt, the applicant is advised to contact the Bat Conservation Trust at 15 Cloisters House, 8 Battersea Park Road, London, SW8 4BG. Their telephone number is 020 7627 2629.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ILBC1A

Background Papers: DC/11/0799 and DC/11/0832 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1. DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (North) Committee

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April, 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Fell one Horse chestnut tree.

SITE: Open space at junction between Oak Tree Way and Redkiln Way, WARD: Horsham. Roffey South.

APPLICATION: DC/12/0386

APPLICANT: Horsham District Council.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by Horsham District Council.

RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application proposes the felling of a Horse chestnut tree.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The tree is on the western boundary of the Council owned public open space on the western side of Oak Tree Way, close to the boundary with the builders’ merchants.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 The tree is protected by Tree Preservation Order number 663, confirmed on 8th May 1990. It is designated tree T34.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 As a protected tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 No letters of objection have been received in regard to this application.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.

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

Not applicable in this case.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The tree is a semi-mature Horse chestnut tree of moderate amenity value.

6.2 For the last 5 years it has displayed symptoms associated with an infection of Bleeding canker (Pseudomonas syringae pv aesculi). This disease now appears to have a good hold on the tree, as evidenced by the black exudations on the stem surfaces and the vertical bark cracking.

6.3 Bleeding canker is as yet fairly rare in the District, and indeed this tree appears also to be suffering from a secondary infection. This is a common occurrence as the disease takes hold and weakens the trees vigour and thereby its ability to ward off such pathogens.

6.4 As a result of the infection, there is now clear potential for the tree to fail, and given its position within an area of public open space clearly action must be taken to manage this situation. Surgery has been considered, but rejected as it would severely disfigure the tree and only postpone the inevitable.

6.5 While the tree is not deemed to be imminently hazardous, the condition is progressive, with further deterioration expected. As no further remedial treatment is available, it is now considered prudent to remove the tree and plant a replacement.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3.

6.6 This action will result in only a very minor loss of amenity to the area, and is considered justified in the circumstances.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. L7a Replanting INF8 Wildlife protection

8. REASONS

ITRE3 The proposal will have an adverse impact upon the character and amenities of the local area for a limited period, but is justified in this case and represents best arboricultural practice.

Background Papers: DC/12/0386 Contact Officer: Will Jones.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1. DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April, 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Surgery to one oak tree.

SITE: Charmans Close, Horsham.

WARD: Roffey North.

APPLICATION: DC/11/2699.

APPLICANT: West Sussex County Council.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by West Sussex County Council.

RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application proposes light surgery to an oak tree.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The tree is situated on County Council owned land within the twitten running through from Charmans Close to the Crawley Road.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 The tree in question is protected by virtue of its position within the area designated as A1 of the Tree Preservation Order number 100, served on 15th May 1969.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 As a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 No objections have been received in respect of this application.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.

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

Not applicable in this case.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The tree in question is a large impressive specimen in good health and of high amenity value.

6.2 The works proposed involve minor crown raising to clear the statutory height over the footway below, and some minor trimming to the lateral branches to trim away from the closest building (6 Charmans Close) by up to 3m.

6.3 The proposed works are very minor, and will not result in any harm to the tree or any amenity loss.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. TR3 Treeworks limit:  Undertake surgery exactly as set out in works schedule appended to the application as submitted. 3. TR4 Surgery standards INF7 Works limitations. INF8 Wildlife protection.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3.

8. REASONS

ITRE1(a) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the tree or the character and amenities of the local area.

Background Papers: DC/11/2699 Contact Officer: Will Jones.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1. DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April, 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Surgery to three oak trees.

SITE: Shipley Road, Southwater.

WARD: Southwater.

APPLICATION: DC/11/2698.

APPLICANT: West Sussex County Council.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by West Sussex County Council.

RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application proposes light surgery to three roadside oaks.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The trees are situated on the eastern side of Shipley Road, within County Council owned land to the immediate west of the property 17 The Gables.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 The trees in question are protected by Tree Preservation Order number 23, confirmed on 14th October 1970. Viewed north to south, the trees are designated within the application as trees T1, T2 and T3. Unfortunately this does not correspond with their numbers within the TPO, where the same three trees are designated T4, T3 and T2.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 As a group of trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 No objections have been received in respect of this application.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.

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

Not applicable in this case.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The trees in question are County Council owned highway side oaks, of good quality and high amenity value within the streetscene.

6.2 The works proposed involve minor crown raising to clear the statutory height over Shipley Road, and to trim further minor low limbs to 6m above ground level to reduce the extent of the low-level property overhang to 17 The Gables.

6.3 The proposed works are very minor, and will not result in any harm to the trees or any amenity loss.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

8. REASONS

ITRE1(b) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area.

Background Papers: DC/11/2698 Contact Officer: Will Jones.

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1. DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April, 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Surgery to 1 beech tree.

SITE: Land rear of 21 Woodlands Walk, Mannings Heath.

WARD: Nuthurst.

APPLICATION: DC/11/2517

APPLICANT: Horsham District Council.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by Horsham District Council.

RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application proposes surgery works to a beech tree.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The tree is part of a line of trees on a narrow strip of land to the north of 21 Woodlands Walk, Mannings Heath.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 The tree is protected under Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 947, confirmed on 24th August 1998.

1.4 The land on which the tree is growing is owned and managed by Horsham District Council Leisure Services.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 As a tree subject to a TPO, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Nuthurst Parish Council has stated no objection to this proposal.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.

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

Not applicable in this case.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The tree in question is one of a line of trees in the locality, and has modest amenity value only.

6.2 For some time the presence of the pathogenic decay fungus Ganoderma resinaceum has been noted growing at the base of the tree on the northen side. As this fungus causes a white-rot which can ultimately result in catastrophic failure, investigations have been pursued to ascertain the extent of the decay.

6.3 In November 2011 the tree was inspected using specialist internal decay detection equipment. This inspection showed that the tree’s structural condition has been impaired by the actions of the decay pathogen.

6.4 As the tree is close to a driveway to a private residential dwelling, it is clearly prudent to ensure action is taken to minimise the risk of the tree suffering catastrophic failure. While at this stage full removal appears unjustified, the 30% crown reduction proposed is designed to reduce mechanical loading on the weakened area within the lower stem. All pruning cuts shall be made back to sustainable growth points and efforts also made to retain a natural form.

6.5 The works proposed meet the recommendations of BS 3998 ‘Recommendations for Tree Work’ [2010] and appear justified given the compromise to the tree’s structural integrity. The work will result in no serious harm to the tree or to its landscape amenity value, and are accordingly recommended.

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. TR3 Treeworks limits:  Undertake works exactly as set out in application. 3. TR4 Surgery standards INF7 Works limitations. INF8 Wildlife protection.

8. REASONS

ITRE1(a) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the tree or the character and amenities of the local area.

Background Papers: DC/11/2517 Contact Officer: Will Jones.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North Head of Planning and Environmental Services and Head of BY: Strategic Planning and Performance DATE: 3rd April 2012 Development of 105 residential units, including 21 affordable housing units, open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping DEVELOPMENT: and associated works pursuant to outline permission DC/09/2101 (Approval of Reserved Matters) Plot 1 Land South of Broadbridge Heath Old Wickhurst Lane SITE: Broadbridge Heath WARD: Broadbridge Heath APPLICATION: DC/11/2074 APPLICANT: Countryside Properties Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 In October 2011 Outline Planning Permission was granted for the development of 57 hectares of land to the South of Broadbridge Heath which forms part of the strategic development of land as set out in the Horsham District Council: Land West of Horsham Masterplan. The Outline permission is for a development of 963 residential units, community facilities including land for primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to Five Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (application reference DC/09/2101). The Outline permission is subject to a legal agreement which secures a range of benefits associated with the development, including the delivery of 20% affordable housing across the development site (193 units) together with a £7.73 million commuted sum for off site affordable housing provision. The £7.73million would be subject to indexation

Contact Officer: Karen Tipper Tel: 01403 215180 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2

and payable in tranches and equates to 10% (96 units). The scheme is to be delivered over a 7 year period completing in 2017, a copy of the phasing plan is appended to this report.

1.2 The current application was submitted in October 2011 and seeks Reserved Matters approval for the first residential phase of this wider development and comprises 105 dwellings, including 21 affordable units, open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works.

1.3 This reserved matters application seeks approval for all matters, these being access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and is supported by the following technical reports:

 Design And Access Statement  Planning Statement And Statement Of Conformity  Landscape Statement and Open Space Strategy  Noise Assessment  Arboricultural Statement and Site Specific Arboricultural Method Statement  Affordable Housing Statement  Sustainability And Renewable Energy Statement  Bat Survey Report  Ecology Report  Bird Breeding Survey  Scheme Of Archaeological Resource Management And Written Scheme Of Investigation

1.4 A number of plans have been submitted to accompany this application which illustrates the site layout, street scenes and floor plans and elevations of the proposed dwellings together with access and parking provision on site to include the provision of 239 car parking spaces including 12 visitor parking spaces. The parking for all of the dwellings is provided on-curtilage or within small parking courts, with all dwellings benefiting from at least 2 private spaces with the larger detached 4 and 5 bed houses benefiting from at least 3 spaces. The application also indicates the provision of refuse and recycling storage and indicative details of the strategy for hard and soft landscaping.

1.5 The residential element of the application includes the following:

Private Units: Affordable Units: 9 x 5 bed houses 6 x 2 bed flat 35 x 4 bed houses 6 x 2 bed FOGs and houses 20 x 3-bed houses 9 x 3 bed houses 20 x 2-bed FOGs and houses Total: 21 Total: 84

1.6 Moat Housing has been chosen as the intended partner for the delivery of these 21 affordable units. In order to meet the affordable housing price set out in the Section 106 Agreement, Moat Housing Association has agreed with the Housing Strategy and Development Manager to vary the mix, representing a 52/48% split between rent and shared ownership: APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3

Affordable Rent Shared Ownership 4 x 2 bed houses 6 x 2 bed flat 7 x 3 bed houses 2 x 2 bed flats over garages Total: 11 2 x 3 bed houses Total: 10

1.7 The proposed open space is provided across 5 areas and set around the mature tress to be retained, with open space areas 1-4 forming a central green lung through the site. Other areas of public landscaping are located on the periphery of the site and include the retention of the existing western hedge along Five Oaks Road, the retention of the eastern hedge which links to the next phase of residential development together with the provision of a new planted buffer between this residential phase of development and the first phase of the new East-West link road (considered under separate planning reference DC/11/2059). The internal circulation routes comprise the secondary street leading into the site, community streets and green lanes which reinforce the transition between the countryside and the rural edge and have been designed to Manual for Streets standards.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.8 The strategic allocation of land south of Broadbridge Heath comprises an area of approximately 57ha located to the west of the A24 bounded by the A264 to the northwest, the River Arun to the south west and High Wood Hill to the south east. The balance of the strategic allocation of Land West of Horsham is to the east of the A24 currently under construction by Berkeley Homes (Southern) Ltd.

1.9 The land immediately to the south of Broadbridge Heath is predominately flat and gently undulating with the notable exception of High Wood Hill within the south- eastern corner and which is the location of a species rich designated woodland and Site of Nature Conservation Interest. With the exception of High Wood Hill, the area South of Broadbridge Heath is arable farm land with a small number of residential properties. Mill Lane, a public bridleway (BW1630) and Old Wickhurst Lane provide the key routes linking Broadbridge Heath to the countryside to the south. Part of the Mill Lane public bridleway runs north of the existing Broadbridge Heath by-pass to Thelton Avenue and provides a key link to the village. The trees and hedgerow on the edge of Mill Lane provide an important wildlife corridor which along with the field boundaries in the northern half of the site and on its edges, coupled with existing tree cover, are important to the landscape character of the area.

1.10 The site the subject of this first phase residential Reserved Matters application is located on the western edge of the wider development site bounded by Five Oaks road to the west and Heath Barn Farm to the north, which also falls within the strategic allocation of land south of Broadbridge Heath and is subject to a separate planning application which is yet to be determined. The southern boundary of this reserved matters application links with the first phase infrastructure application (planning reference DC/11/2059) which includes amongst other elements, the new Five Oaks roundabout, East-West link road, primary street together with SUDs basin 5.

Contact Officer: Karen Tipper Tel: 01403 215180 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The following planning guidance is relevant in the assessment: PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 - Housing; PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPS 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; PPG13 - Transport; PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation; PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control; PPG24 – Planning and Noise; PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk.

The Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was published in July 2011, sets out emerging national planning policy. This is due to be published and come into effect on 27th March 2012. Any implications of the NPPF for the assessment of this application will be reported to Committee.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and townscape character; CP2 – Environmental Quality; CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development; CP 7 – Strategic Allocation West of Horsham.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Polices (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement ; DC 2 – Landscape Character; DC3 – Settlement Coalescence; DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology; DC6 – Woodland and Trees; DC9 – Development Principles, and DC40 -Transport and Access.

2.5 The principle of the development has been established by the Outline application and the related report carefully considered the proposal in the context of Core Policy CP7 – Strategic Development West of Horsham.

2.6 Whist Policy CP7 sets the key principles, specific guidance on the ‘visions’ for the development is provided in the Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document SPD (2008) and the Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas SPD (2009) which provides guidance on design matters for developers, others preparing planning applications and for those considering applications.

The Masterplan sets out the ‘visions’ for the Strategic Development West of Horsham which are:

 An approach based on partnership with the local community who, through their involvement, will be in a position to be actively involved helping to ensure the long term success of this development beyond just buildings, bricks and mortar. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5

 An extension to the communities of both Horsham and Broadbridge Heath that reflects their differing needs, retains their characteristics and gives the expanded communities a sense of identity, which will include innovative design.  A development that delivers a sustainable and balanced community through the provision of a wide range of housing types and tenures including affordable homes that meet housing need and demand in the District, alongside a range of business and employment opportunities.  A development in which leisure and recreation acts as a focal point for both the new and wider communities of Horsham and Broadbridge Heath, encompassing a wide range of facilities and activities from formal sports uses to informal walks.  A development with the minimum impact on the environment which recognises the existing pressures on the natural environment, the need to conserve resources and includes strong links between the communities, biodiversity, heritage, the natural features of the site and its surroundings.  A development that is an exemplar in terms of the use of sustainable construction techniques, renewable and low-carbon energy supply.  A development in which good public transport, pedestrian and cycle facilities provide a realistic alternative to the car and where roads do not present a significant barrier to the integration of communities, the access to services / facilities and the wider countryside.  A development which provides for the needs of the new communities without detriment to the existing, through the inclusion of education, health, infrastructure and community facilities and in which the location of such services and facilities provides lively focal points.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.7 An Outline application was submitted in November 2008 under reference DC/08/2446 for a mixed use development comprising up to 1,013 residential units (Class C3), a primary school (Class D1); a neighbourhood centre including doctors surgery (Class D1), 6no. flexible business/retail units (Class B1/A2/A1), a parish office (Class B1), a public house/restaurant (Class A4/A3) and associated car parking; open space including sports pitches and changing facilities (Class D2); allotments; and associated landscaping and infrastructure works.(Outline). The application was withdrawn by applicant in October 2011.

2.8 An Outline application was submitted in November 2008 under reference DC/08/2447 for highway infrastructure work incorporating new grade separated junction on A24 south of Farthings Hill; new east-west link road between Five Oaks Road and the A24; and realignment and downgrading of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass (Outline). This application was withdrawn by applicant in October 2011.

2.9 In November 2009 an Outline application was submitted under reference DC/09/2101 for the erection of 963 residential units, community facility including land for a primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to APPENDIX A/ 10 - 6

Five-Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (Outline). This application was permitted on 3 October 2011. The delivery is in line with the strategy as set out in the Land West of Horsham Masterplan and supporting Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document.

2.10 An application was submitted under reference DC/11/0079 in January 2011 for the construction of 3 No. ponds for Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site in connection with application DC/09/2101. This application was permitted on 22 July 2011.

2.11 In October 2011 a Reserved Matters application was submitted under DC/11/2059 for the first phase infrastructure works pursuant to outline DC/09/2101, comprising details of new roundabout on Five Oaks Road, western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from Five Oaks Road to the new A24 junction, on site development roads to serve the first residential phases, Pegasus crossing and pedestrian/cycle crossings, new access to Newbridge Nurseries, access to Heath Barn Farm site, bus stops, foul pumping station and surface water drainage (Approval of Reserved Matters). This application is pending.

2.12 An advertisement application was submitted under reference DC/11/2538 for the erection of one temporary freestanding advertising board (Location 1) and two temporary freestanding advertising boards (Location 2). This was permitted on 17 January 2012.

2.13 An application to for the removal of condition 7 (European Protected Species Licence) of DC/11/0079 (Construction of 3 No. ponds for Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site) was submitted in December 2011 under reference DC/11/2561. This application was permitted on 5 January 2012 and enabled the construction of the ponds in anticipation of the translocation of the GCN.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Arboricultural Officer: (original comments 23/02/2012) 1. Service strip proposal. This appears to indicate the provision of a strip at the edge of the access roads through the site. The plans indicate that works to install this strip will involve a "supervised dig (by arboriculturalist)", but while the principal of hand digging where works are required within the RPA's of large retained trees on sites is laudable, I am concerned that such works are permitted at all. In the case of all 5 trees, the service strip cuts right through the RPA, in the case of T360 on three sides. Despite this tree's RPA having a radius of 14.5m, the strip comes to within 11m to the west, 10.5m to the north, and 8m to the east. All of these ingressions into the RPA are in excess of the 20% allowance for open grown individual trees as set out within para. 5.2.4 of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005), the closest representing an ingress of 44.8%. Moreover, the allowance states categorically that it refers to APPENDIX A/ 10 - 7 one direction only - not three sides. The proposal is thereby in clear conflict with the BS.

