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 (South) Committee TUESDAY 15th JANUARY 2013 AT 2.00p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM
Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman) Sheila Matthews Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur Ian Howard Adam Breacher Liz Kitchen Jonathan Chowen Gordon Lindsay Philip Circus Chris Mason George Cockman Brian O’Connell David Coldwell Roger Paterson Ray Dawe Sue Rogers Brian Donnelly Kate Rowbottom Andrew Dunlop Jim Sanson Jim Goddard
Tom Crowley Chief Executive
AGENDA
1. Apologies for absence
2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18th December 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
5. To consider the following reports and to take such action thereon as may be necessary
Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A
Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation
Item Ward Reference Site No. Number
A1 Chanctonbury DC/12/1891 Land East of Tesla Engineering Company Ltd Water Lane Storrington
A2 Chanctonbury DC/12/1590 Pulborough Farm Storrington Road Thakeham
A3 Billingshurst and DC/12/2024 St Andrews Farm Coolham Road Shipley Brooks Green
A4 Chanctonbury DC/12/1629 Steeton Rock Road Storrington
A5 Cowfold, DC/12/2221 Beehive Bentons Lane Dial Post Horsham Shermanbury and West Grinstead
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
DCS121218
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 18th DECEMBER 2012
Present: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Sheila Matthews (Vice- Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Jim Goddard, Ian Howard, Gordon Lindsay, Chris Mason, Brian O’Connell, Roger Paterson, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson
Apologies: Councillors: George Cockman, Andrew Dunlop, Liz Kitchen
DCS/85 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20th November 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DCS/86 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS
Member Item Nature of Interest
Councillor Chris DC/12/0687 Personal – he is a member of the Mason same club as the applicant Councillor Jim DC/12/0687 Personal & prejudicial – he lives in Sanson Monastery Lane and is also a member of the same club as the applicant
DCS/87 ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
DCS/88 APPEALS
Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service
Ref No Site Appellant(s)
DC/11/2631 Spring Acres, West End Lane, Mr T Tingey Henfield DC/12/0136 The Annexe, Church View, The Mrs Lavinia Bunyan Street, Thakeham DC/12/1225 21 West Street, Storrington Mr Irfan Yildiram
DC/12/0342 24 Oakfield Road, Cowfold Mr Joe Dorman
DC/12/0930 Land Rear of Waterside House, 17 Mr Brent Dowson Lower Street, Pulborough DC/12/1418 Henfield House, Croft Lane, Henfield Mr and Mrs M Lewis
Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/88 Appeals (cont.) Appeals Lodged - Written Representations/Household Appeals Service (cont.)
DC/12/0317 Yaffles, Rock Road, Storrington Mr John Matuszewski
DC/12 0908 Walden Hall, Cowfold Road, West Mr David Bostock Grinstead
Appeal Decisions
Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision
DC/12/1227 Oaklea, Harborough Gorse, Mr Clive Phelan Dismissed West Chiltington DC/10/1457 RMC Engineering Services Cemex Allowed Ltd Workshops, Storrington Road, Washington
DCS/89 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/2334 – THE PART DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING FOOD STORE AND SOME ADJACENT SHOP UNITS IN OLD MILL SQUARE INCLUDING SOME SHOP UNITS, OFFICE SPACE, A RESTAURANT AND A GARAGE; AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENDED FOOD STORE INCLUDING STORAGE, PLANT AND SERVICE AREAS, TOGETHER WITH ANCILLARY FACILITIES INCLUDING A 2 LEVEL CAR PARK SITE: OLD MILL SQUARE, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR MARK DAWKINS ON BEHALF OF WAITROSE & KIAFIELD PROPERTIES
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the extension of the existing food store with an increase of floor area from 1,410 square metres to 3,221 square metres to accommodate a foodstore, storage, plant and service areas. The proposal included an additional car parking level to provide a total of 217 parking spaces and the provision of customer toilets within the store, which would be made available to the general public.
During consideration of the application there had been a number of amendments, most significantly that Old Mill Drive would not be closed to traffic. A new mini- roundabout at the North Street junction and upgrading of the pedestrian crossing in the High Street were also proposed.
The site was located within the centre of Storrington to the north of the High Street.
The application site was a brownfield site within the defined built-up area of Storrington, which was identified in the Local Development Framework Core Strategy document as a village considered capable of accommodating some expansion, in-filling and re-development.
2 Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/89 Planning Application: DC/11/2334 (cont.)
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP13, CP15 and CP17; Local Development Framework General Development Control DC8, DC9, DC12, DC34 and DC40; and the Storrington Old Mill Drive Diamond Planning Brief SPD 2008 were relevant to the determination of this application.
There was no planning history relevant to this application.
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, including their initial comments and final comments in respect of the amended plans, were considered by the Committee. In particular, the comments of the Head of Public Health & Licensing regarding air quality and those of the County Surveyor in respect of traffic generation were noted.
Additional comments submitted by the applicant were also reported. In particular, they had raised concerns regarding a number of the proposed conditions and it was suggested that, if the application was considered by Members to be acceptable, these could be addressed during the delegation period.
Storrington & Sullington Parish Council raised no objection to the application but had expressed a number of concerns relating to design and detail. Thakeham Parish Council had commented on the application and West Chiltington Parish Council objected to the proposal. 266 letters of objection, 61 of support and 17 of comment together with a petition of objection containing more than 1400 signatures had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application, one member of the public and the applicant’s representative addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke on the application, expressing support in principle.
Members noted that no objection had been raised to the proposal on policy grounds, highway safety and capacity or environmental grounds. Whilst some concerns had been expressed regarding the visual impact of the extended store and the service yard walls on the character of the small intimate riverside space, Members considered that a more acceptable landscaping scheme could be secured by condition. In this respect, it was noted that the applicants had submitted amended plans replacing the proposed timber boarded fence on top of the service yard wall with railings, which was considered to be more appropriate.
