District Council

Planning Committee

Wednesday 22 July 2015

Report of the Head of Planning Services

Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters

This report updates Planning Committee members on current appeals and other matters. It would be of assistance if specific questions on individual cases could be directed to officers in advance of the meeting.

Note for public viewing via Council web site To read each file in detail, including the full appeal decision when it is issued, click on the reference number (NB certain enforcement cases are not open for public inspection, but you will be able to see the key papers via the automatic link to the Planning Inspectorate).

WR – Written Representation Appeal H – Hearing I – Inquiry ( ) – Case Officer initials * – Committee level decision

1. NEW APPEALS

Reference/Procedure Proposal

SDNP/14/06372/HOUS 65 Vann Road, , West , GU27 3NP - Two FH storey side extension. WR (C Cranmer)

SDNP/14/05025/LIS High Hampstead,Lurgashall, , GU28 9EX - LG Retention of roof insulation in main barn inserted between WR(C Cranmer) rafters with plasterboard below so as to obscure rafters, contrary to condition 12 on planning permission LG/07/02213/FUL and condition 6 of listed building consent LG/07/02214/LBC. SI/14/04058/COU Field South Of Green Lane Piggeries, Ham Road, H (W Sowman) , - Change of use of land as private Hearing to be held 15 gypsy and traveller caravan site. September 2015 at 10am, Assembly Rooms

SY/15/00320/FUL Student Accommodation, Home Farm, Chichester Road, Hearing (R Jones) , Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 9DX - Variation of condition 3 of permission SY/14/01758/FUL. Change need to retain these buildings in agricultural occupancy. 2. DECISIONS RECEIVED

Reference/Decision CH/13/03978/FUL Land On The East Side Of, Cot Lane, Chidham, West Sussex WR (S Harris) - Residential development comprising 25 no. dwellings, DISMISSED change of use of land to form area of off-site public open space and associated work.

"... The Inspector's Report relating to the examination of the Chichester Local Plan (CLP) has been issued and the Council has indicated that it expects to adopt the CLP in July of this year. The Report concludes that the CLP is sound, subject to a number of modifications. Amongst other things, the Council points out that the examining Inspector considered that a 5 years supply of housing land can be demonstrated. ... I shall take account of these matters in determining this appeal. I shall afford appropriate weight to the policies in the CLP accorded by its advancement towards adoption. ... At the time of consideration of the planning application, the Council accepted that it could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and so its policies for the supply referred to above, the examining Inspector for the CLP has concluded very recently that the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and so these policies can be afforded the appropriate weight. The proposal is clearly contrary to these policies. which seek to aim new development to appropriate areas and to preserve the countryside. In addition, the site is within the Chihcester-Emsworth Strategic Gap and CDLP Policy RE6 applies. The Council rightly point out that there is no specific Strategic Gap policy brought forward in the emerging CLP, however consideration of the coalescence of settlements is embodied in some of its policies. In relation to the aims of the CDLP, I consider that the proposed transformation of this site from its green and semi-natural state to one of a housing development would unacceptably add built form to the Gap and would be directly at odds with the aims of Policy RE6, which includes the aim to conserve and improve the landscape. ...Whilst I accept that the existing site is not 'natural' and is clearly the result of man's intervention into the landscape, it appears unmanaged and semi-natural and contains an abundance of plants and trees. In this way, I consider that the site in its current state makes some positive contributions to the qualities of the AONB, even if that contribution is only felt at a local level. Its replacement with a small sub-urban style housing estate would not be consistent with the overall aims in the AONB of conserving landscape and scenic beauty. ... The proposed gardens of the properties vary in size and depth but those in the north and eastern side of the site appeal small and would add to the impression of domination by built form rather than natural features. Pl.ots 19 and 20 would have particularly short rear gardens at around 7m, not only would these provide a very restricted space for future residents, I consider that, in the context of the site, the proposal would appeal overbearing from the property to the north, 'The Bungalow'. ...The appeal scheme would provide a mix of market and affordable housing of varying sizes. ... Clearly not all housing schemes can achieve the precise mix of dwellings that the SHMA indicates and the Council ask for. ... I find that in a location such as this (setting aside my comments in other issues) a development that has more larger properties would be more reflective of the character of the area and a greater number of smaller properties, which could include flats, may be considered less acceptable in character terms. Therefore, I am satisfied that the mix of market dwellings would not be unacceptable and any inconsistency with needs within the District as a whole would not be sufficient to dismiss the appeal by itself. ... " SDNP/14/03530/HOUS Baldwins, Ropes Lane, Fernhurst, Haslemere, West Sussex WR (C Cranmer) GU27 3JD – Erection of detached outbuilding. Furnhurst DISMISSED "... The South Downs Partnership Management Plan sets out at General Policy 1 the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting... Policies 3 and 50 seek the protection of tranquillity and dark night skies, and historic buildings respectively... Policy BE11 requires new development not to detract from the surroundings...building no longer exists and the justification that allowed that grant in 2001 carries no weight now... the building would appear intrusive in the rural landscape and divorced from the built form of the dwelling and its outbuilding...isolation would be accentuated by the degree of separating hedging and other planting between the building and the dwelling, in addition to distance... as well as the isolated location near farmland all give the impression of this being an intrusion of built form and domestic activity into the natural beauty of the countryside... a barn-like structure at that distance would not not affect the architectural or historic interest nor undermine the reasons for listing... but even if within the planning unit of the dwelling, the harm identified is too great to permit the development on application for express permission..."