The felling of a considerable number of very large trees on this site serves only to upgrade the importance of those retained; indeed, in the context of the final development, within public open space, these trees will become the premier focal landscape feature of the site. As such, their successful protection is crucial. The whole concept of the 'RPA' is as a "minimum area in m2 which should be left undisturbed around each retained tree" (BS 5837, para. 5.2.1), based on an assessment of the importance of the specimen in question. Given the outstanding amenity value which these trees will have in the development, we should not compromise on their RPA's for the sake of convenience.

Some minor compromise has already been made in regard to the positions of the access roads, which in some areas foul the edges of the RPA's, although to a degree meeting the recommendations of the BS and accordingly acceptable. The service strip is in clear breach of the BS, and is therefore unacceptable, despite the assurance of the 'supervised dig'. In consequence this is also in breach of policy DC9(f) of the General Development Control Policies Framework document.

2. Tree T362. This old oak has a list of things 'wrong' with it as long as your arm. Principal considerations are that:

 It's not actually structurally unsound, despite it's problems and how it looks;  It's showing considerable and surprising levels of residual energy reserve;  Restorative surgery would improve its balance and shape.

The key to this tree is that we can have no idea how long it may last. It might last for decades; but even if it only lasts another couple of years, why is that a problem? It's not dangerous, and has a spectacularly low height/stem breadth ratio, so the likelihood of windthrow is tiny. When it finally dies, or becomes hazardous, it could readily be felled and replaced with a new tree which could be allowed to form into a premier specimen within the POS. So it's well worth persevering with.

The decision to retain may raise eyebrows in some quarters, given the tree's form and condition, but this is mainly a marketing issue. The concept that trees all have to have a perfect shape and balance, and be perfectly healthy (whatever such people may feel that means), is misguided; and in biodiversity terms Rackham's quote is pertinent: "10,000 oaks of 100 years old are not a substitute for one 500 year old oak".

In the meantime, I would recommend that deadwood is removed from the tree, an action which by default will assist with some rebalancing.

(further comments 27/02/2012 following receipt of amended plan) further to my previous e-mail dated 23rd Feb 2012 regarding the provision of a service strip in the vicinity of the retained trees on the site, T359 - T363 inclusive. I am in receipt of the latest amended Tree Protection Plan drawing (N00203/PL L02, revision D, dated 23 Feb 2012), and have examined the proposals for the service strips as indicated. I note the following: APPENDIX A/ 10 - 8

 The amendments show the removal of the proposed service strips to the east and west of T360, leaving solely that on the northern side of the tree. Some ingress of the RPA remains, but as this is on one side only, this equates with the recommendations at BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005). The degree of ingress into the RPA on this side is satisfactory as it represents approximately the 20% allowance for open grown individual trees as set out in the BS and referred to in my previous report.  The proposed footpath to the south-east of this tree also fouls its RPA allowance, but to a very small degree and crucially the plans note the proposal to install this using the 'no-dig' construction method.  The proposals in regard to trees T361 and T363 are acceptable, as the 20% allowances on their RPA's are respected in each case.  The service strip to the south of T362 passes much closer to the tree than the allowance permits, but this specimen is a special case, given its condition I commented on in my previous report. I find the proposed position of the service strip acceptable in this case.

In the light of the amendments shown on the submitted drawing, I now WITHDRAW my objection put forward in my previous report.

Landscape Architect (original comments 06/02/2012) Overall I would have no objection to the scheme, subject to a number of specific matters being addressed and one major concern being satisfactorily addressed.

The major issue relates to the adequacy of the landscape treatment of the southern and eastern boundary of the site. This area of an acoustic mound, fence and structural planting lies outside the red line of this application site but within that of the infrastructure application. Whilst the applicant has provided some cross sections of this area, at present I am concerned there may be an inadequate width to achieve effective long term screening planting once potential highway, underground service and acoustic fence maintenance constraints are taken into account. It should be noted that the width of the area allowed for is reduced compared with that shown on the illustrative drawings provided with the outline planning application. What is proposed in this area not only effects future residents of phase 1 but will set the standard for the landscape treatment of the link road. Therefore I would strongly recommend that this matter is resolved before there is any grant of permission for phase 1.

The layout of the site and the location of the open spaces, ensuring retention of some large mature oak trees, is reflective of the pre-application discussions and a reasonably attractive green corridor through the site results. However I am concerned about the adverse landscape impact of visitor car park spaces and a turning head and service margins eating into the open spaces. I would strongly recommend as a minimum that the 2 visitor spaces in the largest open space are taken out/relocated as the service margin adjoining will prevent use of hedge/shrub planting to soften the impact of parked cars. It should also be born in mind that this area provides the main area of more functional open space whereas the other areas principally just allow the retention of trees.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 9

I would also advise that the pond in the north east corner of the site should be retained as a landscape feature and also as filling it in would adversely affect the trees around it. There are earthworks and retaining walls proposed close to the oak tree in the south east corner of the site. We should obtain cross sections and detail of the retaining walls design to satisfy ourselves about the impact in arboricultural and landscape terms.

Existing hedgerow on the western boundary- The retention of this hedge is critical. I need to be satisfied that drainage proposals and a sewer diversion will not adversely affect it before planning permission is granted. In addition I will need to know that tree planting in the adjoining road verge is feasible in terms of any highways issues

Existing hedgerow on the eastern boundary. The applicants need to demonstrate by a topographic survey overlay on the layout that the parking court spaces 41,42 will not erode/eat into the existing bank on which the hedge is located and I am concerned as to how the garages here can be constructed without damaging the hedge. The garage for plot 1 will result in the loss of a section of hedge. As a minimum we should obtain a commitment to hedge replanting in this area.

Soft Landscape Strategy- This is broadly satisfactory but the following points need to be addressed: 1. With regard to the main secondary access road into the site I am concerned about the general limited provision for hedge and street tree planting which is needed to provide a stronger landscape structure and soften the impact of hard surfaces and built form. As a minimum I would seek the provision of front garden hedge planting for plots 24-27 and 15-18 setting back the houses by an extra 1m accordingly. It is appreciated this will reduce the back garden space accordingly but in my view this is only a very limited change which will significantly improve the main route into the site.

2. In the open spaces I will expect the use of structural shrub planting and naturalistic perennials as well which can be dealt with when a detailed planting plan is submitted

3. The parking courts are very tight in terms of space to allow tree or shrub planting - we will need to look at this through the planting detail submissions

Hard Landscape: 1. The white gates should be removed - will out of character. They are not a local Sussex feature. A gateway effect can be achieved by planting instead

2. I would recommend that the short sections of footpath adjoining plot 90 and opposite open space 4 are removed bearing in mind where the shared surface roads begin.

The rest of the detail of the hard landscape can be dealt with by condition

(further comments 05/03/2012 following receipt of amended plans) APPENDIX A/ 10 - 10

Pleased to see removal of the visitor car park spaces along the periphery of the main open space 2. Pond retention is clear on the site plan 3. Removal of retaining wall- good. Cross section to be submitted as part of the infrastructure application 4. Sewer diversion- assume this is okay in relation to the western hedge but you can check with me if you wish. 5. Relocation of garages to protect the eastern hedge is noted - would like to see cross section being provided 6. Front garden planting on main access road -yes we can secure appropriate planting through the landscape condition 7. Planting for open spaces commitment is ok 8. Parking courts- we will be constrained by the layout in what can be achieved in terms of planting at the time of a condition submission but will just have to work with this as best we can 9. I am not happy with white gates = the compromise would be to for them not to be painted white but will confirm with Evan first whether or not he would adopt gates anyway 10. Happy with reduction of formal footpath where there is a shared surface anyway

(Further comments 09/03/2012 following receipt of amended plans) I am happy with the latest revisions/additional drawings i.e. the garage and sub-station location in relation to the fence and the removal of the visitor car park spaces on the primary access road which will free up opportunities for avenue tree planting.

I note the removal of white painting of gates in the open space.

Design and Conservation Advisor (original comments 20/12/2011): This application has been subject to a number of pre-application meetings and fine tuning of layout, elevations and materials. Subsequently the general design approach is welcomed. The layout is legible and permeable, with a main entrance from the approved proposed link road, and foot paths connection into later phases of the development, the approved new village centre and any future approved proposals to the immediate north of the site (Heath Barn Farm).

Sensibly, the buildings are orientated to face public areas of the scheme, including overlooking streets, lanes and open spaces. The main “green” area is located in the centre of the scheme utilising the existing trees and spaces around them. The landscape architect is best places to comment on the details of this, but generally this approach is supported. Most parking areas are overlooked, and where parking courts are provided, these are accessed underneath a FOG (Flat above Garage) giving natural surveillance to these entrances. There is a variety of street scenes and mini character areas in the development, including those facing large areas of open space in a village green type arrangement, (plots 29-44 and 51 -58) to less informal areas including mews yards to the rear of plots (79-83) and a block of flats (65-70). This concept is supported and generally the area is well designed and accessible. The generally concept of Sussex vernacular picking up on some of the more urban elements of this character is acceptable.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 11

There are some minor design issues which however do need to be addressed and could be done so through some minor amended plans. These are not major issues and should be taken as an attempt at a reason for refusal; they are simply suggestions of improvement:

House type M: The tile hanging at first floor should be returned around the whole building at first floor. Details of the projecting balcony and gable can be controlled by condition unless the architect wishes to provide details upfront.

House type L3: The weatherboarding at first floor should be returned around the whole building at first floor.

House type B2: Side elevations appear awkward and the roofs require simplifying. The garage and first floor projection is very large and bulky. This house type requires revision to reduce the impact on the spaces and adjacent and neighbouring properties. The blank wall at ground floor will dominate the space adjacent, especially in connection with plots 4, 5, 6.

Consideration should be given to the relocation of bin pickup areas away from the front gardens and onto paths etc in order to provide a decent front garden area and encourage storage of bins in the proper bin storage areas provided on each plot. The gated feature in the centre of the open space is awkward. Suggest a “pinch point” be created by appropriate landscaping.

Materials: samples will be controlled by condition, however high quality timber boarding, plain clay tiles, local brick and natural slate would be the most appropriate. We are unlikely to approve composite materials on this site due to its prominence, allocation and in order to set the standard high for a first phase of a larger development.

We will require details of windows and doors also to be discharged by way of condition.

In conclusion, the application meets the requirements of DC9, CP5 and there are no material conflicts with the approval of the parameter plans at outline stage. The application is supported.

(Further comments in response to amended plans can be reported to committee verbally).

Technical Services (drainage): As mentioned in my comments to the first phase infrastructure works (DC/11/2059) pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101, regrettably the unresolved issues of SuDS Adoption and Approvals as a consequence of the recent Flood and Water Management Act do not assist this first phase.

The preliminary drainage layout drawing (Drg No. 11076/1005 P3) submitted as part of this reserved matters application, dose not comply fully with the details required to discharge the above mentioned planning condition attached to the outline planning permission. Therefore at this present time I can not recommend discharging planning condition 7 for this particular phase of the development. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 12

(Further comments received 20/03/2012 in response to amended plans and information). I am satisfied with the overall surface water strategy proposed for this phase and with the overall site wide development.

Leisure Services: I have had the opportunity to shape the community facilities required via the S106 negotiation process. I am happy with this application.

Public Health and Licensing: Construction noise: Ahead of the commencement of any works the Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The requirements of the Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be met for all works associated with the construction of the proposed development.

Noise Assessment: The South of Broadbridge Heath Phase 1 Noise Assessment has demonstrated that the proposed layout of the development has served to minimise the exposure of future occupiers to noise from road traffic. Appropriate mitigation measures have been adopted for those properties that may be affected by road noise. It is therefore important that the development follows that layout on which the noise assessment has been made and that the recommendations detailed in the noise assessment are fully implemented.

Housing Strategy and Development Manager: The affordable housing statement submitted with the above application proposes a variation in the tenure split from that laid down in the Section 106 Agreement:

The Section 106 Agreement definition of the affordable housing unit or units states:

…20% of the total number of Dwellings to be constructed on the Site of which 62.5% shall be Affordable Rented Units, and 37.5% shall be Shared Ownership Units (if housing grant is available) (or such other tenure mix as shall be approved by the District Council in writing) and which shall be of such size and type as is set out in the Affordable Housing Scheme

The developer intends to partner with Moat Housing Association for the delivery of the affordable homes, and has entered into detailed financial negotiations with the Association. In order to meet the affordable housing price set out in the Section 106 Agreement, Moat Housing Association has agreed with the Housing Strategy and Development to vary the mix as follows:

Rent 4 x 2 bed houses 7 x 3 bed houses Total: 11

Shared Ownership 6 x 2 bed flat 2 x 2 bed flats over garages 2 x 3 bed houses APPENDIX A/ 10 - 13

Total: 10

This represents a 52/48 split between rent and shared ownership.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

WSCC (highways): This approval of reserved matters application (ARM) is for Phase 1 of the development of 105 residential units pursuant to outline permission DC/09/2101 for 963 new dwellings on land south of Broadbridge Heath. This application is running concurrently with planning application DC/11/2059 for the supporting infrastructure which includes a new roundabout on the Five Oaks Road, the western part of the proposed new east-west link dual carriageway between Five Oaks Road and Mill Lane, the on-site estate roads to serve the first residential phases, a new Pegasus crossing on the east-west link road, new access points to Newbridge Nurseries, bus stop provision, and the access improvements required to serve the Heath Barn Farm development. It is confirmed that the applicants sought pre-application advice from the Highway Authority prior to the application being submitted.

Access and Parking Comments The vehicular access serving Phase 1 of this wider development will initially be via the new roundabout junction onto Five Oaks Road and the western section of the east-west link road. The vehicular access itself will be from a new T-junction onto an internal residential access road which forms a left in/left out junction arrangement onto the link road. As advised above, the Five Oaks Road roundabout, western section of the east-west link road, and internal residential access road will be subject to a separate approval and are currently part of a separate review process.

The development layout as submitted is broadly similar to that discussed at the pre- application stage and is considered acceptable in principle. The layout has been designed to the Manual for Streets philosophy to reduce traffic speeds down and encourage permeability both within this phase and to future phases of the development. In this respect, a cycle path link will be provided at the north east corner of the site (to link into the phase to the east and Mill Lane) and to the northern boundary of the site (to connect into the proposed Heath Barn Farm development and Broadbridge Heath). I do, however, a number of comments on the layout as listed below :

1. The road narrowing feature outside Plots 26/27 needs to be relocated to opposite Plots 24/25 and the visitor parking bay removed. This will reduce traffic speeds upon entering the development. Visitor parking would be better placed on-street in this location rather than in a tight layby. 2. The cyclepath connection between Plots 44 and 46 needs to be 3m wide and will need to connect into the future wider cycle link network to the east leading to Mill Lane and the new neighbourhood community centre. 3. The link to the Heath Barn Farm development opposite Plot 84 would have to be to cyclepath standards as a new cycleway is to be provided northwards from the Heath Barn Farm development to Broadbridge Heath. 4. The turning space for Plot 74 is inadequate. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 14

5. The hardstandings in front of the garages for Plots 79 and 83 are too short and need to be increased otherwise obstruction will occur.

There has also been some debate regarding the use of road humps and speed tables. WSCC would not wish to see any speed humps within the development generally or speed tables on the main internal distributor roads. However, speed tables within individual phases will be accepted if there are constraints and speed reduction cannot be design led. Although not forming part of this application, the speed tables shown on the main internal distributor roads upon leaving the east- west link need to be removed and replaced with gateway features that are consistently applied throughout the development so as not to send inconsistent messages to drivers.

(further comments received 22/02/2012): I have subsequently received an amended drawing 1917/302 revision D that seeks to address the 5 outstanding points from my previous consultation comments.

1. The road narrowing feature outside Plots 26/27 has now been relocated to opposite Plots 24/25 and the visitor parking bay removed. This is now satisfactory. 2. The cyclepath between Plots 44 and 46 is now shown as 3m wide. This is satisfactory. 3. The footpath link to the proposed Heath Barn Farm development has been relocated to a position at the north west corner of the site. This route would then be extended through the Heath Barn Farm site to connect to the access serving that development and the footpath extension northwards to Broadbridge Heath village. This is satisfactory and the relocation of the new footpath link is considered to offer and improvement in direct linkage terms. 4. The turning for Plot 74 is considered satisfactory. 5. The hardstandings have been lengthened and are now satisfactory.

In summary, there are now no highway objections to this amended planning layout.

(further comments received 29/02/2012) I confirm that the amended plan Rev F is fine with me. The two visitor parking spaces on the internal access road can also be removed as they are not essential at this stage.

WSCC (Archaeology) (original comments 12/12/2011) No objection is raised on archaeological grounds subject to minor amendments to the written scheme of (archaeological) investigation (Phases 1 and 2) previously submitted in respect of DC/09/2101, to reflect Plot 1 road layout changes.

Subject to the recommended amendments, no objection is raised to the discharge of Condition 27 (Archaeology) of DC/09/2101 in respect of Approval of Reserved Matters application DC/11/2074 only.

Summary of comments The Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management and Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for Phases 1 and 2, submitted in respect of DC/09/2101, should now be submitted in support of the current application, with the incorporation of APPENDIX A/ 10 - 15 minor amendment (reference to the updated internal road layout of Phase 1 Plot 1 to be followed by the “Strip, Map and Sample of route infrastructure”).

Comments A Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management and Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for Phases 1 and 2 (RPS, May 2011 (updated August 2011)) has previously been submitted in respect of DC/09/2101.

The archaeological methodology proposed in this document remains sound in respect of the current Plot 1 development proposals.