The applicant had agreed to contribute through a planning agreement towards public realm improvements to Old Mill Drive which would further enhance linkages with the shopping accommodation within the High Street and the wider village centre.
It was noted that there had been extensive discussion between officers and the applicant since the submission of the application and the applicant had sought to address most of the concerns that had been raised by local residents.
3 Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/89 Planning Application: DC/11/2334 (cont.)
Members acknowledged that there were strong local feelings both for and against the proposal but considered that the application as amended was acceptable in principle, subject to securing a planning agreement and amendments to the proposed conditions.
RESOLVED
(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure the appropriate financial contributions towards the resurfacing of Old Mill Drive, air quality mitigation measures, off-site highway works and a Low Emission Strategy Agreement.
(ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above and the amendment of the proposed conditions as reported, application DC/11/2334 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCS/90 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0851 – RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO EQUESTRIAN STUD FARM, KEEPING OF HORSES INCLUDING RETENTION OF MOBILE FIELD SHELTERS, DOG BREEDING AND ASSOCIATED MOBILE KENNELLING, STATIONING OF MOBILE CONTAINERS AND RETENTION OF MESS ROOM/MOBILE HOME SITE: SOUTHWAY STUD, HARBOLETS ROAD, WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MRS M EDWARDS
Application withdrawn.
DCS/91 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1857 – CHANGE OF USE FROM BED AND BREAKFAST HOTEL TO PRIVATE RESIDENCE SITE: NASH MANOR, HORSHAM ROAD, STEYNING APPLICANT: MRS M ESLER
Application deleted from the agenda.
4 Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/92 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1990 – ERECTION OF 2 NO. SINGLE- STOREY INDUSTRIAL UNITS FOR B1(BUSINESS), B2 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) AND B8 (STORAGE OR DISTRIBUTION) USE PLUS ASSOCIATED PARKING SITE: HENFIELD BUSINESS PARK, SHOREHAM ROAD, HENFIELD APPLICANT: HHC DEVELOPMENT
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of two new business units within Henfield Business Park and the variation of the existing planning agreement.
The application site was located south of Henfield and to the east of the A2037. It was outside the defined built up area boundary and surrounded by ancient woodland to the south, Horton Golf Club to the east and open fields to the north. The site was an established business park comprising 26 units and five units under construction.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP10, CP11, CP13 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC8, DC9, DC25 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
HF/15/90 Use of land for industrial estate, including Granted relocation of R Vinall Buildings Yard & Milcot Industrial Estate HF/32/98 Erection of B1 & B8 units and associated Granted parking and turning HF/111/98 Erection of building to provide a royal mail Granted local delivery office HF/49/00 Erection of B1 & B8 industrial unit, parking Refused and treatment plant HF/133/00 Erection of B1, B2 & B8 industrial units Granted
HF/37/01 Installation of air inlet and air extract flues Granted to roof to serve spray booth HF/56/01 Erection of Class B1, B2 & B8 industrial Refused unit, parking & turning HF/64/02 Erection of a B1, B2 & B8 class industrial Granted unit DC/06/1115 Single storey extension & open storage Granted
DC/10/2400 Expansion of Henfield Business Park Granted including the erection of an industrial building containing 5 units, a new access, parking and cycle provision
5 Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/92 Planning Application: DC/12/1990 (cont.)
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.
Although the proposal would result in an extension to the existing industrial estate, it was well screened from the surrounding area and was considered to be relatively appropriate to its countryside location.
It was noted that a recent application (DC/10/2400) had been granted for five units as an extension to Henfield Business Park, which was currently being implemented. This application had been granted on the basis that the applicant was able to demonstrate that there was a local need and demand for the proposal. The current applicant had also provided substantial supporting information on the need for the units now proposed.
The previously agreed planning agreement (S106/0795), relating to application HF/32/98, stated that an area of land (the ‘yellow land’) should not be occupied other than by R Vinall (Builders) Limited for a period of eighteen years following commencement of that development. The original area of ‘yellow land’ had subsequently been reduced to facilitate planning application DC/10/2400.
Whilst, if granted, the current application would further reduce the extent of the ‘yellow land’, which was intended to facilitate relocation of the Nep Town facilities, it was suggested that the remaining area would still be sufficient for this purpose.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.
RESOLVED
(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure the appropriate financial contributions.
(ii) That the existing planning agreement (S106/0795 relating to application HF/32/98) be varied by reducing the size of the area of ‘yellow land’ in order to facilitate the development.
(iii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above and the variation in (ii) above, application DC/12/1990 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
6 Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/93 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0687 – RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION SOUGHT FOR ERECTION OF GARDEN SHED AND REINSTATEMENT OF PREVIOUSLY EXISTING BORDER WALL SITE: ST JOSEPHS, MONASTERY LANE, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR A MANTON (Councillor Jim Sanson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as he lived in Monastery Lane and was also a member of the same club as the applicant. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the item.
Councillor Chris Mason declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of the same club as the applicant.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application had been delegated to him for approval, in consultation with two of the local Members, following the receipt of a satisfactory landscaping plan (Minute No. DCS/63 (18/09/12) refers).
The applicant had subsequently submitted a landscaping plan showing two large potted Red Robin (Photinia Fraseri) plants to be positioned on the southerly side of the shed. The two local Members had commented that this planting scheme was not adequate, as the potted plants could be moved and could potentially block access into the building.
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.