FB/14/01967/FUL Land North Of Rothley Cottage 2, Blackboy Lane, Fishbourne WR (F Stevens) West Sussex. ALLOWED “…The Council has acknowledged that it cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. As such, policies which are relevant to the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date. As the application is for two new dwellings it must therefore be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development… I consider that subject to the scheme fulfilling the Framework's definition of sustainable development I should attach significant weight to the small but clearly important contribution that the appeal site would make to meeting housing targets…I consider that the site's residential development would be a logical rounding off of the development cluster at the Portsmouth Road / Blackboy Lane / Old Park Lane junction. Furthermore, despite the hedgerows being a positive landscape feature, the site does have a somewhat derelict appearance that constrains its contribution to the landscape quality and rural character of the surroundings…I acknowledge that the development would extend the built form further north than that on the opposite side of the Lane. However as I observed on my visit, the two sides of the Lane are quite different in terms of both the landscape and land use…The appeal site on the east side of the Lane is on the edge, but nonetheless part of, one of the major components of Fishbourne…Unlike the land to the east of the Lane, the land use is much more varied and trees preclude long distance views…I am in no doubt of the importance of maintaining the openness of the Fishbourne Centre and its playing fields to form landscape and ecological links with the extensive area of open countryside to the west. Indeed I note that the proposed boundary of the Settlement Policy Area in the Submission Draft of the Fishbourne Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029 fulfils this objective by including the 'undeveloped' land south of the railway as designated countryside. However I do not consider that the appeal site itself needs to be kept open and free from development, as it would form a minor consolidation of the above-mentioned development cluster within the open countryside. Nor, because of a combination of its development history, current condition and siting would development form any sort of a precedent…Taking all the above considerations together I conclude that the principle of the site's development is acceptable…Overall. I conclude that the proposal would be a sustainable development and accord with Government policy in the Framework. I shall therefore allow the appeal…The Council has suggested a number of conditions and for the most part I consider these to be reasonable and necessary…”

LX/14/01214/FUL Brewhurst Mill House, Brewhurst Lane, , LX/14/01215/LBC Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0RJ - Part conversion of WR (M Tomlinson) Brewhurst Mill to dwelling. DISMISSED