However, Fig. 2 of the document, which marks, as dashed red lines, the roads to be covered by the “Strip, Map and sample of route infrastructure” (paras. 1.8, 4.11- 4.16), shows a previous indicative plan of the development in Plot 1, which differs from the road layout shown in Fletcher Burrough Black Drg. No. 1917/302, the site plan submitted in respect of the current Approval of Reserved Matters Application.

It is recommended that the Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management document should now be submitted in respect of the current Plot 1 application, with the addition of an Amendment page making clear that the “Strip, Map and sample of route infrastructure” archaeological works will follow, in respect of Phase 1 Plot 1 only, the roads shown on the current Plot 1 Site Plan, rather than the road plan shown on Fig. 2 of that document.

(further comments received 01/02/2012) No objection is raised on archaeological grounds to the proposals.

No objection is raised to the (partial) discharge of Condition 27 (Archaeology) of DC/09/2101 in respect of proposed Plot 1 development only (refer Approval of Reserved Matters application DC/11/2074).

Summary of comments With reference to West Sussex County Council’s comments of 12/12/2011 on this application, suitable revisions have been made to the submitted document Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management and Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for Phases 1 and 2. This document is considered acceptable.

Comments The revised Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management and Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for Phases 1 and 2 (RPS, December 2011), now submitted, has been updated to incorporate, in Figure 3 (Revised Phase 1 Area (Montagu Evans) showing Strip, Map and Sample Archaeological Procedure on Roads), the currently proposed site layout.

The revised document is acceptable for the purposes of Condition 27 (Archaeology) of the outline permission DC/09/2101.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 16

WSCC (Ecology): There is no ecological objection to the appropriate discharge of conditions 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 24 pertaining to applications DC/11/2059 & DC/11/2074; the development should be implemented in accordance with the approved schemes; no further conditions are recommended.

Broadbridge Heath Parish Council: Affordable Housing (objection): the mix for this phase of the scheme does not comply with the overall split. The distribution of affordable housing is being concentrated in certain areas and consideration should be given as to whether this should be spread more evenly, not only during this phase, but throughout the development. Flats (objection): Design not in keeping with the village setting House type B1 (objection): roof line too high/ too tall and not in keeping Streetlighting (observation): The lights should be in keeping with a village setting and not urban in design. This requirement is as quoted in the Master Plan and should be in keeping with the rural location. The Parish Council would like to be consulted on the types of streetlight used throughout the development. Density (observation): There is concern that the density is too low for this phase and that this will have a knock on effect on later phases. Does this phase actually meet outline planning density i.e. 45dph Weatherboarding (observation): Not clear regarding construction materials but should start with UPVC. Do not use wood. Breeding Bird Survey (observation): Will the species be monitored during and after the development and who is responsible for follow up. Car parking (observation): The Parish Council supports the comments made by the police with regard to planting and lighting Bin Collection (observation): WSCC should review and confirm the actual collection points for bins Shared Surface (observation): There are concerns, particularly for our old and young that the share surfacing may be unsafe.

Warnham Parish Council: Objects to the application. The Parish Council has previously identified the concern that with the closure of the existing Broadbridge Heath Bypass there will be an increase in traffic on the rat-runs through Warnham used by traffic between A281 Guildford Road and Horsham. The rat-run is via Strood Lane and Byfleets Lane to roads including Robin Hood Lane, Friday Street, Bell Road and Know Hill. The application details the proposed Western Access Roundabout to the new East-West Link. The parish council believe that there are capacity and operation issues relating to the roundabout which need to be resolved before planning permission is considered. Any limitation in capacity on the northern approach to the roundabout will increase the volume of rat-run traffic through Warnham parish. HDC stated in the design brief for the development that it should not result in any increase in traffic on the surrounding rural roads.

Slinfold Parish Council: Did not wish to comment on application

Gatwick Airport: The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Therefore no objection to this proposal. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 17

Environment Agency: No objection to this proposal as submitted. The surface water drainage strategy for this area is satisfactory and is in accordance with the details submitted with outline permission DC/09/2101.

Southern Water: No objection to the proposed development. Agreements under S104 of the Water Industry Act will be required for sewers proposed for adoption. Please note that the proposed balancing pond and the downstream discharge pipe will not be adopted by Southern Water.

Sussex Police: Previous correspondence in response to DC/09/2101 which remains extant and is to be used in conjunction with the following comments. I was disappointed to note the Design and Access Statement that was submitted in support of the application gave scant details of the crime and prevention measures to be considered in the design and layout. Guidance on Information Requirements and Validation (CLG 2010), Section 6, Paragraph 132, states, “PPS1 makes clear that a key objective for new developments should be that they create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder of fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Design and access statements for outline and detailed applications should therefore demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the design of the proposal and how the design reflects the attributes of safe, sustainable places set out in Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention”

The design and layout has produced outward facing dwellings with suitable front boundaries which indicate public and private space, low planting would further emphasise this distinction particularly under vulnerable windows.

Parking in the main has been provided for with in curtilage type parking with rear parking courts providing the remainder. These parking arrangements remove the vehicles from the street resulting in a free and observed road layout. I ask that the rear gardens of the dwellings that back onto the parking courts have their rear fences constructed of 1.5m high close board fencing topped with 300mm of trellis. This arrangement allows for surveillance into an otherwise unobserved area and will assist in reducing the opportunity for crime. Lighting within these areas will be very important for the security and safety of the residents and their vehicles.

I suggest either high kerbing or low planting be considered around the peripheral of the green areas. This will reduce any unauthorised parking or misuse of these areas from vehicles.

In order to provide a safe and secure environment to the pedestrians utilising the pathway at the north of the development, low planning is to be kept to a minimum height of 1 metre with tree canopies no lower than 2 metres and the route illuminated. Together with the proposed lighting column this will produce a visibly clear illuminated route with no physical obstructions.

Highways Agency: No objections

Natural England: This proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is APPENDIX A/ 10 - 18 the proposal EIA development. The protected species survey has identified that the following European protected species may be affected by this application: bats and great crested newts.

Standing Advise Species Sheet -Bats advises the authority that permission may be granted subject to appropriate conditions including a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy for bats. Standing Advise Species Sheet - Great Crested Newts advises the authority that permission may be granted subject to a condition required a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy for great crested newts.

On the basis of the information available to use with the planning application, Natural England is broadly satisfied that the mitigation proposals, if implemented, are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the local population of bats and great crested newts and therefore avoid affecting favourable conservation states.

WSCC Access Forum: This Countryside Properties application does contain many good proposals for access provision, both within the development and to the wider countryside. There is a need to ensure that these elements are included in the final design and delivery of the site, as we know from experience elsewhere (West of Crawley) that initial commitments by a developer are not always followed through. There are some specific comments CAFWS wishes to make and these are set out below. CAFWS believes that two controlled crossings over the new A264 link road will result in problems with the traffic flow on and off the A24. A grade separated crossing would have prevented any possibility of this occurring and would also have produced a green corridor that clearly can't be provided by a severed route. Any changes or improvements in the future will be very difficult and costly to achieve, the most economic way is for the long term solution to be provided during construction. These two crossings are considered the minimum requirement to provide safe access across the new link road for non motorised users (NMUs), and to prevent severance of the main part of the proposed development from the smaller part and the rights of way network to the south. However, the provision of two Pegasus crossings on Mill Lane BW 1630 will allow it to be well used, and equestrians will welcome the provision of a "one movement" crossing of the new link road. CAFWS is of the opinion that cyclists are also likely to make use of this facility, as it is a Sustrans recommendation that all NMU crossings on dual carriageways are single stage. As an important strategic, linear route running through the middle of the new development, the bridleway will carry an increased number and variety of users and to ensure their safety a minimum width of 4 meters is requested so they can all feel comfortable. A good choice of surfacing is vital and the material should be comparable with the Downs Link and Worth Way; suitable for year round use by all users yet maintaining the rural feel of the bridleway, which will be enhanced by the proposed tree and hedgerow planting along its length. Early consultation with WSCC Public Rights of Way Team is desirable as they will be able to offer advice to Countryside Properties on suitable specification for the bridleway. It is vital that access on to the bridleway is easy for all users along its length as it will be used as part of circular routes. As the Pegasus crossing over the existing A264 is to be APPENDIX A/ 10 - 19 installed early on in the development, improvements to the width and surfacing of the path should be an early priority. Whilst appreciating that footpath 1633 was a severed route on the ground, CAFWS has concerns that this rural footpath to the east of the A24 is being replaced by a 'pavement' along side the main access to the development leading out onto the A24 junction making it an "urban" route. The western side of this footpath will also lead to the A24 junction, but without proper provision to allow pedestrians to cross over the road i.e. if they have to cross various lanes of traffic without any controlled crossing, the route is likely not to be used. This will replicate the current situation at the Farthings Hill roundabout, where the number of crossings made by pedestrians and cyclists appears minimal, as the roundabout has a reputation locally of being difficult and unsafe for pedestrians and especially cyclists to negotiate. CAFWS would welcome some Section 106 Developer Contributions towards wider walking and cycling improvement projects in the vicinity of the development, including to this roundabout. As footpath 1633 will no longer be a rural path, CAFWS would like to see some of the permissive routes on High Wood dedicated in the future to make up for this loss and the higher demands placed on the existing rights of way by increased usage, especially as this area will be transferred to the ownership of HDC in the future. Ideally dedicated routes will link into the network of existing public rights of way. Cyclists do use the footbridge from Tesco's car park to cross the A24 at present, as it provides a useful route into Horsham. If proposals are put forward to move the bridge, it would be worth considering whether the access can be improved when this occurs. The path within Tesco's car park is not a right of way and dedication would safeguard the route if access to the bridge on the eastern side can be improved. A route through the car park and over the bridge, although not exactly direct, would be safe for users. The possibility of linking footpath 1633 with the Tesco's footbridge should be investigated. At the western end of the new A264 there isn't any obvious provision for pedestrians to access the Newbridge Nursery side of the road from the development. CAFWS feels strongly that planners need to consider natural desire lines (the Mill Lane Pegasus is some way further to the east), or people will make their own paths. Finally, CAFWS requests that plans are put in place for the continued usage of Mill Lane bridleway during development, and especially during construction of the new A264 link road.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

British Horse Society: comments received relate only to Mill Lane bridleway 1630 and equestrian access.  Provides opportunity to greatly improve access to this route  Grade separated crossing is most desirable option  Strong expectation that two signal controlled NMU crossings will result in increased traffic congestion  Accepting grade separated junction is not proposed, support the provision of a Pegasus crossing and welcome the additional safety feature of allowing equestrians to cross both carriageways in one movement. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 20

 Proposed downgrading of the western end of the A264 for use by NMUs and busses is also welcome  The remained of Mill Lane, north and south of the new link road must retain its rural feel as a ‘green corridor’  Plans should be put in place to ensure as much continued usage of the Mill Lane bridleway as possible during development and especially during construction of the new link road

A2 Dominion New Homes (owners of the adjacent Heath Barn Farm site which is the subject of an outstanding planning application (DC/11/0372) for 40 dwellings).

Whilst we are in the process of discussing amendments to said application, the purpose of this email/letter is to express our concern about the implications of Countryside Properties (CP) reserved matters (RM) submission (DC/11/2074) on any future development at HBF.

As you will be aware we never commented upon CP outline scheme. The indicative proposals for the area adjacent to the HBF site were in our opinion entirely acceptable and whilst illustrative gave no cause for concern.

Having reviewed the RM application, and produced a composite plan that shows how the RM application relates to both the HBF scheme as submitted and the scheme currently the subject of discussions, we are concerned that what is proposed in the CP RM application will have a serious impact on the layout that can be achieved on the HBF site, which, as you are aware, forms the north western part of the area identified in HDC Core Strategy, pursuant to policy CS7 as a strategic allocation to the west of Horsham for mixed use development encompassing some 2000 dwellings.

The size, siting and design of plots 63 – 73, 74 - 78 and 84 – 88 has in our opinion had no regard to the development potential of the HBF site and plots 65-70 in particular will in our opinion dominate HBF to the detriment of the privacy and amenity of any future residents. Placing a three story apartment block within 10m of the mutual boundary, and orientating it towards the HBF site is in our opinion totally inappropriate and something we are surprised you have agreed to given the ongoing discussions about HBF.

Similarly in urban design terms we are surprised that the CP RM scheme looks to provide for a main service route alongside the boundary with the HBF site.

This to us appears to be a woefully inefficient use of the developable land area and senseless when the land to the north benefits from its own separate access, which is to be retained, and is also under separate ownership.

To this end we note, again with surprise, that the CP RM Design and Access Statement (DAS) provides no cogent argument for the change in the layout from the illustrative outline scheme to the RM scheme. Nor does it explain how the RM scheme interrelates with the HBF site. Surely this is something you need to assist you in the consideration of the scheme – i.e. to help you look at it in the context of the wider area. It is something we were asked to address in our submission and is something that should in our opinion be provided by CP. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 21

In addition to the above we are somewhat surprised at the proposed siting of plots 74 and 75 given the issue that has been vexing our site – the alignment of the sewer along Five Oaks Road. As you know the main sewer runs along the eastern side of Five Oaks Road and it, and its associated easement has impacted upon our layout. Unfortunately the plans that form CP RM application do not tally with the plans provided for within CP infrastructure works application (DC/11/2059). The foul drainage strategy included within the infrastructure works plans are based upon the illustrative masterplan submitted with the outline scheme, not the layout that is being promoted in CP phase 1 RM scheme. Ditto the surface water strategy.

Furthermore the DAS and the PS for the infrastructure works application also refers back to the original concept masterplan layout associated with the outline scheme; not that proposed in the phase 1 RM scheme. This means it is difficult to establish whether what is proposed in infrastructure terms works in terms of the phase 1 RM scheme.

To this end it should be noted that we believe that plots 74 and 75 as shown on the phase 1 RM scheme can not be built as proposed given the alignment of the Five Oaks Road, and its associated easement. This would be clear if the plans submitted with the infrastructure works application where based on the Phase 1 RM scheme and not the illustrative masterplan submitted with the outline scheme. Surely CP need to demonstrate that the infrastructure proposals do not prejudice the phase 1 RM scheme – at present it is just not clear and as such the delivery of the scheme as a whole has not in our opinion been demonstrated.

Finally we note with concern, that despite our discussions, CP phase 1 RM scheme does not provide for any footpath/ cycle links through the HBF site, and that the road alignment CP show at the northern end of their phase 1 RM scheme could actively prejudice the trees that are situated along the southern boundary of the HBF site – landscape features you had specifically asked us to try and retain.

Whilst we do not want to delay this RM scheme, we do believe, given the fact HBF is also part of the strategic allocation to the west of Horsham that this phase 1 RM submission by CP should not be permitted without appropriate design changes to address our concerns.

43 Charrington Way: letter of comment received on the grounds that community facilities are the last to be provided within the phased plan.

6 and 25 Singleton Road: letters of objection received on grounds this site is not good for development due to the close proximity of the River Arun which is liable to flood; the development would cause a rat run through the village; development within countryside has met its saturation point; unacceptable loss of trees, noise; adverse impact on ecology.

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

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 22

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

It is not considered that the proposed development would have any impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues presented by this application are:

a) Compliance with the principles established through the parameter plans approved by virtue of the outline application. b) Linkages with the ‘parent’ S106 legal agreement. c) The design approach and compliance with advice within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document. d) The site layout, appearance, access and highway safety including car parking provision and servicing together with temporary construction arrangements. e) The landscape strategy, open space provision and drainage f) Issues arising from public consultation.

Each of these issues is addressed below:

a) Compliance with the principles established through the parameter plans approved by virtue of the Outline application

6.2 The Outline planning application, approved at Committee, established through the parameter plans and supporting technical information the key principles relating to the location and scale of the main land uses, vehicular access and primary circulation routes, density and character area, building heights and landscape strategy. The proposed development for this first phase of residential development adheres to the key principles established by these parameter plans including links to later phases of development coming forward.

b) Linkages with the ‘parent’ S106 legal agreement

6.3 As a Reserved Matters application, the infrastructure and other contributions are linked to the ‘parent’ legal agreement secured in connection with the Outline planning application DC/09/2101. The S106 secures amongst other requirements, the delivery of 20% affordable housing across the development site (193 units) together with a £7.73 million commuted sum for off site affordable housing provision. The £7.73million would be subject to indexation and payable in tranches and equates to 10% (96 units) as set out within the relevant Schedules of the legal agreement. Similarly, the legal agreement secured the delivery of open space as shown on Plan 2 (Open Space and Structural Landscape Plan).

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 23

6.4 It is your Officers view that the application as shown on the submitted plans and supported by the technical information for the provision of 105 dwellings which includes the delivery of 21 affordable units (equating to 20% on this phase) together with the delivery of open space and landscaping is in compliance with the provisions set out within the legal agreement. The Council’s Housing Strategy and Development Manager welcomes the delivery of the affordable units within this phase.

c) The design approach and compliance with advice within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Ares Supplementary Planning Document

6.5 The applicant entered into pre-application discussions with the Council prior to the formal submission of this Reserved Matters application. The evolution of the design and layout of the current proposal reflects those discussions including outward facing dwellings, on curtilage parking (or within small rear parking courts) together with retention of the western and eastern hedge boundary treatment and the retention of the mature trees within the centre of site to form part of the public open space.