The applicant was not willing to dig up the York stone paving to provide a more substantial planting scheme, but had confirmed that he would be willing to raise the height of the westerly front boundary wall in order to obscure the shed from the street. The applicant had also indicated that he would be willing to stain the shed a darker brown colour to lessen its visual impact within the street scene
Having noted the measures that would be taken to mitigate the visual impact of the shed on the street scene, Members considered that the proposal was now acceptable.
RESOLVED
That application DC/12/0687 be granted subject to the following conditions:
01 The shed shall be moved to the repositioned location as shown on the plans hereby approved within three months from the date of this permission.
7 Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/93 Planning Application: DC/12/0687 (cont.)
02 The extension to the westerly front boundary wall as shown on the plans hereby approved shall be completed within three months from the date of permission.
03 No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for the extended wall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.
04 The shed hereby approved shall be stained within three months of the date of this permission in accordance with colour details to be first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The shed shall be maintained thereafter with the approved stain.
05 The two Red Robin (Photinia Fraseri) plants shall be positioned in the location shown on the submitted Planting Plan received on the 25th October 2012 within three months from the date of this permission. These plants shall thereafter be maintained in the position shown on the planting plan in conjunction with the shed at all times.
REASON
The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
DCS/94 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1852 – DEMOLITION OF FIVE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND THE ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT BUILDING SITE: LOWER NASH FARM, NUTBOURNE LANE, NUTBOURNE APPLICANT: MR P CROSDIL
The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a replacement building to be used for agricultural purposes.
The application site was located within the countryside with little surrounding development.
8 Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/94 Planning Application: DC/12/1852 (cont.)
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; and Local Development Framework General Development Control DC9 and DC23 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
DC/12/0792 Replacement dwelling Granted DC/12/0920 Demolition of 5 existing buildings and Withdrawn erection of replacement agricultural building DC/12/1119 Proposed conversion of existing redundant Withdrawn granary/store building to provide a 2-bed dwelling
Public Health & Licensing raised no objection to the proposal. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. Six letters of support had been submitted, although these had been received outside the statutory period for consultation.
The site was currently occupied by a number of agricultural buildings, comprising a large cattle barn, a smaller open fronted cattle barn, three containers used for storage and a further building used for machinery storage. The buildings were mostly in a bad state of repair with other buildings having already been removed. The site also contained several vehicles and a disused caravan.
The current application had reduced both the size of the proposed building and the numbers of livestock to be accommodated from that previously proposed under application DC/12/0920. Floorspace of 914m2 was now proposed for 47 cows and 49 ewes.
It was recognised that the current cluster of buildings, due to neglect in recent years along with a variety of construction methods and materials, was less than fit for purpose and unpleasant in appearance. It was therefore considered reasonable to provide a modern and practical replacement.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle, subject to the submission of a management plan showing the proposed use of the various areas within the building.
RESOLVED
That application DC/12/1852 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services following the submission of a
9 Development Control (South) Committee 18th December 2012
DCS/94 Planning Application: DC/12/1852 (cont.)
management plan showing the proposed use of the various areas within the building and the framing of appropriate conditions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
The meeting closed at 3.45pm having commenced at 2.00pm.
CHAIRMAN
10 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 15TH JANUARY 2013 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
APPEALS
1. Appeals Lodged
I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-
2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service
DC/12/1573 Change of use and conversion of Sussex barn to separate dwelling (Full Planning) Thistleworth Farm, Worthing Road, Dial Post, Horsham, RH13 8NR For: Mr Mitchell
DC/12/1575 Change of use and conversion of Sussex barn to separate dwelling (Listed Building Consent) Thistleworth Farm, Worthing Road, Dial Post, Horsham, RH13 8NR For: Mr Mitchell
DC/12/0133 Retrospective application to retain an electricity generator and housing (South Downs National Park) Barn, Rackham Street, Rackham For: Ms Jane Claxton
ITEM A1 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 15th January 2013 Proposed new industrial building with access, landscaping, parking and DEVELOPMENT: ancillary works Land East of Tesla Engineering Company Limited Water Lane Storrington SITE: West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/12/1891 APPLICANT: Tesla Engineering Ltd
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development
RECOMMENDATION: To approve planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Sec106 Agreement to secure a transport contribution – the sum to be advised by WSCC.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of an industrial building for B2 use with a gross external floor area of 2,322sqm, including 334sqm for office use. The proposal also includes the creation of a new vehicular access, landscaping, parking and ancillary works.
1.2 The building would be of steel portal frame construction with dimensions of 66m in length by 30m in width, and with a two storey office area of 6m by 30m located on the western side of the building. The main bulk of the building would be 10m in height to the eaves and 11.6m to the ridge with the office area measuring 6.7m in height to the eaves and 7.3m to the ridge.
1.3 In respect of parking, a total of 55 car parking spaces would be provided and also a total of 15 cycle parking spaces. It is proposed that the building would provide employment for up to 75 full-time employees.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.4 The application site is located on the north east side of Water Lane, opposite the existing Water Lane Industrial Estate and outside any built-up area as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework. It is a greenfield site although the western part of
Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 ITEM A1 - 2
the site is within an area which has previously been subject to landfilling and comprises rough scrubland bounded by shrubs and trees. The remainder of the site is in agricultural use and has recently been used for arable production. A group of mature trees run through the centre of the site. The application site has a site area of 1.11ha and the land slopes fairly steeply in an east-west direction. The western part of the site also lies within a flood plain.
1.5 The northern boundary of the site is unmarked on the ground and runs east-west across both the former landfill site and across the arable field. The eastern site boundary runs close to the edge of the defined field boundary but has been determined by the need to avoid the easement around a high pressure water main which runs north-south along the eastern edge of the adjoining field. Hedging and mature trees form the boundary along the edge of the field. The southern boundary is also unmarked on the ground and runs in an east–west direction across the site. The western boundary runs along the north side of Water Lane and is formed by a line of fairly mature trees. A stream runs parallel to Water Lane just inside the site boundary and is culverted beneath an existing access track to the site.