“…The building is listed Grade II special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses…The Council confirms that there is no objection to the principle of residential use of the building. There is no likelihood of the listed building returning to a viable commercial use for which it was designed, and residential use should be capable of being carried on with limited effect on the significance of the building…That building's architectural and historic significance resides to a considerable extent in the degree to which the building has been left unaltered after its last use…Any conversion to residential use would have an effect on the building and its internal layout, the two uses of a working mill and a home having different requirements in terms of lighting, division of spaces and access between the floors, and also with regard to fire precautions and the sub-division of such a large single volume over four floors…Loss of machinery ground floor. On balance the losses are limited and what remains would be safeguarded and contained within a readily understandable context…Loss of machinery first floor The proposal here concerns more of the plan area and the removal of more significant parts of the machinery. This again is an item of significance and its loss would be detrimental…Loss of machinery second floor is quite extensive…Staircases The Council state that the pattern and layout of the existing staircases offers an important understanding of the building's industrial heritage and how it would have functioned. Whilst that present stair is part of the history of the building, its loss, with recording, would not strike at heart of the significance of the mill, and it is not an uncommon feature in any event…Window Openings north-west elevation. Having accepted residential use and the inevitability of some change to the lighting arrangements, windows on this elevation would be acceptable even though none exist at present. The result is a restrained arrangement of windows and rooflight…Notwithstanding the extraordinary preservation of the workings of the building, almost as if the miller had left only recently, residential use represents an acceptable future for the building, permitting much of the significance to be safeguarded…The conversion now proposed would cause harm to the architectural and historic interest of the building contrary to Policies BE4 and BE5, and the aims of section 12 of the Framework…The harm identified above amounts to 'less than substantial'. In this case the latter applies and this states that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal…Whilst aspects of the Council's concerns could be addressed by conditions, the amount of removals and new windows required to implement the proposed residential conversion would undermine the historic and architectural interest and significance of the building to an unacceptable degree. For the reasons given above it is concluded that both appeals should be dismissed…”

SDNP/14/04890/HOUS Wheelwrights House, Hill Grove, Lurgashall, Petworth, GU28 & SDNP/14/04891/LIS 9EW - Demolition of existing two storey addition and WR ( C Cranmer) conservatory; erection of two storey extension and Lurgashall conservatory at rear. DISMISSED

“.. In essence the proposal seeks to completely remodel the rear elevation of the house and turn it into a much grander building. Unfortunately, in doing so, it would fail to respect the historic progression and vernacular architectural character of the original building, including covering up at ground level the important historic offset in the wall next to the existing conservatory. For the above reasons I conclude that the proposed extension and conservatory would fail to preserve the special interest of this Grade II listed building. In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the proposal would cause less than substantial harm. But this does not mean that there is a less than substantial planning objection to it, as stated by the judge in the Barnwell court case1. NPPF paragraph 134 requires such harm to be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal, including securing the optimum viable use of the designated heritage asset. In this case the benefits of the proposal would be to improve the residential accommodation for the appellant and his family. But this would only constitute a private benefit because refusing to allow the proposed extension would not prevent the long term use of the building as a viable dwelling, a use which has been ongoing for very many years. There are open fields to the north and east of the property, the nearest one also owned by the appellant, but there are no public footpaths or bridleways from which this side or rear of the house would be seen. However, the house is in a relatively prominent position on a right angle bend of the public highway at a road junction and the rear elevation of the house is clearly visible from this public viewpoint. Although the new conservatory would be largely hidden by the high hedge around the property, the new extension and its detrimental impact on the listed building would be readily apparent from the road. I conclude it would consequently have a harmful effect on the character of the hamlet and this part of the National Park…”