6.6 The site forms part of Character Area 5 as defined within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Areas SPD, the balance of Character Area 5 is to come forward separately. The principle of density and building heights, in respect of this particular Character Area, agreed as part of the outline planning permission vary slightly from the SPD however this was fully considered as part of the Outline application and were a reflection of the schemes viability and overarching design principles. The building height for Character Area 5 as agreed in the Outline permission is for 1-3 storey dwellings where the SPD advised of 2-2½ storey houses. Additionally, the density for this character area as agreed in the Outline is for a maximum of 60 dwellings per hectare, whereas the SPD advises of 40-45dph with lower densities of 30-35 on the western edge. The specific design guidance for Character Area 5 incorporating the agreed changes is reproduced below and has been annotated to demonstrate how the current application is in general conformity

DESIGN GUIDANCE COMMENT Densities of up to 60 dwelling per ha (max). The developable site area for this first Lower densities (30-35 dwellings per ha) on phase residential application, excluding the the western edge including the ‘gateways’ open spaces within the site, is 2.99ha which from the A264 to provide visual transition equates to a development of 35dph and from countryside to village reflects the transition from countryside to rural edge. Transition in design and scale from The Neighbourhood Centre falls within Neighbourhood Centre Character Area Character Area 3. The transition in design and scale will be considered in detail as part of the next phase coming forward which adjoins the Neighbourhood Centre. 1-3 storey dwellings All of the proposed dwellings are 2 storey with the exception of the proposed block of flats which is 2½ storey providing accommodation over 3 floors. Streets of varying width including narrower The internal circulation routes include the residential streets to create intimate character secondary street of a more conventional design leading into community streets. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 24

DESIGN GUIDANCE COMMENT These surround the open space which extend into the green lanes where the roads terminate at the periphery of the development site. A sense of direction is created through the provision of surface treatments (including shared surfaces), landscaping and key focal buildings. Retention and enhancement of mature trees The trees within the open spaces are to be and hedges on field boundaries to provide retained together with the existing hedge soft setting and focus for new development boundary along the western and eastern field boundaries. Any development of land adjoining southern Not applicable to this phase of edge of village should achieve enhanced development. visual integration e.g. ‘back to back’ orientation with existing dwellings and spacing between buildings Sensitive setting of development in vicinity of Not applicable to this phase of Mill Lane to maintain/ enhance its character development. Open spaces could be designed around A line of existing tress has been retained existing trees to ensure their long term and creates a central green lung through retention is feasible and so that they the development. The trees to be contribute to the local amenity maintained form part of the open spaces. New east/west link road to be set down into The first phase of the east/ west link road is the topography to help mitigate impact being considered under separate planning application (reference DC/11/2059). The interface of the new link road with the surrounding residential phases forms part of the consideration of this separate application. This character area is reasonably low lying The buildings along the western boundary and provided the character of the countryside of the development are two storey with a edge is strictly controlled, it may have the design which reflects the rural edge. The capacity to absorb slightly taller buildings and block of flats, located on the northern edge higher densities in less sensitive parts of the of the development, is the tallest building area. Sections of the development abutting within this particular phase and is 2 ½ countryside edges would need to have storey providing accommodation over 3 planting buffers, tapering roof heights and a floors. ‘softer’ balance between the architecture.

d) The site layout, appearance, access and highway safety including car parking provision and servicing together with temporary construction arrangements.

Layout, Scale and Appearance

6.7 As mentioned earlier within the report, the site layout has evolved following early discussions between the applicant and Officers prior to the formal submission of the current application. During the course of considering the current application minor amendments have been sought to address concerns raised by your Officers and consultees. The principle amendments include changes to the design of a number of dwellings to reflect the varying street hierarchy across the site; amendments to house type B2, M and N; amendment to the block of flats by virtue of a reduction of APPENDIX A/ 10 - 25

the eaves and inclusion of an internal corridor to allow access to the communal garden together with amendments to the fenestration configuration of this building; the relocation of service strips outside the RPA of trees to be retained; together with the removal of parking spaces from areas of public open space.

6.8 The scale of the buildings are considered to respect the character of the rural edge, with a mix of detached, semi-detached and runs of terraces providing a varying pattern across the site. Consideration has also been given to the massing of the groups of buildings along the community streets and green lanes.

6.9 The design of the buildings has regard to the Sussex vernacular and includes such features as tile hanging, weatherboarding and decorative chimney to provide a variation across the site. The applicant has also provided within the Design and Access Statement an indicative materials palette. To ensure the high quality finish of these dwellings it is recommended that a condition be attached to secure details and samples of these materials.

6.10 Consideration has been given to the relationship of this development to the neighbouring site, Heath Barn Farm. This adjoining site falls within the strategic allocation of land for residential purposes and an application for 40 dwellings is being considered separately by the LPA although the application is being held in abeyance at the time of writing this report. It is considered that the amendment to the overall height of the proposed block of flats, the separation of the buildings along the northern boundary by a community street/ green lane together with the provision of landscaping to be secured along this shared boundary is appropriate and would not result in any prejudice to the delivery of this neighbouring site.

6.11 The proposed dwellings have been designed to meet Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 and Lifetime Homes standard. The application has been supported by a pre-assessment calculation to demonstrate Code Level 3 can be achieved.

Access and Highway Safety

6.12 In respect of access and highway safety, a comprehensive Transport Assessment was submitted in support of the outline planning application which included this site and which is linked to the first phase infrastructure application (considered separately under planning reference DC/11/2059). The main access to the site is provided from the new east-west link road and primary-street. A further secondary access is provided from the primary street, however this only feeds a limited number of properties with no vehicular through route to the remainder of this phase although pedestrian and cycle links are provided to ensure the continued permeability of this phase.

6.13 The proposed development provides 239 car parking spaces which includes 12 visitor spaces. The parking is provided to all homes either in garages, which meet WSCC standards, car ports and area of hardstanding to the front of these structures as well as within small rear parking courts.

6.14 Each dwelling benefits from at least 2 private parking spaces with the larger 4 and 5 bed houses benefiting from at least 3 parking spaces. Similarly, the flats also benefit from the provision of two parking spaces per unit. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 26

6.15 The County Council as highways authority provide guidance on the provision of parking within new residential developments to ensure the number of parking spaces provided is appropriate to the location and characteristics of the development. The guidance provided by WSCC includes a ‘car parking demand calculator’. The calculator is based on expected levels of car ownership and demand based on local ward data. The calculator indicates that anticipated parking demand will be 261 spaces.

6.16 Amendments have been made to the parking provision in light of consultation responses received raising concern about parking around the areas of open space. It is your Officers view that the provision of 239 spaces when considered against the benefits of providing off-street parking in terms of safety and crime prevention together with the retention of open spaces and internal landscaping provision is an appropriate balance.

6.17 In respect of the design and layout of the internal streets, WSCC has been consulted on the proposed development advising that the development has been discussed with the County Council at pre-application stage and designed to meet Manual for Streets. Shared surfaces are proposed, and it is noted that concern has been raised by the Parish Council in this respect. The Manual for Streets advises that where such surfaces are to be provided, it is important that streets are designed for the blind or partially-sighted because conventional kerbs are commonly used to aid their navigation. It further advises that tactile paving at crossing points and other tactile paraphernalia can compensate for kerb removal. The applicant within the Design and Access Statement advises that variations in road material and delineation are to be included.

6.18 The proposal also includes the provision of cycle parking. Cycle parking for houses with garages is located within the associated garages, of which single garages are 3x6m which is of a standard suitable for the storage of car and cycle. Where houses do not have a garage, cycle parking will be located within the carports and 12 secure cycle parking spaces are proposed for the block of flats within a purpose built shed.

6.19 In respect of pedestrian access, the proposal provides for a link along the eastern boundary through to the next phase of development to ensure permeability of the development as each phase comes forward. Additionally, the proposal indicates the provision of a link north through to the adjacent Heath Barn Farm site. This adjacent site is outside of the ownership of the applicant, however it does fall within the strategic allocation of land, and as such the integration and connectivity of these sites is important for future residents. It is recommended that the delivery of these links are controlled by condition.

6.20 Furthermore, access from this first phase development to the existing village and amenities is important, particularly in the short term prior to the delivery of the later phases and for this reason it is recommended that the applicant provide an access strategy to demonstrate how access will be provided in the short term.

Temporary construction arrangements

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 27

6.21 The applicant has submitted a site wide Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) pursuant to the discharge of condition 39 of Outline planning permission DC/09/2101. Additionally, this has been supported by a supplementary CEMP for this first phase residential development as well as the first phase infrastructure application. The site wide CEMP has been subject to consultation and the general principles set out within the document have been considered acceptable. Notwithstanding this, the CEMP for this residential phase has been received late in the consideration of the current application and therefore it is recommended that a condition be attached in the event planning permission is granted to ensure not only the detailed content of this document can be properly considered but also to ensure the compliance with the site wide CEMP.

e) The landscape strategy, open space provision and drainage

6.22 A soft landscape strategy has been submitted in support of the current application which sets out the general principles for the development. The strategy reflects the pre-application discussions, with key emphasis on ensuring the retention of the mature trees within the central open space which provide an attractive green corridor through this site.

6.23 Concerns were initially raised on a number of factors which the applicant has sought to address. The first area of concern related to the location of the sewer on the western boundary and whether this would impede the retention of the existing hedge along this rural edge. The applicant has been in discussion with Southern Water regarding the exact location of the sewer and its necessary diversion. A revised plan has been provided in light of the additional investigative works undertaken on site and which shows that the hedge can be retained. However, it is recommended that a condition be attached which secures its retention and requires any additional planting in the event that part of the hedge is damaged.

6.24 In respect of the open space, concern was raised by both the Landscape Architect and Sussex Police regarding the provision of parking along the margins of the open space. For this reason, these visitor spaces have been removed to ensure these important landscape features are not misused by unauthorised parking.

6.25 Similarly, concern was raised to the location of service strips within the RPAs of mature trees to be retained. In light of the objection raised by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer, the applicant has revised the location of the service strips where they impeded on the RPA of the trees to be retained which has satisfactorily addressed this concern.

6.26 Other areas of concern relate to the interface with this residential phase and the infrastructure application (reference DC/11/2059) and in particular the need to ensure sufficient planting along the southern boundary. Whilst this area falls outside of the residential application, the relationship along this boundary is key and will set the principle for other phases coming forward.

6.27 In respect of the hard and soft landscaping across the site, the Council’s Landscape Architect has advised that the principles as shown on the amended plans are acceptable subject to securing the appropriate planting and material details by condition. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 28

Surface Water and Water Reduction Strategy

6.28 In respect of surface water drainage and water reduction strategy, the applicant has submitted information pursuant to the condition 7 of Outline planning permission DC/09/2101 which has also been submitted in support of the current application.

6.29 The strategy considers the overall surface water and foul sewerage strategy for the wider development site and is supported by a number of drawings. In respect of this first phase residential development, the drawings which are included within the strategy have been amended to reflect the need to retain the western hedge and as such the number and location of gullies has been amended.

6.30 The Environment Agency together with the Council’s drainage specialist has considered the content of this strategy together with the supporting drawings and micro calculations and considers the detail acceptable.

f) Issues arising from public consultation.

6.31 The issue regarding rat-running has been expressed at both outline planning stage and as part of this first phase reserved matters. Extensive transport modelling was undertaken during the course of considering the outline planning application as part of the access strategy and the options for traffic management to limit the impact of the development on Broadbridge Heath and surrounding villages.

6.32 The S106 legal agreement secured as part of the Outline planning permission amongst other matters, an Off Site Highways contribution of £810,000 as a contribution towards and the provision by the County Council of traffic management measures on:

a) Broadbridge Heath Road / Warnham Road; b) Improvements to Farthings Hill Interchange; c) Interim improvements to Tesco Roundabout (WSP Concept Drawing 2590/SK/031-E); d) Interim improvements to the existing A264 Five Oaks roundabout (WSP Concept Drawing 2590/SK/030-A); e) End-state final improvements to Tesco Roundabout (WSP Concept Drawing 2590/SK/36-D) including maintenance in each case; and/or f) such other schemes as shall in the reasonable opinion of the County Council be required to mitigate the highway impact of the Development

6.33 The contribution is therefore payable to WSCC as Highway Authority who will be undertaking consultation on traffic management options building on the consultation exercise undertaken by Countryside Properties Plc in October 2010. For this reason it is your Officers view that the issue of rat running has been thoroughly assessed and the current application complies with the agreed Access parameter plan. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 29

6.34 Given the proximity of the River Arun which forms the southern boundary of the wider development site, concern has been raised regarding the potential for flooding. As mentioned earlier within this report, the applicant has submitted a surface water drainage strategy and which has been fully considered by the Environment Agency and the Council’s specialist. In respect of potential for flooding within this first residential phase, the applicant has demonstrated through the provision of micro-calculations the impact of peak flow rate for the 1 in 100year storm (plus allowance for climate change) that as a result of the proposed development there would not be any significant flooding potential to the detriment of the proposed dwellings or surrounding area.

6.35 Other concerns raised relate to the loss of trees, impact on ecology and potential for noise. The application has been supported by an Arboricultural Method Statement, an Ecology Report and Noise Assessment and such have been considered by the relevant consultees who have raised no objection to the proposal.

6.36 Furthermore, the outline planning permission requires the applicant to submit information pursuant to a number of conditions prior to the commencement of development in respect of these particular areas.

Conclusion

6.37 It is your Officers view that the proposed development accords with the policies within the Development Plan, the principles as set out within the approved outline parameter plans together with the provisions within the S106. Furthermore, it is considered that the delivery of the proposed 105 dwellings, including the provision of 21 affordable units together with the balance of ensuring appropriate landscaping and open space required by the S106 agreement weighed against the provision of appropriate on site parking is acceptable and approval of this application is recommended.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Notwithstanding the submitted landscape strategy, within 6 months of the date of this permission, full details of the hard and soft landscape scheme have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall comprise:

 A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice  Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details APPENDIX A/ 10 - 30

 A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Hard surfacing materials- layout, colour, size, texture, coursing, levels  Walls, fencing and railings- location, type, heights and materials  Minor artefacts and structures - location and type of street furniture, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

The approved planting scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any part of the development for its permitted use, or according to a timetable to be agreed with the Local Planning authority. Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local -Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

2. Within 6 months of the date of this permission, full details of underground services – locations, dimensions, depths shall have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the detailed landscape scheme submitted pursuant to Condition 1 above. Reason: To ensure the underground services do not conflict with satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. Within 6 months of the date of this permission, an access strategy shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include details of how future residents will access existing village amenities in the short term by foot or bicycle. Reason: To ensure the connectivity of the development with the existing village in the short term and in accordance with policy DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. D6 - Finished Floor levels

5. E3 - Fencing

6. L2a - Protection of trees

7. M1 - Approval of Materials

8. The buildings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking, turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking, turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development]. Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with APPENDIX A/ 10 - 31

policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

9. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with the hereby approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

10. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles has been made within the site in accordance with the hereby approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11. J12 – Removal of permitted development – enclosures

12. J13 – Removal of permitted development – windows

13. V5 – No extensions

14. No trenches or pipe runs for services, drains, or any other reason shall be excavated anywhere within the root protection area of any tree or hedge targeted for retention on or off the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

15. O1 – Hours of working

16. Within 6 months of the commencement of the development a full timetable of implementation and details shall be submitted to and approved in writing of the following:

a) details of street furniture b) details of lighting

The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

17. The hereby approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the Surface Water Drainage Strategy submitted pursuant to condition 7 of Outline planning permission DC/09/2101 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and APPENDIX A/ 10 - 32

to prevent flooding in accordance with Policy DC7 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

18. The hereby approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Phase 1 Reserved Matters Ecology Report January 2012 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.

19. The hereby approved development shall be carried fully in accordance with the South Broadbridge Heath, Phase 1 Noise Assessment July 2011 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

20. Notwithstanding the submitted Supplementary Construction Environmental Management Plan for Phase 1 Residential Construction Works document submitted 23/03/2012, additional information may be required to be submitted in accordance with condition 39 pursuant to Outline planning permission DC/09/2101. The approved details shall be implemented and maintained throughout the construction period. Reason: In the interests of controlling the impact of the development during the construction and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

21. Prior to the first occupation of the hereby approved dwellings the footpath/ cycle links shown adjacent to plot 44 and north of plot 74 shall have been provided and constructed to a standard to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The footpath/ cycle links shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose. 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).

Note to applicant: The applicant is reminded that the current application is to be read in the context of the conditions attached to the outline planning permission DC/09/2101 and obligations as contained within the Legal Agreement dated 3 October 2011.

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 33

The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

The proposal includes satisfactory provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and would not impinge upon the safety and convenience of other highway users.

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

Background Papers: DC/09/2101, DC/11/2059 and DC/11/2074 Case Officer: Karen Tipper

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North Head of Planning and Environmental Services and Head of BY: Strategic Planning and Performance DATE: 3rd April 2012 Variation to legal agreement S106/1825 to amend definition of ‘Application’ and ‘Planning Permission’ to allow for minor DEVELOPMENT: amendment applications during course of construction

SITE: Land East of A24 Worthing Road Horsham West Sussex

WARD: Denne DC/09/2138 APPLICATION Legal Agreement Section 106/1825 REFERENCES:

APPLICANT: Berkeley Homes (Southern) Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: To consider the proposed variation of the S106 agreement

RECOMMENDATION: Agree to Variation of S106 Agreement for the amendment to the definition of ‘Application’ and ‘Planning Permission’ to ensure benefits already secured within the legal agreement do not fall away in the event planning permission for application DC/11/2697 is granted.

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 In August 2010 Outline planning permission was granted under reference DC/09/2138 for the development of up to 1044 dwellings including provision of employment floor space, fire station, community centre and expanded school facilities together with the construction of a principal vehicular access from A24 (southbound), secondary bus/cycle/pedestrian accesses from Hills Farm Lane, internal highway network, diversion of existing public footpaths and a replacement footbridge over A24. The application also included the formation of associated landscape works including playing fields, allotments, recreation facilities and construction of acoustic bund/fence alongside A24.