1.6 The area to the north and east of the site is open countryside, comprising large arable fields bounded by mature trees and hedgerows. Residential development lies some 115 metres to the south and 250 metres to the south-east of the site. A small number of residential properties are located to the north-west of Water Lane Industrial Estate. There is a public footpath some 60 metres to the north of the site.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework – Delivering Sustainable Development (NPPF). The relevant sections of the NPPF which are considered to relate to this proposal are Section 1 (Building a strong competitive economy), Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy), Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport), Section7 (Requiring good design), Section 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) and Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP13, CP15 & CP19 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application.
2.4 PoliciesDC1, DC2, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC25 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies are relevant to the determination of the application.
PLANNING HISTORY
2.5 Nothing of relevance to the application.
ITEM A1 - 3
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Head of Strategic & Community Planning
This application needs to be considered against the Horsham District Local Development Framework, in particular the adopted Core Strategy (2007) and the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD. National planning policy in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also a key material consideration. This proposal is for a new industrial building with access, landscaping, parking and ancillary works. The site lies outside of the built up area boundary of Storrington on land designated as countryside. Under Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD development is not normally permitted in the countryside except in ‘exceptional’ circumstances. However, from an employment perspective the following policies are also relevant. Policy CP15, Rural Strategy, encourages sustainable rural economic development. The policy also sets out criteria for development proposals to be considered against. The key issue relating to this application is the contribution to the wider rural economy. Policy DC25, Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites/ Intensification of Uses follows on from the core policy and allows for proposals which deliver economic benefits to the rural area, and extension of existing commercial sites outside the defined built-up areas where they relate to the needs of the rural local economy. If the economic benefits and local need is established then further criteria in part b of the policy have to be met. Therefore, in principle, an expansion of this recognised existing local company, which contributes to the local economy, could be considered acceptable. This approach is supported in the NPPF. Section 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy (pg 9) states that planning policies should…”support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings”. The emphasis on the design of building is also something you should consider as good design is a key focus of the NPPF. By way of background, you should be aware that this site was considered as part of a larger site known as ADS104 Land at Water Lane, A mixed use scheme of about 1 ha employment land, 85 houses and informal recreation space was considered. The Inspectors Report 2007 concluded that: “This would be a relatively large proposal extending the built-up area on rising ground into the countryside at an important northern ‘gateway’ to Storrington. This area is particularly sensitive as part of a block of countryside that currently provides the means of retaining the physical local distinctiveness of a number of scattered settlement and groups of buildings. We have already concluded that there is likely to be a 9% overprovision of employment land, so there is no compelling need for a further allocation at this stage.” This was a different proposal and involved a mixed use scheme rather than the expansion of the existing business. Therefore this application should be considered on its own merits and the decision on the previous proposal has limited weight in this case. The issues of impact on landscape and design are issues that you are best placed to deal with, having regard to specialist advice. The location of part of the site within the flood plain is also something which you should seek specialist advice on from the Environment Agency. The scheme should incorporate renewable energy in accordance with Policy DC8; you are best placed to assess whether the proposals are sufficient to meet the aims of the policy. ITEM A1 - 4
I understand there is no objection from the Highway Authority and that a Green travel plan is required. It is for you to determine that any mitigation measures proposed are satisfactory.
Conclusion In principle, therefore, no strategic policy objection is raised to the proposed development as it would enable the expansion of an existing local company and thus support the rural economy of the District. The other issues, including landscape and design are for you to balance. I would be happy to offer further guidance should you wish.
3.2 The Head of Economic Development
This planning application is for a new building to enable the relocation and expansion of an established, successful local company on the edge of the built up area of Storrington.
Tesla Engineering Limited was founded in 1973 and is a company dedicated to the design and manufacture of resistive and superconducting electromagnets for science, medicine and industry. Their magnets include bending and focusing magnets for particle accelerators, specialised gradient coils for use in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and advanced magnets for emerging markets such as renewable energy sources, semi- conductor processing and cancer therapy.
This application needs to be considered against the National Planning Policy Framework (2012); the Council’s adopted planning policies, Horsham District Core Strategy (2007) and the General Development Control Policies (2007), the Council’s adopted corporate District Plan Priorities 2011-2015 as well as the jointly agreed West Sussex Economic Strategy (2012). It is considered that the economic development implications of the proposal are key in the consideration of this planning application.
The National Planning Policy Framework clearly supports economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and support sustainable development. This specifically includes the expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas including the development of well designed new buildings. The current application complies with this national planning policy position.
The Council’s adopted planning policies also support the principle of expansion of this long established local company in terms of its contribution towards the local economy; The Horsham District Core Strategy in the Rural Strategy Policy CP15 encourages sustainable rural economic development. Furthermore, the Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites/ Intensification of Uses Policy DC25, in the General Development Control Policies document allows for the development of existing commercial sites outside a built up area when the development delivers economic benefit to the wider rural area.
The Council has committed to planning for a successful local economy with high levels of employment as a priority in its District Plan. This planning application for the development of a state of the art, purpose built facility for Tesla Engineering, which is a world renowned company that supplies blue chip clients such as Seimens, Hitachi, Mitshibishi and Philips Healthcare would directly contribute to meeting this priority.
The significance of the retention of this important local company, which is one of the largest employers in Horsham District with over 250 employees, is an important factor in the consideration of this planning application. Many of these jobs are highly skilled positions.