SDNP/13/04972/FUL Hillgrove Stud Farm, Road, , West Northchapel Sussex, GU28 9EQ - Retention of agricultural workers mobile H (J Saunders) home for temporary period of 3 years. ALLOWED "... residential use and activity associated with the mobile home is apparent, such as the presence of potted plants. Further landscaping would have some mitigating effect; however it would not overcome the harmful consequences to the character and appearance of the area... I conclude that the mobile home does cause harm to the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park... I acknowledge there are some limitations to the financial information provided by the appellant. However, it is clear that the appellant has been investing in the farm enterprise and has made a financial commitment needed to run the business in the longer term. Overall, I consider there is nothing to indicate that the enterprise is not being managed and planned on a sound financial basis... I consider that alternative accommodation, even if it was affordable for the appellant and if it could be found in Petworth or Haslemere, would not be suitable for the appellant in terms of needing to be on-site without delay and would make it difficult for him to run the business to current standards... For the above reasons, the need for an on-site residential presence is proved in the case of the calf rearing activity of the business. I consider that the recorded good health and welfare of the calves alone is extremely significant and essential to the success of this particular part of the business. This is especially significant as it is supported by the appellant's own veterinary surgeons... The exceptionally low mortality rate of the calves, the considerable commitment of the appellant to the health and welfare of the calves both in the interests of the business and the animals themselves are significant factors which weigh very heavily in favour of the appeal proposal. On the basis of the evidence before me and the special circumstances of the case, I consider that an essential need as required by paragraph 55 of the Framework, for the retention of an agricultural workers mobile home for a temporary period of three years is justified. I therefore conclude that the essential need for the mobile home outweighs the harm caused to the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park... For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that subject to the conditions set out above, the appeal should be allowed.

The application for an award of costs is refused..."

SI/14/00012/CONMHC Willowdene, Fletchers Lane, Sidlesham, Chichester, West WR (R Hawks) Sussex, PO20 7QG – Mobile home. DISMISSED, ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD

"...The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld without variation... the purpose of the notice is to remedy the breach of planning control and the Council are satisfied the caravan was put in place to facilitate the unauthorised use, it is reasonable for the Council to require its complete removal from the site... The ground (f) appeal therefore fails... I take the view that 6 months should be ample time for this to be arranged and the appellant has not explained why she considers 12 months will be needed... Therefore I see no good reason to justify extending the compliance period further..."

SI/14/04214/DOM Bird Pond Cottage, Selsey Road, Sidlesham, Chichester WR (M Tomlinson) West Sussex, PO20 7NF- Erection of outbuilding comprising DISMISSED double garage and workshop with games over.

"... I recognise the appellant's point that as a result of the combination of its set back position, the mature boundary screening, and trees on the highway verge, the proposed outbuilding would not be easily seen from the public domain. There would however be some direct views of the building from outside the gate to the shared driveway and a likelihood of glimpses of its upper parts, including the roof, through the frontage trees and above the front hedge. The building's prominence would increase during the winter when the deciduous vegetation is not in leaf. Whilst the building would still not be particularly noticeable under these circumstances, it is nonetheless a large permanent structure with a design significantly different to the house, with the latter either in its present form or with the extension permitted but not yet built. In contrast the existing mature screening is not necessarily permanent. The trees and /or hedges could become diseased and die or be removed by future occupiers of Bird Pond Cottage, the latter especially as the front garden has a relatively narrow depth and the height and extent of the planting has the effect of limiting the outlook from the house and its immediate surroundings. In this event I consider that a building of the size proposed, but in particular its height and dominant roof would appear incongruous and visually intrusive both in itself and when read with the host dwelling. This incongruity would be given additional emphasis by the domestic appearance of the proposed building, especially the fenestration in the flank north and south elevations and in the roof of the front elevation. The fact that a development would not be prominent in public views does not in my view justify an inappropriate design. In making this assessment I also consider that the dwelling and its garden currently relates well to its rural context.

The application for an award of costs is refused..." SB/14/03134/OUT Land North Of Four Acre Nursery, Cooks Lane, Southbourne I (J Bell) Hampshire - Outline application (access only). Provision of 150 dwellings comprising 14 no. 1 bed apartments, 38 no. 2 WITHDRAWN bed houses, 75 no. 3 bed houses, 13 no. 4 bed houses and 10 no. 5 bed houses, together with associated access, roads, garages and parking spaces, open amenity space and play areas. Provision of 2 no. sports facilities and changing facilities.