1.2 The Outline planning permission was subject to a legal agreement (Section 106/1825 referred to within this report as the Principal Agreement), which secured a

Contact Officer: Karen Tipper Tel: 01403 215180 APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2

number of benefits. The scope of the S106 package (amounting to in the region of £31million) included amongst other things:

 The undertaking of highway works by the developer or payment by the developer to the County Council for off site highway works (to include a contribution towards the maintenance of highway works)  The delivery of affordable housing and Discount Market Sales (DMS) units (subject to a review mechanism and the potential to elect to take the equity in the DMS units)  The provision of fire hydrants within the development  An obligation to require the developer to enter a contract with Southern Water to secure the delivery of odour mitigation works at the Horsham Wastewater Treatment Works. The works to be undertaken by the completion of the 600th dwelling  A contribution towards public art  The provision of recycling facilities on the site  The provision of land and a contribution towards the provision of a community building  The provision of a MUGA of 450m2  The provision of two NEAPS – one on the northern site and one on the southern site  The allocation of an area for a BMX park  The provision of open space encompassing amenity green space (approximately 0.975ha) sports pitches (approximately 2ha); natural green space; structural landscaping and buffer strips (approximately 0.9ha) and allotments (approximately 0.35ha) plus a contribution toward future maintenance  The provision of balancing ponds within the site plus a contribution for future maintenance  The construction of all residential units to Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Hones and the delivery of all commercial units to Very Good level of BREEAM or such other standard required through the lifetime of the development.

1.3 In January 2011 a Reserved Matters application for the first phase was granted under reference number DC/11/0006 for 196 dwellings, creation of a new vehicular/pedestrian/ cycle access form Hills Farm Lane, together with the internal highway network, footpaths, and drainage works; formation of the related landscaping, open space and recreation facilities, including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School.

1.4 This Reserved Matters application required a Deed of Variation to the Principal Agreement (Section 106/1858 referred to within this report as the First Supplementary Agreement) and amended the definitions of the following specifications required to be brought forward as part of the overall development:

 Amenity Green Space Specification  Natural Green Space Specification  NEAP Specification  Open Space Strategy and Phasing Plan  Structural Landscaping and Buffer Strips Specification

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3

1.5 In February 2012 Members resolved to allow a variation to the Principal Agreement for the amendment to the definition of ‘Application’ and ‘Planning Permission’ to ensure benefits already secured within the legal agreement do not fall away in the event planning permission for applications DC/11/1608, DC/11/1807, DC/11/2004 and DC/11/2304 are granted; allow for the relocation of a fence around the perimeter of land to be transferred to Tanbridge House School; replace Plan 6 showing the location of two bus stops/ shelters close to the northern access of the site on Hills Farm Lane.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The following planning guidance is relevant in the assessment: PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 - Housing; PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; PPG13 - Transport; PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation; PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control; PPG24 – Planning and Noise; PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and townscape character; CP2 – Environmental Quality; CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development; CP7 – Strategic Allocation West of Horsham; CP14 – Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services.

The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement ; DC2 – Landscape Character; DC3 – Settlement coalescence; DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology; DC6 – Woodland and Trees; DC9 – Development Principles and DC22 – New Open Space, Sport and Recreation; DC40 -Transport and Access.

The principle of the development has been established by the outline application and the related report carefully considered the proposal in the context of Core Policy CP7 – Strategic Development West of Horsham. Whist Policy CP7 sets the key principles, specific guidance on the ‘visions’ for the development is provided in the Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted October 2008) and the Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas SPD (adopted in April 2009) which provides guidance on design APPENDIX A/ 11 - 4 matters for developers, others preparing planning applications and for those considering applications.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/09/2138 Development primarily of up to 1044 dwellings including PERMITTED provision of employment floor space, fire station, community centre and expanded school facilities. Construction of a principal vehicular access from A24 (southbound) together with secondary bus/cycle/pedestrian accesses from Hills Farm Lane, internal highway network, diversion of existing public footpaths and a replacement footbridge over A24. Formation of associated landscape works including playing fields, allotments, recreation facilities and construction of acoustic bund/fence alongside A24 (Outline)

DC/10/0006 Erection of 196 dwellings, comprising phase 1 of the PERMITTED comprehensive development of Land East of A24, West Horsham, for primarily residential purposes. Creation of a new vehicular/pedestrian/cycle access from Hills Farm Lane, together with the internal highway network, footpaths and drainage works. Formation of the related landscaping, open space and recreation facilities, including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School

DC/11/0672 Non-material amendment to permission DC/10/0006 PERMITTED (Erection of 196 dwellings) consisting of revisions to plots 2, 3-7, 43, 165, 166 and 179, 173, 174, 176, 178

DC/11/1100 The use of a dwelling, its plot and associated land (which PERMITTED formed part of the approved application DC/10/0006) to be used as a sales and marketing suite with associated car park for a temporary period of 3 years.

DC/11/1400 Non-material amendment following grant of permission PERMITTED DC/10/0006 (Erection of 196 dwellings) incorporating amendments to plots 8-11 to include change of house type for plot 8, change of house type for plot 11 and minor elevation/floor plan amendments to plots 9 and 10.

DC/11/1436 Provision of footbridge over River Arun including temporary PERMITTED access route for construction - Boldings Brook Bridge (Approval of Reserved Matters)

DC/11/1608 Amendments during course of construction to Plots 12-14 RESOLUTION TO and 180-186 originally approved under DC/10/0006 GRANT SUBJECT TO PRIOR COMPLETION OF LEGAL AGREEMENT

DC/11/1807 Amendments during course of construction to Plot 177- RESOLUTION TO amendment to elevations approved under DC/10/0006 GRANT SUBJECT TO PRIOR APPENDIX A/ 11 - 5

COMPLETION OF LEGAL AGREEMENT

DC/11/2004 Variation of Condition 32 of DC/09/2138 (Outline permission RESOLUTION TO for development of up to 1044 dwellings) to be revised as GRANT SUBJECT follows: "The provision of a northbound bus stop adjacent to TO PRIOR the Hills Farm Lane (north) access, raised kerbing and shelter; COMPLETION OF provision of a south bound bus stop and raised kerbing LEGAL AGREEMENT together with a scheme for the provision of an additional bus stop and/or shelter to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority"

DC/11/2304 Permission to create 2 No. tennis courts with permeable RESOLUTION TO tarmacadam surface treatment and 1 No. grassed junior GRANT SUBJECT football pitch (Approval of Reserved Matters from approved TO PRIOR application DC/10/0006 (including additional facilities for COMPLETION OF Tanbridge House School)) LEGAL AGREEMENT

DC/11/2454 Fence hoarding and V- board for new development PERMITTED (Advertisement Consent)

DC/11/2472 Advertisement consent for directional signage for sales and PERMITTED marketing suite

DC/11/2696 Non-material amendment following grant of permission PERMITTED DC/10/0006 (Erection of 196 dwellings, Land East of A24, West Horsham) comprising minor alterations to the design of Plots numbered 30-32, 113-118 and 125-128

DC/11/2697 Amendments during course of construction to Plots 16-29, PENDING 33-45, 47-48, 89-107, 114-124, 129-142 (73 dwellings) originally approved under DC/10/0006

DC/12/0241 Erection of 2 No. post mounted signs PENDING

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

It is not considered that the proposed development would have any impact on crime and disorder.

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 The need for a variation to the Principal Agreement (S106/1825) secured as part of the Outline planning permission DC/09/2138 has arisen as a number of planning applications have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority seeking planning permission for amendments during the course of construction of the first phase of the approved development. The proposed variation to the Principal Agreement is APPENDIX A/ 11 - 6

set out in more detail below and is similar to the variation to the Principal Agreement which Members resolved to allow at committee 7th February 2012.

5.2 The application (reference DC/11/2697) which has been submitted during the course of construction has not been submitted as a ‘Reserved Matters’ application and therefore it is not captured within the definition of ‘Application’ and ‘Planning Permission’ as set out within the Principal Agreement. As such the grant of planning permission without securing an appropriate variation to the Principal Agreement would result in the benefits secured in the Principal Agreement falling away in the event this application was implemented.

5.3 The resolution on 7th February 2012 to allow a variation to the Principle Agreement was considered in light of the following applications, although at the time of writing, this variation had not been formally executed:

DC/11/1608 Amendments during course of construction to Plots 12-14 and 180-186 originally approved under DC/10/0006,

DC/11/1807 Amendments during course of construction to Plot 177- amendment to elevations approved under DC/10/0006,

DC/11/2004 Variation of Condition 32 of DC/09/2138 (Outline permission for development of up to 1044 dwellings) to be revised as follows: "The provision of a northbound bus stop adjacent to the Hills Farm Lane (north) access, raised kerbing and shelter; provision of a south bound bus stop and raised kerbing together with a scheme for the provision of an additional bus stop and/or shelter to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority" and,

DC/11/2304 Permission to create 2 No. tennis courts with permeable tarmacadam surface treatment and 1 No. grassed junior football pitch (Approval of Reserved Matters from approved application DC/10/0006 (including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School)).

5.4 The current request to agree the variation to the S106 Agreement is in light of a further planning application submission for amendments during the course of construction. For the purpose of clarity this current application is DC/11/2697, the planning merit of which is being considered separately under the Council’s approved Scheme of Delegation and does not form part of the request for this variation to the Principal Agreement.

5.5 The first element of the variation is to delete and replace the definition of ‘Application’ at clause 1.1 of the Principle Agreement. ‘Application’ is defined within this clause as: “means the outline planning application submitted to the District Council for the development of the Site for the construction of up to 1044 Dwellings, together with associated facilities and given reference number DC/09/2138”

5.6 The previous request to vary the Principle Agreement resolved to capture all of the applications referenced within paragraph 5.3. The current request would capture this subsequent application DC/11/2697 within the definition and allow for all contributions etc secured in the Principle, First Supplementary Agreements and APPENDIX A/ 11 - 7

Second Supplementary Agreement to be safeguarded and would not fall away in the event that the minor applications are implemented.

5.7 The second element of the variation is to delete and replace the definition of ‘Planning Permission’ at clause 1.1 of the Principal Agreement. ‘Planning Permission’ is defined within this clause as: “means the planning permission issued by the District Council pursuant to the Application”. The proposed definition would be “means any planning permission issued by the District Council pursuant to an Application” (refer to definition of ‘Application’ within paragraph 5.5 above).

5.8 It is considered that the variation of the legal agreement, as proposed, is reasonable as it maintains the overall level of contributions and provision of facilities etc but recognises the need for flexibility in the context of changes during the course of construction.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 That the variation of the legal agreement as proposed be agreed.

Background Papers: DC/09/2138, DC/10/0006, DC/11/2697, S106/1825, S106/1858

Case Officer: Karen Tipper

APPENDIX A/ 12 - 1 DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Strategic Planning and Performance and Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 3rd April 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Details of the first phase infrastructure works pursuant to outline DC/09/2101, comprising details of new roundabout on Five Oaks Road, western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from Five Oaks Road to the new A24 junction, on site development roads to serve the first residential phases, Pegasus crossing and pedestrian/cycle crossings, new access to Newbridge Nurseries, access to Heath Barn Farm site, bus stops, foul pumping station and surface water drainage (Approval of Reserved Matters)

SITE: Land South of Broadbridge Heath

WARD: Broadbridge Heath

APPLICATION DC/11/2059 REFERENCES: APPLICANT: Countryside Properties Plc

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENATION: To grant planning permission.

1. INTRODUCTION – THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 This reserved matters application seeks planning permission for the delivery of infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of the development by Countryside Properties Plc on land to the south of Broadbridge Heath. The delivery of infrastructure for the development is to be brought forward through two infrastructure planning applications. The curtilage of this first infrastructure application extends from the western boundary of the site of the outline application to a point to the east of the traffic light controlled junction on the east west link road. The curtilage excludes the residential parcels (which are to be brought forward by Countryside Properties or other housebuilders) and the

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 2 description includes elements of key infrastructure identified in the outline approval i.e.

- the new roundabout on Five Oaks Road, - western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from Five Oaks Road to the new A24 junction, - on site development roads to serve the first residential phases, - Pegasus crossing and pedestrian/cycle crossings, - new access to Newbridge Nurseries, - access to Heath Barn Farm site, - bus stops, - foul pumping station and surface water drainage

1.2 Whilst the curtilage of the application includes all the elements listed above it has been agreed with the applicant to break down the scope of the approval process into a smaller parcel within the curtilage of the application site to align with the technical s278 highway approval process undertaken by West Sussex County Council as Highway Authority. At this stage the detailed area for consideration relates to an area hatched red (as shown on plan 2876/GA/406E) whilst areas outside this hatched red area (including that shown hatched blue) will be subject to further conditions to secure the submission of further details. At this stage therefore the detailed matters for determination are:

- the new roundabout on Five Oaks Road to include dual lanes on the eastern arm to provide a lane for traffic moving straight ahead through the junction and also turning left along the east – west link road; - access to Newbridge Nurseries - access to Newbridge Nurseries to include a left in left out junction onto the new dual carriageway 50m east of the new roundabout on the Five Oaks Road. The work includes the provision of a dedicated right turn in from Five Oaks Road and the closure of the existing exit. The final details of the design of this access will be subject to condition to enable further discussion to take place with Newbridge Nurseries having regard to internal servicing and parking requirements; - the western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from the Five Oaks Road to the left in left out western junction on the east - west link road. The carriageway width will be 7.3m with a verge and central reservation. The edge of the highway will be subject to landscaping within designated zones either side of the carriageway and to soften the appearance of the acoustic fence separating the road from the residential parcels on either side. The precise details of landscaping will be subject to condition but the edge of the carriageway will include a 3m grass verge, an instant mixed native species hedge, an acoustic fence (2m in height max reducing to 1m in height above a section of wall adjacent to drainage basin 5), a 1m gravel maintenance strip, native species structure planting and a 1m wide grass verge at the back of the shared access road to the residential land parcel. The instant hedge and fence detail will be used on either side of the carriageway. - the first section of the primary street (5.5m in width) to serve the first residential parcel (subject to application DC/11/2074 also included on this Agenda);

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 3 - the radii for an access to the Heath Barn Farm site (this access forms part of the technical approval process and extends outside the curtilage of the application site and will be brought forward by the developer of Heath Barn Farm). A dedicated right hand lane will be provided to facilitate access to the site from the west. - the details of the surface water and water reduction strategy and specifically the design details for drainage basin 4 (located on the western edge of the southern parcel at the rear of Newbridge Nurseries); basin 5 (located between the east west link road and the first residential phase) and below ground drainage facility basin 6b (located on the eastern edge of the primary street providing access to the first residential parcel). The basins vary in depth and would be landscaped (the landscaping would be subject to condition). Basin 4 would be a maximum of 3 metres in depth when measured to the bottom of the sump with slopes of between 1 in 3 and 1 in 7 (slopes vary depending upon the section of the basin) . Basin 5, adjacent to the east –west link road would be a comparable depth at a maximum of 3.2 metres but this would have steeper slopes as it steps down from the back edge of the verge to the east west link road.

1.3 The application builds upon the information submitted in connection with the outline application and in support includes:

a) A planning statement (this also contains a plan which shows the phased delivery of the site in separate parcels to be developed over the next five years a copy of which is attached to this report).

b) A Design and Access Statement Dated October 2011 (this is to be read in conjunction with the Design and Access Statements (Volumes 1 and 2), the transport and the environmental statement submitted in connection with the outline planning application and the more specific details presented in the context of this application for the landscape/acoustic fence treatment along the east west link road.

c) An Environmental Assessment Statement of Conformity

d) Surface Water Drainage Strategy

e) Ecology Report

f) A Green Infrastructure Analysis Plan

g) A specification for soft landscaping works

h) A scheme of Archaeological Works relating to the infrastructure application, the first phase residential application and the construction access and compound.

1.4 Parts d) – g) above have also been submitted in connection with the discharge of conditions attached to the outline planning application which have been considered alongside the assessment of the infrastructure application and the application relating to the first residential parcel on the western edge of the site (application DC/11/2074). The following details have informed both applications:

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 4 Surface water and water reduction strategy (Condition 7 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination (Condition 9 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Pre – construction survey of water voles, otters, dormice and badgers (Condition 12 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Bat survey of trees identified for removal (Condition 13 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Bat mitigation measures (Condition 14 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Reptile and amphibian translocation and habitat mitigation (Condition 15 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Culverts to watercourses (Condition 16 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Ecological mitigation for each phase (Condition 17 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Habitat enhancements (Condition 18 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Nesting opportunities (Condition 7 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Green infrastructure analysis (Condition 24 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Tree and hedge protection (Condition 25 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Archaeological investigation (Condition 27 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) i.e. an overarching plan for the whole of the site and a plan for the first phase infrastructure application (Condition 39 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101 – the CEMP in respect of DC/11/2074 would be secured by condition in the event of approval).

Travel Plan and Green travel Plan (Conditions 36 and 37 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101)

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site comprises an area of approximately 8.9 hectares which forms part the strategic allocation of land comprising 57 hectares for development to the south of Broadbridge Heath. The site is located approximately 2.3km west of Horsham Town Centre, to the west of the A24 and is bounded by the A264 to

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 5 the north - west, the River Arun to the south west and the railway line to the south east.