The jointly agreed West Sussex Economic Strategy seeks to promote West Sussex as a first class business location and seeks to make the best use of land to support a robust and ITEM A1 - 5
sustainable economy. Tesla Engineering is an award winning business having received the Queen’s Award for International Trade in 2000 that contributes to the wider rural economy both directly in terms of employees and indirectly by supporting local traders particularly through the frequent visits from overseas clients who stay in the District. The retention of this company also supports Internationalisation, one of the two key themes of the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposed development would allow the retention and potential expansion of one of the District’s largest businesses supplying a global market which contributes to rural employment, which is a key objective in this predominately rural District and is therefore strongly supported from an economic development perspective.
3.3 The Head of Public Health & Licensing
Thank you for your consultation memo. I would offer the following comments on this application:
Land Contamination
The Site Investigation Reports prepared by Evans and Langford LLP reference 11679X dated July 2011 and 11679U dated 15/11/2011 have provided sufficient information for this matter to be dealt with by condition. Generally the conclusions of the reports are acceptable given that it is now proposed to locate the new building off the landfill site. However it is considered appropriate that the recommendation of the report with respect to the discovery strategy be implemented through the condition set out below:
1. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the sites then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
It is noted that the new car park and access road to the development will be constructed on the landfill. In order to ensure the sealing of the landfill is kept to a minimum it is recommended that the car park area is surfaced with materials that continue to allow ground gases to vent naturally.
Noise
As the proposed development will operate on a 24 hour basis noise is a concern and particularly so given that the site of the proposed development is elevated when compared to nearest residential properties.
The applicant has provided a noise survey prepared by Grant Acoustics reference GA- 2011-0037-R1-RevA dated 7th November 2011. The report assesses the likely impact from the operational phase of the development using the methodology outlined in BS41412:1997. The report has identified noise from Vac pumps, hammering, internal crane movements and extract for a sanding enclosure may occur at night as well as use of a compressor.
In general the report concludes that there should be no adverse impacts on local residents provided the recommendations detailed in the report are carried out. These recommendations are: ITEM A1 - 6
The Sound Reduction Index of the workshop must give a minimum Rw of 25 dB. Roller shutter doors must be kept closed at all times especially at night No noisy activities are to be undertaken outside of the unit. The compressor is to be provided with an acoustic enclosure which provides at least 17 db(A) of noise reduction.
In general the conclusions of the report are satisfactory and the recommendations are considered appropriate. Accordingly it is recommended that the following conditions are applied:
2. The hours of operation shall be restricted to 08:00-18:00 hours on Monday to Friday, from 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays;
3. An assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of all internally and externally located plant and activity shall be undertaken in accordance with BS 4142:1997. The assessment shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority together with a scheme of attenuation measures to mitigate any adverse impacts identified in the acoustic assessment. The scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be fully installed before the use hereby permitted commences and shall be operated for as long as the use is continued.
4. The roller shutters doors to the proposed building shall be kept closed at all times and shall not be opened between 18:00 hours and 0800 hours on the following day.
5. No works involving the use of power tools or other noise generating plant, machinery or equipment shall be undertaken in the open air.
6. Deliveries to or from the premises shall be restricted to 08:00-17.30 hours on Monday to Friday and Fridays and between 07:30 hours and 13:00 hours on Saturdays, and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
With respect to noise from the compressor it is considered be relocating this equipment within the proposed building will afford better protection from noise from the compressor at night.
General Amenity issues
In order to minimise the potential for nuisance to arise during the construction of the proposed development it is recommended that the following conditions be applied:
7. Any works of demolition or construction and any associated ancillary activities shall only take place between 07:30 hours and 17:30 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 07:30 hours and 13:00 hours on Saturdays, and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
8. Deliveries to or from construction the site shall be restricted to 08:00-17.30 hours on Monday to Friday and Fridays and between 07:30 hours and 13:00 hours on Saturdays, and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
9. No burning shall be undertaken on the site.
ITEM A1 - 7
3.4 The Landscape Officer
In summary due to the likely significant adverse landscape character and visual impact of the application proposals in their present form I would object most strongly to them. I fully appreciate, in terms of HDC’s corporate theme of economic development there is desire to vigorously support an important local business and promote employment. However I consider this should not mean that the other corporate environment theme is ‘downgraded’ in importance given to it in this case, through landscape harm.
It is my view the inappropriate siting of the new building does not have to be automatically accepted, especially when I consider there is an alternative workable solution for the siting that could provide much better scope to mitigate it s adverse landscape impact. A possible rush to approve the scheme could be regretted in the longer term.
It is considered that the application is contrary to the key National Planning Framework Provision to ‘recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’ nor does it conform with its design policies, including those relating to siting and appropriate landscaping. Whilst I am fully aware the NPPF policies have to be read and considered as a whole the three key dimensions of Sustainable Development at the beginning of the document are its economic, social and environmental role. Clearly through landscape harm it is falling very short of its environmental role. It is also contrary to various LDF planning policies particularly those relating to design and conserving and enhancing landscape character.
DETAILED LANDSCAPE ISSUES/CONCERNS
I consider the submitted landscape and visual assessment somewhat underplays the adverse impact of the proposals, particularly in term of wider landscape and visual impacts from the north, south and east not just those on the site itself, which will in any case be a significant change.
The building will be very visually prominent due to its height and bulk from a public footpath to the south and will have a wider adverse impact on attractive countryside to the south.