SB/14/03611/DOM 1 Kings Court, Emsworth, Hampshire, PO10 8FD - Open WR (M Tomlinson) glassroom and open glazed canopy. ALLOWED

"... Taken cumulatively with the existing rear conservatory and side extension to the appeal property, the proposal would be large in footprint relative to the main house, but its perceived mass and bulk would be minimised by the lightweight framing, the extent of glazing and the central open section. The Council's officer report confirms that the garden was extended with the benefit of planning permission. and this now forms the setting for the building. In this context, I do not find that the site would appear overdeveloped, as ample rear garden area would be retained. Although I note the presence of a public footpath in the vicinity, much of the ground floor of the rear of the building is already screened from wider public view by the rear boundary planting. The proposal would incorporate extensive glazing, but this would not appear visually harmful or incongruous on the building or in the wider setting. It is evident that glazed conservatories, greenhouses, rooflights and solar panels are established features of the rear garden environment of dwellings in the area, and as such the proposal would not appeal unduly intrusive or inconsistent. Whilst I acknowledge concerns that the use of glazing would result in light spillage, I consider this could be addressed through conditions relating to the submission of material samples and lighting details, as suggested in the Council's officer report. I therefore conclude that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the appeal property, and would conserve the natural beauty of the AONB. The proposal would comply with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and LP Policies RE4, BE11 and BE13, which seeks to resist proposals that would damage the character of the built environment through matters including increased mass and scale and the significant reduction of garden areas. ..." 3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS

Reference/Status Proposal

BI/14/23356/PLD Martins Lea, Martins Lane, , Chichester, PO20 7AU WR (F Stevens) - Construction of driveway to Lock Lane, in connection with In progress additional hard surfacing.

BO/14/03124/OUT Ruddles, Sunnyway, , Chichester, PO18 8HQ - WR (P Kneen) Construction of chalet bungalow in part of garden. In progress

BO/14/03168/COUPJ The Mill Ham Farm, Main Road, Bosham, Chichester WR (C Boddy) West Sussex, PO18 8EH - Part 3, Class J: Change of use from B1(a) office to C3 residential.

*CC/14/02201/FUL Garage Compound South Of 39 To 45, Cleveland Road, WR (P Kneen) Chichester, West Sussex - Proposed residential In progress development to form 3 no. 3 bedroom detached houses with associated gardens and garages.

CC/14/02551/FUL Land Adjacent To 1 Kings Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex WR (C Boddy) PO19 8EA - Proposed 2 bedroom detached house. In progress

*CC/14/02308/FUL 36 Stirling Road, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 7DT - WR (M Tomlinson) Replacement of redundant old garage with a single dwelling In progress of chalet design.

CC/14/03359/PDE 18 Juxon Close, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 7AA - WR (H Chowdhury) Single storey rear extension (a) rear extension - 4.0m (b) Awaiting decision maximum height - 3.7m (c) height at eaves - 2.3m.

CC/14/03646/TPA 7 Donegall Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6DE - WR (H Whitby) Fell 1 no. Lime tree (tag T642) within Group, G1 subject to In progress CC/06/00025/TPO.

CH/14/00181/CONMHC Field West Of Five Oaks, Newells Lane, West Ashling I (S Archer) West Sussex - Stationing of mobile home. Public Inquiry to be held 10 December 2015 at 10am, Bourne Leisure Centre