1.6 The land immediately south of Broadbridge Heath is predominantly flat and gently undulating with the notable exception of High Wood Hill which is the location of a species rich designated woodland and Site of Nature Conservation Interest. With the exception of High Wood Hill, the area South of Broadbridge Heath is arable farm land with a small number of residential properties including Mill House and properties off Old Wickhurst Lane (that are excluded from the application site boundary). Mill Lane, a public bridleway (BW1630) and Old Wickhurst Lane provide the key routes linking Broadbridge Heath to the countryside to the south and to Mill House and Broadbridge Farm, including the recently converted Grade II Listed Buildings. Part of the Mill Lane public bridleway runs north of the existing Broadbridge Heath by pass to Thelton Avenue and provides a key link to the village. The trees and hedgerow on the edge of Mill Lane provide an important wildlife corridor which along with field boundaries in the northern half of the site and on its edges, coupled with existing tree cover, are important to the landscape character of the area.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 An Outline application was submitted in November 2008 under reference DC/08/2446 for a mixed use development comprising up to 1,013 residential units (Class C3), a primary school (Class D1); a neighbourhood centre including doctors surgery (Class D1), 6 no. flexible business/retail units (Class B1/A2/A1), a parish office (Class B1), a public house/restaurant (Class A4/A3) and associated car parking; open space including sports pitches and changing facilities (Class D2); allotments; and associated landscaping and infrastructure works.(Outline). The application was withdrawn by applicant in October 2011.

2.2 An Outline application was submitted in November 2008 under reference DC/08/2447 for highway infrastructure work incorporating new grade separated junction on A24 south of Farthings Hill; new east-west link road between Five Oaks Road and the A24; and realignment and downgrading of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass (Outline). This application was withdrawn by applicant in October 2011.

2.3 The two applications DC/08/2446 and DC/08/2447 were submitted almost one year before the application by Berkeley Strategic for the development of land to the east of the A24 and the associated highway improvements including the eastern half of the grade separated junction (Application reference DC/09/2138). The Countryside application was based upon a stand alone solution with a new grade separated compact junction on the A24, the downgrading of the Broadbridge Heath by pass, the provision of a new single carriageway road south of the existing bypass and a single carriageway street between the new southern road and down graded by pass.

2.4 The application was contrary to the highway solution preferred by the Broadbridge Heath Parish Council and adopted within the Land West of Horsham Masterplan i.e. the provision of a new grade separated junction on the A24 with linked/overlapping slip roads to Farthings Hill interchange, the closure of the existing Broadbridge Heath southern bypass and the provision of a new dual –

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 6 carriageway bypass south of the existing road (known as Option 1). This application was withdrawn in October 2011.

2.5 In November 2009 an Outline application was submitted under reference DC/09/2101 for the erection of 963 residential units, community facility including land for a primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to Five-Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (Outline). This application was permitted on 3 October 2011 and was subject to a s106 agreement which included obligations relating to:

- on and off site highway works; - education contribution and land for a primary school and early years provision ; - affordable housing; - attenuation basins and drainage crates; - transfer of land to the south Broadbridge Leisure Centre to HDC; - community facilities including a pavilion - health care facility; library; parish office facility; - open space; - outdoor sports facilities; - public art.

2.6 The decision on the outline application was based upon an illustrative masterplan and 5 parameter plans which not only fixed the development principles and land use but also provided information relating to the location of highway infrastructure and access routes through the development; landscape features to be retained and integrated into the development; SUDs features; open space; density and building height. The parameter plans provided the baseline for the Environmental Assessment, the findings of which were set out in the Environmental Statement which accompanied the application. Future reserved matters applications were required, through a statement of conformity, to demonstrate compliance with the findings as set out in the Environment Statement.

2.7 One of the key highway considerations in connection with the outline application was the need to assess the robustness of the proposed access strategy and explore options for traffic management to limit the impact on Broadbridge Heath and the surrounding villages. This resulted in:

a) The modelling of alternative access arrangements for the east west link road culminating in the adoption by the applicant and the acceptance by West Sussex County Council of the scenario of left in/left out at the western access and a fully operational signalised junction at the eastern access. An assessment of this option alongside the alternatives was set out an additional document to support the transport assessment submitted in connection with the outline application known as ‘South of Broadbridge Heath Alternative Access Strategy dated September 2010’.

b) The development of different traffic management schemes to discourage rat running through Billingshurst Road and surrounding rural roads and to use the new east – west link dual carriageway for non – local traffic. Three options for

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 7 traffic management were the subject of a consultation exercise by the applicant which expired on 29th October 2010. The scheme for traffic management has not yet been agreed and it is outside the area of the current infrastructure application.

2.8 An application was submitted under reference DC/11/0079 in January 2011 for the construction of 3 No. ponds for Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site in connection with application DC/09/2101. This application was permitted on 22 July 2011.

2.9 In October 2011 a Reserved Matters application was submitted under DC/11/2074 for the Development of 105 residential units, including 21 affordable housing units, open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works pursuant to outline permission DC/09/2101 (Approval of Reserved Matters)

2.10 An advertisement application was submitted under reference DC/11/2538 for the erection of one temporary freestanding advertising board (Location 1) and two temporary freestanding advertising boards (Location 2). This was permitted on 17 January 2012.

2.11 An application to for the removal of condition 7 (European Protected Species Licence) of DC/11/0079 (Construction of 3 No. ponds for Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site) was submitted in December 2011 under reference DC/11/2561. This application was permitted on 5 January 2012.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

3.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended)

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

3.2 The following planning guidance is relevant in the assessment: PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 - Housing; PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPS 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; PPG13 - Transport; PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation; PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

3.3 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; CP2 – Environmental Quality; CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development; CP 7 – Strategic Allocation West of Horsham.

The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices (December 2007) are relevant in the

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 8 assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement ; DC 2 – Landscape Character; DC3 – Settlement coalescence; DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology; DC6 – Woodland and Trees; DC9 – Development Principles and DC22 – New Open Space, Sport and Recreation; DC40 -Transport and Access.

Core Policy CP7 – Strategic Development West of Horsham

3.4 However, it is important that the planning policies set out above are viewed in the context of Core Policy CP7 – Strategic Development West of Horsham which set out ten principles for the development. The key elements from these principles of relevance to the current application are:

- the need for the development to integrate with Broadbridge Heath;

- the need to minimise the impact of new development on the existing transport network;

- the closure of the western part of the A264 Broadbridge Heath bypass to help integrate the new development with the existing community;

- development should maximise the opportunities for sustainable travel, including reducing the dependency on the car by providing suitable access to local facilities and services, providing high quality passenger transport links to the town centre and Horsham rail station from the outset, and ensuring safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes between the development and local facilities;

- the opportunities provided by the comprehensive approach to the development of this area should be maximised to enhance the environment, including the quality of open spaces and links to the countryside beyond (including to Denne Hill and the River Arun as a key part of the setting of the town), and enhancements to habitats and the local landscape generally;

- the development should incorporate sustainable development principles

Land West of Horsham Masterplan and Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document

3.5 Whist Policy CP7 sets the key principles, the Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted in October 2008) and the Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas SPD (adopted in April 2009) which provides guidance on design matters for developers and others preparing planning applications and for those considering applications.

3.6 The following visions and principles drawn from these documents of relevance to the current application are summarised below:

- The need for the development to have a minimum impact on the environment which recognises the existing pressures on the natural environment, the need to conserve resources and include strong links between the communities, biodiversity, heritage, and the natural features of the site and its surroundings.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 9 - A development that is an exemplar in terms of the use of sustainable construction techniques and renewable and low-carbon energy supply.

- A development in which good public transport, pedestrian and cycle facilities provide a realistic alternative to the car and where roads do not present a significant barrier to the integration of communities and the access to services / facilities and the wider countryside.

- the need for pedestrian, cycle and car linkages to be provided across the ddevelopment area;

- the need for integration with Broadbridge Heath;

- the down grading of the western end of the A264;

- the provision of a new dual carriageway south of the existing Broadbridge Heath by pass plus the incorporation of safe crossing points across the new dual carriageway;

- the provision of a network of streets for principally local traffic;

- traffic management to address the impact of traffic through Broadbridge Heath and the rural road;

4.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULATATIONS

4.1 The consultation responses in respect of the application are set out below:

Internal Consultations

Landscape Architect – has made specific comments relating to detailed elements of the scheme which are addressed within the report which are set out below. Additional information has been submitted to address the issues identified and the Landscape Officers response to this information will be reported as late material:

Acoustic Buffer adjacent to Phase 1 Development and the Link Road

The timber crib walling and bunding should be removed and replaced with the following :

 An instant mixed native species hedge ( to include holly, hornbeam, field maple at the back edge of the 3m width highway verge- the height of instant hedging planting to take account of the varying height of the acoustic fencing, ensuring maximum instant screening  Acoustic fence ( to heights approved by environmental health) inside of the instant hedge  1m gravel strip for maintenance access  Native species structure planting to include groups of semi-mature, heavy standard and feathered size trees and shrubs within remaining space between the gravel strip and road verge  1m min width grass verge at back of the shared surface access road

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 10

Amended plan to be submitted to show the layout of the above (zones) with arrowed in notes as above and a illustrative cross section provided

Full planting details and written specification submission to be conditioned.

It is envisaged the instant hedge will become the responsibility of WSCC to maintain or HDC to maintain under license from WSCC .WSCC have advised if they maintain the hedge they would maintain it mechanically twice a year with a flail. I would recommend that for the first two years the instant hedge should not be flailed at all to avoid damage to the newly planted hedge (I would have thought there should be no risk to forward visibility in this timescale) and the agreed maintenance and management guidelines for the first priority area infrastructure phase should cover how flailing will be carried out in a sensitive manner. There also could be a risk of damage to fence panels if flailing is carried out too early on. A commuted sum will be needed from Countryside for the cost of hedge maintenance – I presume through the section 278 agreement with WSCC.

Acoustic fence, gravel strip, structure planting to be the responsibility of the developer as currently provided for within the section 106.

Confirmation required from the developer that the use of the Instant Hedge will set the standard for the boundary treatment along the rest of the link road where an acoustic fence is proposed.

Acoustic Buffer on southern side of the Link Road

Exactly the same approach should be taken as above.

Five Oaks Road

It is understood there will be minor layout changes to the kerbline on the roundabout reducing the verge width marginally. However I have established with John Male the visibility splays do not effect the necessary provision of semi –mature size tree planting in groups adjacent to the hedgerow running north from the roundabout. Planting details to be conditioned.

I believe the amended surface water drainage plans now do not affect this hedgerow but should there still be any gully connection through then this will have to be moled through to protect the hedge.

The tree and hedge protection plans should show the position of protective fencing along side the hedge to prevent damage from construction if they have not done so already.

Link Road- Southern side

It is understood that a footpath needs to be provided on this side of the road and the path layout, construction, earthworks and associated planting will be the subject of a condition.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 11 I am happy with the concept advised by John Male that this should be a more winding route separated by a grass verge, planting and low bunding from the road.

However under the large oak tree closest to the road the footpath should be located to the back edge of the road and there should be no bunding within the root protection area of the tree to minimise any potential damage to it.

Also there should be no bunding within the root protection area of the hedge that lies at the southern boundary of the site.

Link Road Central Reservation

The priority area includes a 1.8M width central reservation which widens somewhat as it goes towards the Five Oaks roundabout. The provision of planting within the reservation is important to green up and soften the impact of this major road.

It is understood from Paul Addison that the provision of a crash barrier (not currently proposed on the drawings in this section of the road is under consideration through the technical approval). It is appreciated that a crash barrier would make maintenance of planting difficult. However should it be confirmed that this is not strictly essential on safety grounds then I would strongly recommend the central reservation is planted. Paul Addison has advised a grass verge only is possible, without a crash barrier. However I have a recommended solution that will involve far less initial and long term maintenance for the county as follows

 Provision of maximum 600mm height fast growing, salt tolerant, non prickly, drought tolerant shrub planting of a single species. ( note the principle of central reservation planting has been accepted by Crest at Kilnwood and planting of the central reservation was previously discussed with WSCC with the section 106 contribution being calculated to allow for this). Shrub planting be planted as large size nursery stock to form an instant cover at the time of planting. Thereby can minimise the need for maintenance with associated use of lane restrictions

 Provision of an Instant hedge in the centre of the wider section of the reservation near Five Oaks roundabout, subject to forward visibility requirements, but which could act as traffic calming measure on the approach to the roundabout.

Countryside to make a commitment now with regard to the above, subject if necessary to further discussion with WSCC.

Detention Basin 4 and Integral Open Space

The key issue is that the basin needs to be designed to be part of the open space and the current submitted proposals do not adequately allow it to function in this way. Specifically the following needs to be addressed:

 Ensure no excavation is proposed within the root protection zone of existing trees and hedgerows on the southern and western boundaries of the basin. Check against the arboricultural survey details but the boundary of the

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 12 excavation area will need to be pulled away from the location currently shown. This will also make it possible for people to walk around the top of the basin on mown grass paths.  1:3-1:4 slopes on the northern side of the basin abutting the future estate road are not acceptable. There should be a broad buffer of level ground opposite the end of the access road that connects into the land parcel and running parallel with it splits east –west in front of the future houses. Then adjacent there should a wide section with gentle slopes of 1:20 down to the bottom of the basin (max of 1:8 slopes along the rest of the boundary). We want the open space to be inviting for people to use not just to be pushed into only being able to comfortably access it from the north east corner as currently shown. Also we do not want to end up with a situation when the access roads are applied for that there is a requirement for an ugly crash barrier along the boundary of the basin.  Maintenance track max of 3m width only needs to extend from the north east corner to the bottom of the basin and just pass the headwall of the inlet. No need for a ledge all the way round.  Wet pond should have a gently shelving margin on at least one side and more indented edges for ecological benefit

Can accept some steeper up to 1:3-1:4 slopes along parts of the eastern and southern boundaries and a deeper and slightly larger permanently wet pond up to 2.5m max depth to assist with achieving the above

The current landscape plan should be withdrawn from the application- the earthworks just to be shown on the engineering plan. Show 0.5M contour intervals and include gradient notes. At least four cross sections should be provided at natural scale- same vertical and horizontal scale.

There should still be landscape architect input to the final earthworks design- avoiding uniform slopes

Revised Planting details to be discharged by condition. Steep 1:3 slopes to be planted up with structure planting (1:4 slopes or less needed for mowing.

Further information on headwall brick choice and rails, channel bed materials and maintenance track surfacing and construction to be conditioned.

Detention Basin 5

1. The stepped timber crib walls on the southern side should be removed as above 2. It is recommended a Tensar Green Tech system or similar approved geogrid tied back into the bank is used to create a grassed and shrub planted bank instead. Hydroseeding of the bank to be considered. It is appreciated there may be ROSPA considerations to take into account re means of escape but there is a need to take account of ladders already provided on the northern bank and a post and rail fence at the the top of the northern bank discouraging access from the adjacent housing area 3. An Instant hedge should be provided at the top of the southern bank with the gravel strip, then the acoustic fence and the instant hedge on the road side south of that.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 13 4. Revised engineering layout and cross sections to be submitted to take account of the above. Planting details to be dealt with by condition

Below Ground Storage Basin 6

A note previously submitted by James King advised shallow rooted tree planting could be achieved and the engineering drawing shows the storage crates at 2m depth with a root barrier. However the landscape plan shows tree planting excluded from a large area .

Clarification is therefore sought that a group of trees can be planted in the centre of the amenity grassed area.

Final landscape details to be dealt with by condition

Detention Basin 2 and open space

This basin is not currently in the priority area for approval. However Chris Tyler has indicated he has minimal flexibility to modify slopes on this basin. As there are 1:3 slopes around the entire basin apart from a benched pathway I would highlight now that this does give rise to considerable concern and when this scheme comes forward it will be necessary to consider the area/design of the adjacent land parcel to address this

Primary Access Road

It is vital that avenue tree planting can be achieved in the road verges, at the moment the landscape plan shows minimal tree planting

1. We will approve the road and footpath layout only at this stage 2. The visitor car park spaces within the priority area are to be removed as discussed with K.Tipper 3. Need to show any driveway connection (s) from Phase 1 scheme 4. The water main should be in the footpath/road not in the verge, similarly electricity, cable TV, BT. Sewer, gas. Applicant to make a commitment now that future infrastructure phases will follow this pattern to ensure tree planting is achievable 5. Detailed planting plan to be dealt with by condition

Small greens either side of the road junction with the link road- retaining walls should be removed and cross sections submitted demonstrating satisfactory graded slopes

Lighting Columns and Lanterns

These are a fairly standard highway design. As part of the need to minimise the landscape impact of this road as much as possible, these should be coloured dark green, precise RAL no to be agreed with us by condition.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 14 Consideration should also be given to whether the lights can be dimmed through the early hours of the morning to minimise light pollution which I understand is being carried out on some county roads

Combined Services Plan

It is recommended that a combined services plan is produced for the priority area at a min of 1:500 scale to give us certainty that their location will not interfere with the retention of existing landscape features or prevent new planting.

Addendum to the Design and Access Statement

This should be submitted to cover the various landscape principles, commitments sought from Countryside identified above

Landscape Details

Countryside’s landscape architect is requested to meet with me before resubmission of landscape details for the infrastructure scheme by condition and discuss those for phase 1 also.

Landscape Maintenance

To give certainty about future landscape maintenance Countryside should provide now a drawing showing for the priority infrastructure area the various different landscape/planting zones and identifying the parties who it is intended will be responsible for their maintenance . If its not provided now then this will need to be conditioned.

We have a submission for an overarching maintenance and management plan which I will look at but then under the terms of the outline permission there is already a specific requirement also for a detailed maintenance plan

Public Health and Licensing – no objection in principle but provides the following comments:

Construction Noise

Ahead of the commencement any works the Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The requirements of the Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be met for all works associated with the construction of the proposed development. (A CEMP has been submitted for Phase 1 which is currently subject to consideration)

Foul pumping stations

It is noted that the overall Foul Drainage Strategy for the development will incorporate two foul pumping stations. These installations can be a source of noise and vibration if located in close proximity to residential properties. Additional technical information on the measures to control noise and vibration from the pumping stations is required. (The foul pumping station is located outside the priority

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 15 area to the east of the southern land parcel adjacent to the allotments. A condition is recommended to ensure that detail of noise generated by the pumping station is to submitted to the Council for approval)

Technical Services – Engineering Section – no objections to the overarching surface water strategy and comments that the Strategy drawing identifies various development parcels with impermeable areas, flows and storage capacities sufficient for the discharge rate to be no greater than the pre-development agreed rates. This department endorses this approach.