It is also, despite the presence of an intervening existing hedgerow and hedgerow trees to also likely to be visually prominent from farmland on the existing urban edge to the south
A site visit soon makes clear the very inappropriate proposed siting of the building in landscape terms ,given it will clearly be perceived as an isolated industrial building in open countryside, unrelated to the existing built form of TESLA industrial buldings from a number of viewpoints
Whilst the approx 9.5m height to the eaves and 11.5m to the ridge building will be set into the slope of the land by up to approx 4m on its eastern side and hedgerow and some other limited native structure planting is proposed this in my view will not be sufficient to mitigate against the adverse impact in the longer term, with inadequate screening in summer and winter . There is a danger the planting at least in the early years, due to the awkward configuration of the purchased site will only serve to emphasize the presence of the industrial building, as it does not fit with the existing field and hedgerow pattern . The parked lorries, lighting columns in this location will also add to cumulative landscape impact.
It is considered as a result the building should be resited preferably onto the low ground of the former landfill, if not at least towards the centre of the site where it would be more on the valleyside and in the context of the existing industrial buildings on the opposite valleyside. This would also give the opportunity to provide on the remaining land on the ITEM A1 - 8
higher ground for substantial woodland copse planting to be provided. This could provide a proper landscape enhancement in itself as well as visual mitigation of the building.
A recently proposed amendment by the applicant very slightly moving the access road southwards will only provide very marginal/limited benefit in terms of additional space for screening the building from the footpath and wider countryside to the south. It will remain inadequately screened at least in winter due to the limited depth of screening vegatation.
CONCLUSION
1. The application proposals are likely to result in landscape and visual harm due to the proposed siting, scale and bulk of the building with inadequate space for appropriate mitigation planting 2. I should be evident from the above report that efforts have been made at an early stage by myself to raise the landscape concerns and to suggest an alternative solution in respect of siting and mitigation planting.
CONDITIONS
Without prejudice to the above comments, should members be minded to approve the application as it stands, then I would recommend use of the revised standard landscape condition , qualifying it to say ‘notwithstanding the submitted landscape strategy plan’ and also a requirement for a long term landscape management and maintenance plan. I would also recommend we carefully control the detailed lighting design and the colour of the building cladding.
3.5 The Arboricultural Officer
Thank you for consulting me on this development proposal. Further to our visit to the site on 27th November 2012 I have examined the submitted information pursuant to trees, including the Arboricultural Implications Assessment as compiled by Broad Oak Tree Consultants Limited dated 26th October 2011. I note the following in regard to arboricultural matters:
Along the eastern side of the northern end of Water Lane the narrow tree line along the roadside is protected under TPO/0167. This area order dates from the late 1960's, and so far as I can tell has never been reviewed; it protects all the trees within the strip which were present at the date of its serving (17th June 1969). This TPO now requires review, as although further towards its northern part it contains a number of reasonable trees, even these are not of particular or especial merit, and have modest amenity value. Further along the length of the strip, to the south, are a number of generally poor trees of very low merit. The development proposals require a small number of trees to be removed in the area of the existing access into the site adjacent to the bridge over the stream, within the area of the TPO. Again, these are poor specimens, and I register no objection to their removal. Right in the centre of the site is a small group of trees containing 4 good sized oaks which may at one time have been part of an old hedgerow, now long gone. These trees are not under any constraint. It is proposed that these trees are retained, and indeed it appears that the layout of the site - and perhaps even the size and shape of the site itself - has been largely determined by their position. They have rightly been assessed under the classification at BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' [2012] in the tree survey. Two are considered to be category B trees, and one as category A, though it is noted that in this case the A classification has been used as no full visual assessment could be made due to the extensive ivy cover (this is the correct procedure in such cases). The largest of the trees (T11 on the survey) is an impressive tree when viewed from the south, but has a huge tear on its northern side where a very large second stem has been torn off in a storm. This has completely unbalanced the tree, and although it ITEM A1 - 9
has made an effort at correctional growth, the wound is bad enough to represent a serious compromise to this tree's future. It is laudable that efforts have been made to retain this group of trees, an action supported by policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). However, in regard to their landscape amenity value they are not prominent from the public viewpoint, nor are they of any especial or particular merit. While retention should be considered desirable, I do not assess it to be crucial, and the removal of T11 in particular could be justified if required to provide a possibly better use of the site.
In summary the proposals do not have any deleterious effect on any trees on the site which would be essential to retain, and accordingly I find the scheme compliant with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). I therefore register NO OBJECTION to the proposals.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.6 The County Surveyor
Initial comments In summary, there would be no in principle concerns with this proposal.
The application proposes 1,885 of B2 industrial use, 312sqm of B1 office use along with 55 car parking spaces and a new vehicular access onto Water Lane. It is noted that the Applicant is already operating a similar activity from 6,258sqm of B2 located on the opposite side of Water Lane. The current application is supported by way of a Transport Assessment and Stage One Road Safety Audit.
As a point of clarity, the TA does make reference in places to PPG13, which has now been replaced with the National Planning Policy Framework. Whilst elements of PPG13 are now incorporated within the NPPF, more technical elements (such as walking and cycling distances) are not. However for the purposes of these comments and in light of there being no other suitable replacement guidance, these technical elements are still considered applicable. The Planning Authority should of course consider other more policy related matters where PPG13 is referred to.
Traffic Generation/Highway Capacity The TA does consider traffic generation arising from the proposed unit. As the existing site uses are understood to be comparable to those proposed, a survey of traffic generation from the existing use has been undertaken and from this traffic generation from the proposed use has been derived. The application of trip rates obtained by way of the surveying of an existing site use is considered robust and would accord with current DfT Guidance. From the survey, the proposed use is anticipated to generate 15 movements (14 arrivals, 1 departures) in the AM peak, 43 movements in the PM peak (7 arrivals, 36 departures), and a total of 164 additional daily movements (79 arrivals, 85 departures). The AM and PM peak hour movements refer to those movements occurring in the recognised network peaks (i.e. 8-9am and 5-6pm). The Applicant should confirm that the proposed development would not result in further peaks of traffic (i.e. development peaks for example at shift change-overs) away from the accepted network peaks as these may require further assessment.