CH/14/01342/FUL Buildings B C And D Lion Park, Broad Road, Hambrook I (N Langford) Chidham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8RG - In progress Development of 25 no. dwellings (4 no. 1 bed and 21 no. 2 Public Inquiry to be held bed) with associated parking and amenity space, in place of 6-9 October 2015 at commercial blocks B, C and D approved under 10am, CDC, Committee 09/04314/OUT and 11/01764/REM (resubmission of Room 2 13/00984/FUL). CH/14/02138/OUT Land East Of Broad Road, Hambrook, West Sussex - I (J Bell) Residential development of 120 single and two storey In progress dwellings comprising 48 affordable homes and 72 market Public Inquiry to be held price homes, garaging and parking together with retail unit, 22,24,25 September sports pavilion, community facility, new vehicular and 2015 at 10amat WSCC pedestrian access to Broad Road, emergency and and 23 September 2015 pedestrian access to Scant Road West, sports facilities, 2 at Chichester Park Hotel. tennis courts, football pitch and 4 cricket nets, children’s play area, public open space and natural green space on a site of 9.31 ha. * EWB/14/01806/OUT Land East Of Barton Way, Clappers Lane, I (J Bushell) West Sussex - The erection of 110 residential dwellings, In progress new vehicular access, open space, and other ancillary Public Inquiry to be held works. 8,9 December 2015 at 10am, Bracklesham Barn

* LX/13/03809/OUT Land south of Loxwood Farm Place, High Street, Loxwood – I (N Langford) erection of 25no residential dwellings comprising of 14no Public Inquiry to be held private residential dwellings and 11no affordable residential 8-11 Sept, CDC Com Rm dwellings, associated private amenity space and parking. 2 at 10 am

SDNP/14/02271/HOUS The Old Cottage, , , GU29 0JB – Midhurst Conservatory WR (M Mew) Linked to SDNP/14/02272/LIS In progress

SDNP/14/02272/LIS The Old Cottage, Bepton, Midhurst, GU29 0JB - Midhurst Conservatory WR (M Mew) Linked to SDNP/14/02271/HOUS In progress

SDNP/14/03765/FUL Fairleads, Wheatsheaf Enclosure, Liphook, Hampshire WR (M Mew) GU30 7EJ - Replacement dwelling substituting existing 4 bed house to create a 5 bed home. In progress

SDNP/14/00373/OPDEV Stillands, Shillinglee Road, Shillinglee, Northchapel WR (R Hawks) Godalming, West Sussex, GU8 4SX - Creation of a bank. Petworth Appeal against Enforcement Notice. In progress

SDNP/14/04194/HOUS Tollgate Cottage, Durleigh Marsh, Petersfield, Hampshire GU31 5AX - Single storey rear extension and various works. WR (M Mew) Linked to SDNP/14/04195/LIS In progress

SDNP/14/04195/LIS Tollgate Cottage, Durleigh Marsh, Petersfield, Hampshire Rogate GU31 5AX - Single storey rear extension and various works. WR (M Mew) Linked to SDNP/14/04194/HOUS In progress SI/14/04249/ELD Magnolia Cottage, Cloverlands, Chalder Lane, Sidlesham, WR (P Kneen) Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 7RJ- To continue use of In progress building as a single dwelling.

SB/14/02843/OUT Land East Of, Breach Avenue, Southbourne, Hampshire - H (J Bell) Development of up to 34 dwellings, access, retention of Hearing to be held 6 orchard, public open space and other associated works on October 2015 10am – land at Breach Avenue. venue to be confirm

*WE/14/00911/FUL Land On The North Side Of Long Copse Lane, Westbourne I ( J Bushell) West Sussex - Erection of 16 no. dwellings, vehicular and In progress pedestrian access, car and cycle parking and landscaping Public Inquiry to be held 27-29 October 2015 at 10am – CDC Committee Room 1

WE/14/01217/FUL Land West Of Harwood, Cemetery Lane, Woodmancote H (P Kneen) Westbourne, West Sussex - Provision of 5 Gypsy and Hearing to be held 20 Traveller pitches incorporating the re-design of an existing August 2015 at 10am, pitch (including the removal of stables granted in permission CDC Committee Room 2 WE/13/03867/FUL) and the use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for an additional 4 no. gypsy pitches, together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/ dayrooms ancillary to that use.

WH/14/03736/LBC 6 Old Place Lane, , Chichester, PO18 0NL - WR (S Locke) Proposed 4 no. Conservation rooflights along with minor In progress alterations.