Senior Environmental Officer – reports no objection to the statement of conformity submitted in relation to the application but requested that: - the applicant highlights which of the mitigation measures identified as part of the original EIA will be actioned at this stage; - Identify mitigation or other compensatory measures to help limit the impact of the limited landscaping opportunities along the east west link road which is now considered to have a moderate negative rather than minor negative impact on habitat severance; (additional information has been provided by the applicant an updated response from the Senior Environmental Officer will be provided and reported as late material)

Building Control Manager – reports no objections and comments that the detailed design considerations will be dealt with through the building regulation process and i) all shared drains will become the responsibility of the water authority to be constructed to adoptable standards as well as meeting building regulation compliance; ii) Foul drainage pumping stations will need adequate back up facilities and 24 hour storage capacity and surface water storage systems will need suitable overflow arrangements.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

WSCC – Highways Strategic Planning - reports no objection and the comments subject to conditions. The comments are reproduced below:

‘West Sussex County Council (WSCC), as Highway Authority, attended a number of pre-application meetings with the applicant to discuss delivery of the infrastructure serving this development and made it clear that it will take a considerable length of time to review all reserved matters details of a single large infrastructure submission. It was therefore agreed with the applicants that ARM planning applications would be made on the basis of the Planning Application Phasing Plan No. F00081-SP-018 prepared by the applicants and dated 15th February 2011. This plan proposed six planning applications to deliver the infrastructure in six phases with the first application being the construction access, the second application being the new Five Oaks Road roundabout, and the third application being part of the east-west link and associated drainage up to a point just east of the left in/left out accesses serving Phase 1 and Newbridge Nursery. The ARM application submitted is not in accordance with the strategy previously agreed, and whilst WSCC understands the need to include details of drainage, services etc for future phases, will not be a position to carry out a technical review of all the highway works within the red line of the ARM for several months. Indeed, it will take at least 12 weeks to review the ARM submission for the new Five Oaks roundabout, the first section of the east-west link, and the short section of access road required to serve Phase 1. The following

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 16 comments are therefore based solely on these elements of the highway works which is the minimum extent of the works required to allow building to commence on Phase 1.

New Western Roundabout on Five Oaks Road

This roundabout will form the western junction of the new east-west link road and will also serve as the main access to serve the first phases of the residential development. The roundabout scheme also includes road widening to Five Oaks Road to accommodate the access and right turn ghost lane to serve future development on the Heath Barn Farm site. Although this widening did not form part of the outline application, the Highway Authority welcomes the inclusion of the Heath Barn Farm access works within the design as this will avoid abortive works and result in a reduction in the amount of disruption to highway users.

No departures from standards for the new roundabout have been identified with only one departure sought for a reduced lane taper to the north of the Heath Barn Lane access. This is considered acceptable due to contributory factors relating to the implementation of the new roundabout to the south and future changes to the existing roundabout to the north (as part of the downgrading of the existing bypass and to deter short-cutting). This is anticipated to reduce current traffic speeds along this section of the road to less than 40mph. There may need to be a slight modification of the Guildford Road approach arm to maximise capacity on the two approach lanes.

Newbridge Nurseries will be provided with two access points as a result of the changes to the current road layout. At present, the nursery is served by an entrance/exit access onto the Five Oaks Road, but the exit will be removed by the new roundabout. The entrance would be retained, but would have to be modified as a result of the road widening on the roundabout approach. It is not clear whether the retained access will act as an entrance only or will also be an exit. However, it is very close to the new roundabout and the access radii appear less than adequate (should be 10.5m) and much tighter than existing. Although larger vehicles will eventually be encouraged to use the new left in/left out access onto the new east-west link there may be occasions when these vehicles miss their entrance or may find it more convenient to use the Five Oaks Road access and therefore need to be catered for. The access is not lined up with the actual gated entrance into the nursery car park itself. This should be amended. It is understood that the applicants are negotiating with the nursery owners over the changes to their access. It is also noted that concerns have been raised by the owners over the effects of the roundabout works on their business and, in particular, how customers are going to use the left in/left out access on the east-west link before the link road is fully open. The provision of a revised access design on to the Five Oaks Road to make it safer and more usable should help, but there should also be some indication as to how access onto the east-west link is going to operate in the short term.

There is also concern about the proposed pedestrian links to the nursery from the north and east. Due to the eastern footway being deleted on Billingshurst Road between the new roundabout and the Heath Barn Farm access, in order to retain the hedge, pedestrians approaching from Broadbridge Heath would have to make multiple crossings to gain access to the nursery. Likewise, there is no dedicated pedestrian route between the new development and the nursery (ie. there is no

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 17 continuous footway along either the northern or southern side of the new east-west link road to the new nursery access). The nursery is likely to become a popular local facility with both new and existing residents, yet there would appear a lack of safe pedestrian links to it. This issue has been raised in the Safety Audit and needs to be addressed. One solution is to provide a pedestrian link from the Mill Lane Pegasus Crossing westwards through the southern part of the development to the nursery entrance. This would provide a continuous safe pedestrian route for both existing residents in Broadbridge Heath and residents of the new development.

A departure of standards is sought for approach forward visibility and the right turn ghost lane serving the nursery from Five Oaks Road in terms of reduced deceleration lane and lane tapers. This is considered acceptable due to contributory factors as the implementation of the new roundabout to the north is anticipated to reduce current traffic speeds on the roundabout approach to less than 40mph. There is also currently no right turn ghost lane serving the nursery which means that right turning traffic often obstructs the free flow of traffic on the main road, whereas the proposed highway works allow for this.

Left in/Left out Newbridge Nurseries access

As regards the left in/left out access onto the new east-west link road, this is considered acceptable and no departures from standards identified. It is essential though for the adoptable highway works to be extended to the boundary of the nursery.

Western part of the new east-west link road

The applicants propose to build the new east-west link road in two parts with the western part between Five Oaks Road and Mill Lane forming part of this application and the eastern part between Mill Lane and the A24 forming part of a future application. The new east-west link road will have a speed limit of 40mph and has been designed accordingly. No departures from standards have therefore been identified. WSCC would be prepared to adopt the carriageway, verges, highway drainage runs, street lighting, but not the crib walling, earth bunds or noise attenuation fencing above. The latter items would need to be adopted by either Horsham District Council or retained and managed by the applicants.

Access Road serving Phase 1

The short section of access road serving Phase 1 is considered acceptable and in accordance with Manual for Streets.

As you are aware, WSCC is currently reviewing the detailed technical submissions for the above highway works as part of the road agreement process and whilst there are unlikely to be any fundamental changes in the concept proposals agreed at the outline stage, there will be some minor changes required as a result of the Stage 2 Safety Audit process, as set out above. These changes can be dealt with by further planning conditions if necessary requiring further details to be submitted prior to the occupation of any dwelling on the site’.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 18 WSCC Archaeology - No objection is raised on archaeological grounds to the proposals, subject to archaeological safeguards, as set out in the Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management and Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for Phases 1 and 2, submitted in respect of DC/09/2101.

WSCC Ecology – reports no objections

Countryside Access Forum – comments as follows: ‘This Countryside Properties application does contain many good proposals for access provision, both within the development and to the wider countryside. There is a need to ensure that these elements are included in the final design and delivery of the site, as we know from experience elsewhere (West of Crawley), that initial commitments by a developer are not always followed through. There are some specific comments CAFWS wishes to make and these are set out below. CAFWS believes that two controlled crossings over the new A264 link road will result in problems with the traffic flow on and off the A24. A grade separated crossing would have prevented any possibility of this occurring and would also have produced a green corridor that clearly can't be provided by a severed route. Any changes or improvements in the future will be very difficult and costly to achieve, the most economic way is for the long term solution to be provided during construction. These two crossings are considered the minimum requirement to provide safe access across the new link road for non motorised users (NMUs), and to prevent severance of the main part of the proposed development from the smaller part and the rights of way network to the south. However, the provision of two Pegasus crossings on Mill Lane BW 1630 will allow it to be well used, and equestrians will welcome the provision of a "one movement" crossing of the new link road. CAFWS is of the opinion that cyclists are also likely to make use of this facility, as it is a Sustrans recommendation that all NMU crossings on dual carriageways are single stage. As an important strategic, linear route running through the middle of the new development, the bridleway will carry an increased number and variety of users and to ensure their safety a minimum width of 4 meters is requested so they can all feel comfortable. A good choice of surfacing is vital and the material should be comparable with the Downs Link and Worth Way; suitable for year round use by all users yet maintaining the rural feel of the bridleway, which will be enhanced by the proposed tree and hedgerow planting along its length. Early consultation with WSCC Public Rights of Way Team is desirable as they will be able to offer advice to Countryside Properties on suitable specification for the bridleway. It is vital that access on to the bridleway is easy for all users along it's length as it will be used as part of circular routes. As the Pegasus crossing over the existing A264 is to be installed early on in the development, improvements to the width and surfacing of the path should be an early priority. Whilst appreciating that footpath 1633 was a severed route on the ground, CAFWS has concerns that this rural footpath to the east of the A24 is being replaced by a 'pavement' along side the main access to the development leading out onto the A24 junction making it an "urban" route. The western side of this footpath will also lead to the A24 junction, but without proper provision to allow pedestrians to cross over the road i.e. if they have to cross various lanes of traffic without any controlled crossing, the route is likely not to be used.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 19 This will replicate the current situation at the Farthings Hill roundabout, where the number of crossings made by pedestrians and cyclists appears minimal, as the roundabout has a reputation locally of being difficult and unsafe for pedestrians and especially cyclists to negotiate. CAFWS would welcome some Section 106 Developer Contributions towards wider walking and cycling improvement projects in the vicinity of the development, including to this roundabout. As footpath 1633 will no longer be a rural path, CAFWS would like to see some of the permissive routes on High Wood dedicated in the future to make up for this loss and the higher demands placed on the existing rights of way by increased usage, especially as this area will be transferred to the ownership of HDC in the future. Ideally dedicated routes will link into the network of existing public rights of way. Cyclists do use the footbridge from Tesco's car park to cross the A24 at present, as it provides a useful route into Horsham. If proposals are put forward to move the bridge, it would be worth considering whether the access can be improved when this occurs. The path within Tesco's car park is not a right of way and dedication would safeguard the route if access to the bridge on the eastern side can be improved. A route through the car park and over the bridge, although not exactly direct, would be safe for users. The possibility of linking footpath 1633 with the Tesco's footbridge should be investigated. At the western end of the new A264 there isn't any obvious provision for pedestrians to access the Newbridge Nursery side of the road from the development. CAFWS feels strongly that planners need to consider natural desire lines (the Mill Lane Pegasus is some way further to the east), or people will make their own paths. Finally, CAFWS requests that plans are put in place for the continued usage of Mill Lane bridleway during development, and especially during construction of the new A264 link road. British Horse Society – comments as follows: ‘Mill Lane BW 1630

Whilst there is no doubt that the development provides the opportunity to greatly improve access to this route, and there are many good proposals in the application to enable this to happen, I remain of the opinion that a grade separated crossing of the new east west link road, is the most desirable option for all users (walkers, cyclists, equestrians), as well as wildlife, and vehicular users of the new road. There is a strong expectation that the two signal controlled NMU crossings (which are likely to be in constant use), will result in increased traffic congestion.

However, accepting that grade separation is not proposed in this application, I support the provision of a Pegasus crossing, and welcome the additional safety feature of allowing equestrians to cross both carriageways in one movement. This avoids the possibility of horses being trapped on the central reservation between large and noisy vehicles. I am aware Sustrans recommends that all NMU crossings on dual carriageway should be single stage, so I believe there is a strong possibility many cyclists might prefer to use this facility as well! I do wonder how the timing for this will be achieved, as the speed of a horse crossing a dual carriageway will vary (especially for children on ponies), will a detection system be employed (as in a pedestrian Puffin crossing)?

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 20 The term "on demand" used in relation to the Old Wickhurst Lane crossing (but not to the Pegasus) is difficult to comprehend. Surely all NMU signal controlled crossings are "on demand", I would certainly not expect horse riders to be kept waiting more than a minute or so on the side of such a busy dual carriageway for the lights to change. The Old Wickhurst Lane crossing will presumably be a Toucan (for pedestrians and cyclists).

Use of the Mill Lane bridleway is at present suppressed, due to the difficult and dangerous (at times impossible) at grade crossing of the present A264. The addition of a second Pegasus crossing here early in the development is welcome, and will undoubtedly immediately increase usage of the route. The proposed downgrading of the western end of the A264 for use by NMUs and busses is also welcome, and I would add that it is highly likely equestrians will also use the downgraded section. As an observation, I would query the need for a Pegasus here following the downgrading, but this is obviously dependent on positioning.

The remainder of Mill Lane, north and south of the new link road, must retain its rural feel as a "green corridor", and the commitment to tree and hedgerow planting is welcome and essential. The bridleway is a strategically important linear route, which will provide a green link between the existing Broadbridge Heath village, the new development, and on into the wider countryside (Downs Link). However, it will also be used as part of circular routes within the development by dog walkers, families with bicycles etc. (as is the Worth Way though Maidenbower in Crawley). For this reason there should be sufficient access paths off/on, taking account of desire lines, otherwise experience indicates residents will make there own gaps in the hedging!

To accommodate the increased usage, and variety of users, a minimum width of 4 metres should be provided. The surface meeds to be suitable for year round use, robust enough to cope adequately with usage, but of a type that will not change the rural character of the path (i.e. not tarmac) such as that used on the Downs Link and Worth Way. Both improvements, to width and surfacing, need to be in place before the Pegasus installation on the present A264 brings about the increased use. The same improvements should, if needed, also be made to the continuation of the bridleway north of the A264.

Finally, plans should be put in place to ensure as much continued usage of the Mill Lane bridleway as possible during development, and especially during construction of the new link road.’

Natural England – no objections and reports that on the basis of the information available, Natural England is broadly satisfied that the mitigation proposals, if implemented, are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the local population of bats and great crested newts Environment Agency – reports no objections to the surface water strategy Southern Water – reports no objections Gatwick Airport – no objections Highways Agency – no objections Sussex Police – no comments on infrastructure application received

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 21 Broadbridge Heath Parish Council - objects to the content of the road signs i.e. the reference to Countryside and others which are incorrect; the surface treatment; requests a low noise surface and dislikes the choice of tree barriers and feels that the landscaping on the Five Oaks Roundabout should be low level. In addition information is requested regarding the access to Heath Barn Farm and lay- bys; the details of the bus stops with guidance required on whether bus stops would be provided for the first phase. The Parish Council requests further consultation on the play areas/equipment. Warnham Parish Council - objects and the comments are as follows:

‘Warnham Parish Council has previously identified the concern that with the closure of the existing Broadbridge Heath Bypass there will be an increase in traffic on the rat-runs through Warnham used by traffic between A281 Guildford Road and Horsham/Crawley. The principal rat-run is via Strood Lane and Byfleets Lane to roads including Robin Hood Lane, Friday Street, Bell Road and Knob Hill. The application details the proposed Western Access Roundabout to the new East-West Link. The parish council believe that there are capacity and operational issues relating to the roundabout which need to be resolved before planning permission is considered. Any limitation in capacity on the northern approach to the roundabout will increase the volume of rat-run traffic through Warnham parish. HDC stated in the design brief for the development that it should not result in any increase in traffic on the surrounding rural roads.’

Slinfold Parish Council – objects to the application and comments as follows: In addition to supporting the comments made by Warnham Parish Council, Slinfold Parish Council would like to add the following regarding, in particular, the design of the Western Access Roundabout.

Slinfold is affected at all times as the A264 traffic from the south has priority at the Five Oaks roundabout over that from the west on the A281. The large queues that build up on the A281 are well known and thus this diverts traffic at all times of the day originating in particular on the A29 between Roman Gate and Five Oaks to rat- run through Slinfold Village Conservation Area along The Street and through Park Street and Lyons Road. Some traffic actually turns south from the A281 on to the A29 at Roman Gate and cuts through Slinfold in order to avoid the A281 queues at the Five Oaks Roundabout. This will all be avoided if the Western Access Roundabout has reasonable lengths of dual approaches with the inside lane being left turn only for both the A281 from west to east, the A264 from east to west, and possibly the A264 from south to north.

Excellent examples of this are the A264 into Crawley at the Cheals Roundabout where the left turn to the north towards Gatwick is a left turn only, and in Leatherhead where the A243 coming south at the M25 also has a dedicated left turn lane. Another example is at the Tesco roundabout where there is now a left turn only lane on to the A264 and thus queuing to depart from Tesco's has been considerably reduced. All these features were constructed after the original roads were constructed when the traffic planners' mistakes were obvious. Surely we are not to make the same mistake again with the western access roundabout!

Slinfold suffers from through traffic in the village conservation area to and from the Slinfold Golf and Country Club, Spring Lane Business Park, and the current multiple expansion of the Industrial Park to the south of the Downs Link now named Slinfold

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 22 Business Park. It is completely unacceptable that this will be made worse by an inadequate roundabout on the new western access.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Three letters of objection have been received from occupiers of properties in Charrington Way; Singleton Road and Wickhurst Lane who raise objections of the following grounds:

- the principle of the development; - the impact upon the countryside; - the impact of construction traffic on the existing highway network; - increase in noise, loss of privacy and general amenity.