The Applicant has also undertaken a survey of existing staff to determine travel to work mode choices and to determine where staff are travelling from. This information has been used to distribute the vehicular traffic generation to determine where the additional development traffic may impact upon the highway network. Based on the adopted WSCC TA Guidance, it would only be necessary to consider the capacity impacts of this development upon those junctions where flows are expected to increase by 30 or more movements in any given hour. Applying this threshold, the only impact is at the Water ITEM A1 - 10
Lane/Thakeham Road roundabout, from where vehicle movements would then disperse across the network. The Water Lane/Thakeham Road roundabout has been modelled using industry accepted techniques. The result of the modelling indicates that with development the roundabout would still work within capacity.
Further assessment scenarios, including future year assessment (detailed as 2016 as this was five years after the submission of the TA, which was produced in 2011) and with travel plan, have been included. For robustness the with-travel plan scenario has been discounted although it is acknowledged that the travel plan does have the potential to result in a reduction of vehicle movements. Whilst the future years assessment should have taken the base year as the year when the application was submitted (that being 2012), it’s recognised that the Water Lane roundabout is working well within capacity and undertaking a further assessment would not be expected to result in any significantly different results.
Routing of both construction traffic and delivery vehicles are anticipated to use Water Lane with there being an expectation for the majority of these vehicles to wish to access the strategic road network (the A24) and thus travel eastbound along the A283. There is still the potential for some vehicles to travel westbound along the A283 through Storrington, although there is the potential for the existing uses to generate such demands presently and this proposal may not significantly increase this. Through the construction phase, it would also be difficult to control vehicle routing especially that resulting from 3rd parties. However, the Planning Authority may wish to include a condition requiring details of construction and servicing vehicle routing to be agreed.
The TA does provide some detail as to the travel plan and its potential for reducing vehicular trips. Again, the potential for reduced trip generation is based upon the extrapolation of a survey for the existing site uses. The anticipated vehicular trip reduction is relatively minor but could perhaps be considered realistic in the circumstances given the potential for shift times not tying in with bus arrival times nor for the future workers to live within walking or cycling distance of the site. Even so, the TP does offer a means of promoting and encouraging less dependency on the private car, and could reduce vehicle movements. The final details of the travel plan should be approved via condition or more preferably via a s106 agreement should an agreement be required for this proposal.
Subject to clarification as to whether the proposal would generate any development traffic peaks, this proposal is not anticipated to have any detriment to highway capacity.
Access Arrangements A new vehicular access is proposed to serve the development from Water Lane. These arrangements have been the subject of a Stage One Road Safety Audit. The Audit has raised a number of problems, however the Designer is intending to address each of these and the proposed solutions are acceptable to the Highway Authority.
The proposed access is located within the derestricted section (60mph speed limit) on Water Lane. A speed survey has been undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed access and the proposed sightlines have been based upon the recorded 85th percentile wet weather speeds as opposed to the actual speed limit. Based on the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the recorded speeds, the sightline requirements consequently have been calculated as 70metres to the north and 76metres to the south. Whilst the above DMRB sightlines are achievable, given the recorded speeds (of 33mph northbound and 30mph southbound) the guidance of Manual for Streets would be applicable thus enabling the sightlines to be reduced.
The Stage One RSA does raise parking within the visibility splay as a problem and this is evident from visiting the site. The RSA does recommend the installation of waiting restrictions to prohibit parking within the splay and to ensure that parked vehicles do not obstruct the movements of HGVs. It is noted that this section of Water Lane is lightly ITEM A1 - 11
trafficked and a no through road, it is consequently not considered necessary to remove all parking from the visibility splay as this would inevitably result in this being displaced elsewhere. A reduced length of waiting restrictions (i.e. 15metres either side of the access) is therefore considered appropriate. The Applicant would be required to fund and promote the required waiting restrictions and to make all best endeavours to ensure these are implemented prior to development commencing.
A number of swept path drawings are also provided. One of these does indicate that part of a vehicle would overhang the footway on Water Lane whilst an HGV is entering the site. Whilst this is undesirable, due consideration is given to the infrequency of HGV movements. The swept path does also assume that another vehicle is waiting to emerge, hence requiring the HGV to keep left. More realistically, an HGV would take a more direct line, which would mean that no overhang would result.
The construction and use of the access is not anticipated to result in any highway safety consequences.
Parking Parking provision has been based upon the WSCC Parking Standards. The proposed parking provision is within the maximum permitted standard. Similar to an above point, clarification would be sought as to whether there is any shift working or overlaps that might create peaks of demand, and therefore whether the proposed provision does accommodate this.
Construction It is suggested that a construction management plan be secured via condition. This should detail the temporary arrangements to be put in place to manage construction traffic and other associated factors. A further condition is required securing details of the temporary access arrangements to facilitate construction prior to any other development commencing.
Conclusion Clarification is sought as to whether the site operates shift working and thereby whether further consideration needs to be given as to traffic generation and parking. However, in principle, there would be no significant concerns raised.
Upon clarification of the above point, conditions would be recommended.
3.7 Following the submission of further information in this regard, the County Surveyor made the following comments:
Final comments Just to confirm, whilst it appears that there is shift working, the impact of this appears to be minimal and seemingly occurs well away from the network peaks. As such, I'd confirm that the traffic assessment undertaken is acceptable and appears to take account of the worst case (i.e. traffic generation from the proposal during the AM and PM network peaks). No highway objection would consequently be raised to this proposal.