WW/13/00232/CONCOM Bramber Plant Centre, Chichester Road, – WR (S Archer) Portacabins being used as office – appeal against In progress Enforcement Notice.

WW/14/03344/FUL 34 And 34A Marine Drive, West Wittering, Chichester WR (P Kneen) West Sussex, PO20 8HQ - Demolition of existing residential In progress property (two flats) and erection of 2no. 4 bedroom dwellings.

WR/14/02859/FUL Roosters Store, Durbans Road, , WR (M Tomlinson) Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0DG - Removal of In progress condition 4 of planning permission WR/99/00567/FUL. 4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS

Land at Block 116 RAF , City Fields Way, Tangmere

Planning permission was granted in 2012 for the change of use of the above building, known locally as ‘The H-Block’, to form 11 self-contained flats (TG/11/04058/FUL refers). That planning permission was accompanied by a Section 106 legal agreement which, amongst other things, required 4 of the flats to be provided as affordable housing alongside the provision of an £18,000 commuted sum to reflect the residual fraction of a unit required under the affordable housing calculation methodology.

Following the grant of permission the Council received a request to vary the agreement such that the affordable housing requirements would be met solely by means of the provision of a commuted sum. The Council’s Housing Manager raised no objection to the proposal as in her view there would be difficulty in finding a Registered Provider willing to take on the units given (i) the small number of units involved; and (ii) the fact that the units would be located within a mixed tenure block served by a number of communal areas and (iii) that the listed status of the building would lead to difficulties in terms of the units meeting RP’s accommodation standards. Accordingly, a deed of variation reflecting an increase in the commuted sum to £204,800 has been completed. There has also been a minor uplift to the contributions required by WSCC due to both the change in tenure of the units and inflationary rises since the original agreement was completed.

Members are asked to note the completion of the deed.

5. CALLED IN APPLICATIONS

Reference Proposal Stage

NONE

6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS

Injunctions

Site Breach Stage

Land at Premier Stable and other 11 June 2015: At a Court hearing - Site Birdham preparatory works in the undertakings (supported by Road AONB without planning imprisonment) given by defendants not permission. to carry out any further development during planning application process. Next hearing date to be in February 2016. Following further concerns being identified, contempt proceedings are being considered Land at Scant Preperation to convert use Investigations ongoing and injunction Road East to residential without being prepared if other methods of planning permission. enforcement prove not to prevent the planning harm identified. Prosecutions

Site Breach Stage

Nell Ball Farm, Failure to comply with Prosecution was prepared, but due to Plaistow Planning Enforcement the ill health of the defendant the Notice matter was suspended. A planning application has now been refused and legal instructed to prosecute. Final warning issued. Compliance not achieved by 5 May as required. Prosecution proceedings under way.

Prosecutions

Site Breach Stage

Little Oak Failure to comply with Freeholders on site withdrawn from Nursery Planning Enforcement prosecution by consent order. Notice Leaseholder / trespasser has failed to respond. Plea hearing set for 10th July 2015.

Dean Ale and Failure to comply with Plea hearing set for 10th July 2015. Cider House, Planning Enforcement West Dean Notice

12 Second Failure to comply with Matter adjourned to September 2015 Avenue, s.215 notice. pending compliance works being Emsworth started.

Kellys Farm, Bell Failure to comply with Trial set for 10 July 2015. Lane, Birdham Planning Enforcement Notice

The Barnyard Display of unauthorised Matter adjourned to 28 August 2015 adverts. pending consideration of further planning application.

The court apologised to the Council that the paperwork in the above adjourned matters had not been processed in a timely manner and noted the impact this has upon operation of the Council’s planning function.

High Court

Site Matters Prohibited by the Stage Order Planning injunction

NONE

Magistrates Court

Site Breach Stage 2 White Hart Appeal against s 215 First appeal hearing held. Application Cottages notice by subject of that statements lodged with Council 17 notice. March 2015. Following exchange of evidence case postponed until July as undertaking given to comply.

7. POLICY MATTERS

NONE