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

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

It is not considered that the proposed development would have any impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The delivery of highway infrastructure is fundamental to bringing forward the development of Land to the South of Broadbridge and is an integral part of the infrastructure delivery for the wider strategic location which includes the development to the east of the A24 by Berkeley’s. The main issues in respect of the consideration of this reserved matters application are:

a) Compliance with planning policy framework provided by the Core Strategy Policies and General Development Control Policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework along with the West of Horsham Masterplan and associated Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document

b) Highway design and wider network issues

c) Surface Water Drainage Strategy and Drainage Basins.

d) Issues arising from consultation

e) Environmental impact and conformity with Environmental Statement submitted in connection with the outline application.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 23 Each issue is addressed below.

6.2 The delivery of infrastructure to support the development of the land to the South of Broadbridge Heath was agreed as part of the outline planning application. The outline application established the principle of:

a) the alignment of an east west link road comprising a dual carriage way and associated access junctions (2 x signal controlled and 2 x left in, left out) including a Pegasus crossing at Mill Lane; b) improvements to the existing Five Oaks Roundabout; c) the provision of the western roundabout junction; d) the provision of the eastern grade separated junction by the 450th dwelling; e) off site works including the provision of a Pegasus crossing on the existing

A264 by the occupation of the first dwelling; a traffic management scheme on Billingshurst road; signalisation of Old Guildford Road and associated pedestrian and cycle routes; down grading of the existing A264 and minor improvements to the tesco roundabout and pedestrian and cycle links along the southern edge of the existing A264.

6.3 The s106 attached to the outline application included concept drawings relating to the provision of the western roundabout and off site works including the realignment of the existing A264. Conditions attached to the outline planning application require the following details to be submitted for approval:

- the design details of the dual carriageway access and junctions; - the details of the surface water and water reduction strategy - the details of underground services; - the details of the design of the western junction; - the details of the landscaping relating to the drainage basins (surface and underground) and aligning the east west link road including details of embankments, acoustic bunds/fencing and retaining walls and central reservation planting; - the details of landscaping as part of an overarching landscape strategy for the site to include landscaping within the green corridors, open spaces, streets, mews, lanes, squares and parking areas.

6.4 The scope of the conditions are designed to address the technical requirements of WSCC as highway authority as part of the highway adoption process whilst ensuring that details are provided to the Local Planning Authority to enable the design and landscaping detail to be assessed to ensure compliance with the principles established at outline stage. The submitted information provides details of the road alignment, roundabout junction and relationship to the landscaping either side of the carriageway and location of lighting and highway signage. The content and location of highway

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 24 signage is however a matter to be determined by the highway authority as part of the technical approval process.

6.5 The delivery of the infrastructure is in accordance the outline approval and the highway design and wider network issues are addressed below

b) Highway Design and Wider Network issues

6.6 The highway design has been considered by WSCC as part of the technical approval process. WSCC has confirmed:

i) no objection to the design detail for the western roundabout junction or the access arrangements for Heath Barn Farm which form part of the s278 highways approval process. The radii is within the curtilage the application site and red line hatching;

ii) no objection in principle to the access arrangements from the east - west link road to Newbridge Nurseries but recommends that the access arrangements from Five Oaks Road are subject to condition to enable further discussions with the Nurseries regarding changes to the access to align it with the internal gated access to the nurseries site and to agree the access arrangements during and post the construction period;

iii) the need for a dedicated pedestrian route along the southern edge of the east west link road to provide a continuous link from the Mill Lane Pegasus Crossing to Newbridge Nurseries;

iv) that the design of the western part of the east west link road within the area hatched red is acceptable and it has been designed to 40mph speed limit. WSCC has confirmed that it would adopt the carriageway, verges, highway drainage runs, street lighting and, subject to securing a commuted sum, the maintenance of the instant hedge at the back edge of the verge (the maintenance for the first two years resting with the applicant). The acoustic fence would be the responsibility of the applicant or management company (The s106 agreement attached to the outline excludes the acoustic mound from the areas to be transferred to the Council with a sum for future maintenance and requires submission and approval of acoustic mound strategy which sets out the landscaping, landscape management, maintenance of the mound and details of implementation and on going management).

v) the design of the access road serving Phase 1 is considered acceptable and in accordance with Manual for Streets.

6.7 WSCC has advised that it is currently reviewing the detailed technical submissions for the above. Allthough changes are unlikely there may be adjustments as a result of the stage 2 Safety Audit which could be addressed by conditions. Having regard to this is it recommended that conditions be attached requiring compliance with details as shown on the relevant junctions (i.e. compliance with the details as shown on drawing Signage and Road Markings drawing) unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority with specific conditions to secure: i) the submission of details for the

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 25 design of the access arrangements to Newbridge Nurseries and ii) the design detail for the access road serving Phase 1 to ensure the technical design also provides for landscaping and tree planting having regard to the location of underground services.

6.8 The importance of the retention of existing landscape features and the incorporation of additional landscaping as part of the design detail of the east west link road and with the internal street network is recognised within the Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted in connection with the outline planning application. This recognises the importance of the existing trees, hedges and understorey vegetation to the character of the area and the need to maintain existing key groups of trees wherever possible and to incorporate the existing key groups of trees wherever possible into areas of open space, green corridors and structural landscape. The DAS specifically refers to the importance of landscaping along the east west link road and states ‘The character of the link road and grass verges and the edges of the carriageway and tree-lined hedgerow borders will be sympathetic to the character of the landscape along the A264 Five Oaks Road’. With respect to the residential gateways from the east west link road the DAS recognises the importance of these streets as gateways created by a combination of built form, landscape and highway arrangements. The integration of landscaping is key to softening the key highway infrastructure and at this stage your officers feel that further consideration needs to be given to the design detail of the Primary Street to ensure that landscaping and in particular tree planting can be incorporated into the final design which will require further dialogue with the applicant and WSCC.

6.9 The landscape treatment to the edge of the east west link road has been the subject of detailed discussion between the applicant, your officers and WSCC to ensure a landscaped edge to the carriageway. As a result of liaison between all parties the scheme has been amended to the combination of instant hedge screening, acoustic fence and low level landscaping to soften the edge to the east west link road as described in para 1.2 above. Initially the proposal included a crib wall with fencing above but it is now proposed to replace this with a wall and with fence above which would be hidden when viewed from the carriageway by instant hedging. The technical detail of this proposal is currently subject to assessment by the Councils Landscape Architect but the approach is acceptable in principle subject to details of the hedging to include planting specification being submitted for approval. Additional conditions will require the landscaping details for the western roundabout junction planting (including the roundabout itself); east west link road planting (north and south of the carriage way); primary street junction planting and primary street planting to be incorporated into the design detail of the primary street which will be subject to condition as discussed in para 6.8 above. The landscaping condition for the east west link road will also require the submission of planting details for the central reservation unless this is precluded by the Stage 2 safety audit on highway safety grounds.

6.10 The landscaping treatment on the southern edge of the east west link road will be considered along with the details of the pedestrian route to Newbridge Nurseries where it will be important to secure a safe and attractively landscaped route for pedestrians whilst safeguarding the existing Oak tree on

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 26 the western edge of the edge of the route. This can be achieved but landscaping details for this zone will need to include measures to safeguard this tree.

c) Surface Water Strategy and Drainage Basins

6.11 The infrastructure application has been supported by the surface water drainage strategy submitted pursuant to Condition 7 attached to the outline application which is an integrated strategy for the whole site. The strategy has been reviewed by the Environment Agency and the Council’s own technical advisor and both confirm that the strategy is acceptable. The strategy identifies six minor sub catchments collecting rainfall run off and discharging from the overall site. It is based upon the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Solutions (SUD’s) in the form of basins to ensure that surface water discharge rates from the site are no greater than pre-development agreed rates. The use of drainage basins was identified at outline stage with a combination of basin and underground attenuation storage areas (drainage crates) being agreed in principle. The s106 agreement attached to the outline scheme requires the submission and approval of an Attenuation and Drainage Basin Specification and secures a contribution for future maintenance of basins with the underground storage areas being the responsibility of the applicant.

6.12 The basin areas were included as part of the open space providing both amenity open space (i.e. landscaped areas) and usable open space. The development of a surface water strategy for the site has needed to accommodate a network of existing high, intermediate and medium high pressure gas mains and a large diameter water main within the site and also the requirements of the Environment Agency regarding the use of underground drainage systems.

6.13 The basins subject to consideration at this stage are basins 4; 5 and 6b, the latter being the underground storage area. The design of the basins has been subject to discussion with the applicant which has resulted in changes to the design of basin 4 with the introduction of lower profiles to the banks and the design of basin 5 with the removal of crib walling on the stepped in face with a mesh system to facilitate planting on the banks of the basin. Further information has been sought from the applicant regarding the ability to accommodate landscaping and tree planting above the underground storage area 6b. Details of this will be reported to Committee as late material but all drainage areas will be subject to condition to require details of landscaping to be submitted for approval.

d) Issues arising from consultation

6.14 The application has been subject to internal and external consultation and the outcome is reported in section 4 above. Key issues raised as a result of consultations (in addition to those with have been raised in respect to specific details relating to highway; landscaping and drainage issues above) are:

i) bus stops/bus lay-bys and provision of bus service to serve the first phase of the development . The applicant has submitted a Travel Plan pursuant to conditions 36 and 37 attached to application DC/09/2101 which sets out the

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 27 proposal for Travel Packs to be provided for new occupiers of the development. The s106 agreement secured a subsidy payable to WSCC that was based upon the existing Service 100 serving the early phases of South Broadbridge Heath development until such time as the entirety of the East- West link and onward connection to the Land East of A24 has been delivered. The interim service would use the proposed new western roundabout and travel along each section of the East-West link road, which is to be constructed in accordance with the phased infrastructure delivery strategy agreed with WSCC.

As part of this agreement, a temporary u-turning facility will be provided just to east of the point of the western site access (i.e. the primary street in the current application) which would allow for cars, buses and HGVs associated with Newbridge Nurseries to proceed westbound back to the western roundabout. This u-turning area will be sufficient to allow an area for vehicles to turn and for buses to lay-over, supported by a temporary flag-stop.

A similar u-turning arrangement would be delivered as part of subsequent phases of construction for the East-West link. The bus lay-over would occur on a bus stop that is being provided on its northern side (outside the existing priority area), to the west of the eastern development site access and Pegasus crossing.

ii) landscaping and tree barriers – this would be subject to condition;

iii) Play areas and play equipment – this is outside the red priority area and details will be brought forward later as part of the design of the Mill Lane open space – the legal agreement requires details of this are to be included within the overarching open space specification for the site.

iv) Road signs/ highway surface treatment/street lighting – the content of the road signs and the highway surface treatment is a matter to be determined by WSCC as part of the technical approval process although the applicant has advised that the surface would not be a low noise surface. Street lighting would be subject to condition to agree the design and colour of the column(s).

(Points iv above have been raised by Broadbridge Heath Parish Council Meetings have taken place with the Parish and this liaison will continue as the project progresses).

v) Traffic impacts as raised by Warnham Parish Council and Slinfold Parish Council and neighbouring residents. It is important to note that the traffic impacts of the development and the capacity of the proposed western roundabout and the impact on the wider rural road network was addressed in detail at outline stage (refer to para 2.7 above). The details of traffic calming have yet to be agreed but a contribution within the s106 attached to the outline provides for this.

vi) Impacts on rights of way and use by equestrians and pedestrians. The comments by the Countryside Access Forum for West Sussex and the British Horse Society acknowledge the improvements which have been secured in connection with the outline application particularly to the Mill Lane bridleway

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 28 (BW 1630) and the provision of pedestrian crossing on the new east west link road and provide comments on the design and surface treatment of this route. Existing rights of way are outside the red priority zone for consideration and the details of the Pegasus crossing and Mill Lane corridor will be subject to further condition and the comments raised will be taken into account in the design process.

vii) Noise and disturbance associated with the development – measures to mitigate the impact of the construction process are addressed in the site wide Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Phase 1 Infrastructure. This includes such matters as details of hours of working (i.e. 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday; 08:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and No Construction to take place outside these hours - any change in hours would be subject to prior approval in writing in advance); details of the on site management (including a Site Manager to be the point of contact for residents); details of construction traffic routing (this is shown in the CEMP as being from the existing A264 in the early phases). The potential for construction routing along the east west link road will be explored in the later phases to avoid construction traffic impacting upon the amenity of occupiers of the new development whilst continuing to recognise the need to protect existing residents); details to control the dust and also the site wide waste management scheme.

ix) Impact upon the countryside and landscape – the outline application was subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment which included an arboricultural assessment identifying trees and hedgerows for removal. The outline application requires the submission of a Landscape strategy (Condition 20 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101) and Landscape and open space master plan (Condition 21 pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101) and secures a contribution towards future maintenance to ensure that the development delivers the high quality landscape required by the Land West of Horsham Masterplan and the Design and Character Areas SPD.

e) Environmental impact and conformity with Environmental Statement submitted in connection with the outline application.

6.15 The Councils Senor Environmental Officer has raised no objections in principle to the Statement of Conformity submitted in connection with the application but notes that the limited landscaping opportunities on some of the east west link road is considered to have a moderate negative rather than minor negative impact on habitat severance and therefore would wish to see proposals for other mitigation or compensatory measures to limit the impact of this change in parameters. The applicant has provided an additional statement to address the concerns regarding habitat severance which sets out measures for further ecological enhancements to off set the impact which include:

- two rather than one mammal culverts crossing the east west link road as well as an additional amphibian culvert crossing Old Wickhurst Lane;

- the retention and enhancement of ditches and hedges through additional native species and planting to improve the understorey;

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 29

- the provision of additional bat roosting habitat;

- enhancement of retained commuting/foraging features through native species planting;

- the provision of a second dedicated bat building to the south of the east west link road;

- construction of a bat roof void above an electrical sub station to the north of the east west link road.

6.16 The response from the Councils Senior Environmental Officer to these measures will be reported to Committee as late material. In the meantime the applicant has provided a summary of ecological work undertaken to date i.e. the creation of great crested newt ponds; the construction of hibernacular within the reptile receptor site (at base of High Wood Hill); the capture and exclusion of reptiles; installation of bat boxes; vegetation clearance; ground investigation works to manage risk to amphibians and the temporary closure of two badger setts.

RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended to planning permission be GRANTED subject the following conditions:

a) Conditions relating to red hatched priority area (Plan 2876/GA/406E)

1) Within a period of 2 months of the date the decision the landscaping details relating to the following planting zones shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

- the western roundabout junction planting (including the roundabout); - east west link road planting (north and south of the carriage way); - primary street junction planting and primary street planting (to be incorporated into the design detail of the primary street). - details of central reservation planting (subject to outcome of the Stage 2 safety audit).

The details shall include the following information :

- Location of exiting trees, hedges, shrubs and other vegetation; - The layout, types, structure and character of proposed planting, together with and indicative schedule of planting species and a planting specification; - The layout and type of all hard landscaping features including paving, walls, fences and street furniture; - Details of earthworks proposed including information on levels and contours to be formed and representative cross sections.

The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 30 Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing 2876/TS/101B the design detail including hard and soft landscaping of the Primary Street from the junction on the east west link road to the access to the first phase residential parcel (subject to application DC/11/2074) and shown within the red priority area on drawing 2876/GA/406E shall be submitted to the local Planning Authority within 2 months of the date of this decision and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing 2876/TS/101B within a period of 3 months from the date of this decision the detailed layout and design of the access to Newbridge Nurseries shall be submitted the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

4. Within 2 months of this decision details of street lighting to include design; colour; specification (including lux levels) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

5. Notwithstanding the details as shown on drawing number 2876/RP/301K the details of the finishes for the area within the red priority zone as shown on drawing 2876/GA/406E shall be submitted to the local planning authority within 2 months of the decision and the finishes shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

6. Within a period of 2 months from the date of this decision and overarching plan which shows the adoption and management responsibilities of the land within the red priority are shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

b) Conditions relating to area outside red hatched priority area (Plan 2876/GA/406E) and within the curtilage of the Phase 1 infrastructure area.

6) The submission of details relating to the delivery of the infrastructure outside the red priority area shall include the information and/or demonstrate compliance

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 31 with the following conditions attached to the outline planning permission DC/09/2101:

Condition 3 - Compliance with parameter plans to fix development principles Condition 5 - landscaping details Condition 6 – dual carriageway access and junctions Condition 7 - surface Water drainage scheme Condition 16 – culverts Condition 17 – ecological mitigation Condition 18 – habitat enhancements Condition 19 – nesting opportunities Condition 20 - landscape strategy Condition 21 – Landscape and Open Space Masterplan Condition 22 - Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan Condition 24 - green infrastructure analysis Condition 25 – tree and hedge protection Condition 27 – Archaeology Condition 33 – Rights of way specification Condition 35 - School safety zone Condition 36/37 - Public Transport and Green Travel Plan Condition 41 - Underground services

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in details and to ensure compliance with the Land West of Horsham Masterplan and Design and Character Area Supplementary Planning Document.

INFORMATIVES

i) The applicant is advised to contact the local planning authority to agree, prior to submission, the information required in connection with the delivery of infrastructure outside the red priority area pursuant to Condition 2 above.

ii) The applicant is advised to contact Public Health and Licensing at an early stage to agree the scope of the noise assessment (BS 4142 assessment) which will be required in connection with the details of foul water pump located outside the red priority area.

iii) The applicant is reminded of the content of the s106 agreement attached to application DC/09/2101 with respect, in particular, to the Open Space Specification (which will include the landscape and play equipment on the Mill Lane Open Space) and the Attenuation Basin specification which will be required to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

8. REASONS

The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

The proposed works to form the access would not affect the character and amenity of the area or the convenience and safety of other highway users.

Hilary Coplestone APPENDIX A/ 12 - 32 The proposal includes satisfactory provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and would not impinge upon the safety and convenience of other highway users.

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

Background Papers: DC/09/2101 Contact Officer: Hilary Coplestone

Hilary Coplestone