Given that there is no access into the site presently, I'd recommend that the proposed access is constructed prior to development commencing. The Applicant should also note the requirement for the traffic regulation order to protect sightlines and to ensure that parked vehicles do not obstruct vehicles manoeuvring into and out of the site. The Applicant would need to meet all reasonable costs associated with this process. The following conditions would be recommended.
Access No development shall commence until the vehicular access serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved planning drawing. ITEM A1 - 12
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Car parking space No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car and lorry parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide parking spaces for the use
Construction Management Plan No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security, details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area.
Travel Plan No part of the development shall be first occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall be completed in accordance with the latest guidance and good practice documentation as published by the Department for Transport or as advised by the Highway Authority. Reason: To encourage and promote sustainable transport.
Provision or Extension of Waiting Restrictions No development shall be commenced until such time as a Traffic Regulation Order, or revision to an existing order, securing the provision of no waiting at anytime restrictions in accordance with details to be submitted has been approved by the Highway Authority and written confirmation of this approval has been made available to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
INFORMATIVE Section 278 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Works within the Highway The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader (01243 642105) to commence this process. The applicant is advised that it is an offence to undertake any works within the highway prior to the agreement being in place.
3.8 Environment Agency
Environment Agency Position
We consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development as ITEM A1 - 13
submitted if the following five planning conditions are included as set out below. Without these planning conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would object to the application.
Planning Condition 1 of 5
No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 years plus 20% climate change. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. We require:
1. The peak discharge rates and together with associated control structures and their position.
2. Details of the drainage system capacity (e.g. 1:30 year).
3. Safe management of critical storm water storage up to the 1:100year event.
4. Overland flow routes for events in excess of the 1:100 (plus 20% Climate change).
5. Provide topographical information of pre and post development.
6. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion
As the site is partially underlain by a former landfill site, no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground in areas of contamination is permitted other than with the express written consent of the LPA, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site and to prevent the mobilisation or migration of contaminants. This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Planning Condition 2 of 5
No development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the LPA), shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the LPA:
1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
all previous uses
potential contaminants associated with those uses
a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors
potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. ITEM A1 - 14
3) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the LPA. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure the protection of controlled waters from contamination related to the former landfill site located within the site boundary. The site is underlain by a principal aquifer with a shallow groundwater level present and is also adjacent to a surface water feature.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of the NPPF.
Planning Condition 3 of 5
No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the LPA. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a "long-term monitoring and maintenance plan") for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that any remediation, if deemed necessary, is satisfactorily completed in order to protect controlled waters.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of the NPPF.
Planning condition 4 of 5
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the ITEM A1 - 15 site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the LPA detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the LPA. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that any contamination identified during the construction works is fully characterised and assessed.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of the NPPF.
Planning Condition 5 of 5
Piling or any other foundation designs including ground source heating and cooling systems using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the LPA which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: Piling or any other foundation designs including ground source heating and cooling systems using penetrative methods can result in risks to potable supplies from, for example, pollution / turbidity, risk of mobilising contamination, drilling through different aquifers and creating preferential pathways. Thus it should be demonstrated that any proposed piling will not result in contamination of groundwater.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of the NPPF.
Advice to applicants
We have reviewed the submitted Report on Ground Investigation, as completed by Evans & Langford Construction Consultants, dated July 2011 (Report Ref 11679X).
We can confirm that the desk study and preliminary risk assessment are broadly acceptable.
We have been unable to complete a review of the contamination assessment due to the poor quality of the Borehole Location plan (Fig 2) as the scale used is inappropriate. We are unable to distinguish the locations of the intrusive sampling points, which has prevented us from interpreting the analysis data.
ITEM A1 - 16
It is noted that the contamination results do indicate evidence of landfill related contamination, however, we are unable to determine the extent of the area impacted.
The groundwater level monitoring data demonstrates that there is a shallow groundwater table present. As the monitoring was undertaken during the summer months, it is considered that the unsaturated zone will be further reduced during winter periods.
The report fails to consider groundwater flow direction, therefore the site conceptual model is limited. Without groundwater flow direction being determined, it is not possible for the risks to controlled waters to be quantified. We therefore request that additional groundwater monitoring is undertaken.
It is therefore required that the report is resubmitted with the points raised above being addressed. The conceptual model and risk assessment must be revised in line with any changes identified. At such time we will be able to complete our review of the assessment, together with any recommendations.
It must be noted that no infiltration will be permitted through land that is affected by contamination.
Planning Informative
Erection of flow control structures or any culverting of an ordinary watercourse requires consent from the Lead Local Flood Authority which in this instance is West Sussex County Council. It is best to discuss proposals for any works with them at an early stage.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.9 Thakeham Parish Council is supportive of Tesla Engineering and welcomes the possibility of additional employment opportunities but there are a number of questions and concerns that need to be addressed before an opinion can be given on the proposal and these are listed below:-
There are omissions in the documents supplied by the applicant: 1) Information in the Travel Plan uses bus services timetables which are now out of date following cuts made by the provider. 2) The Landscape and Visual Assessment does not include a photograph from rear gardens of Rother Close or Brook Close to show the visual impact of this development. 3) The footpath extending towards West Chiltington from Water Lane is not mentioned or shown on maps provided. The proposed development is on a greenfield which is outside the built up area and is barely adjacent. From Thakeham Parish Council’s point of view, building into the gap between Thakeham and Sullington is an issue. The stream and road at the moment provide a natural boundary for development and extending beyond could trigger further development demands. The nearest houses are Brook House and 14 and 16 Brook Close. Rother Close extends along the neighbouring field. There may be a visual impact -see 2) above. Noise may also be a problem as these houses are only a field away. The night shift ends at 6.00am and employees will be using the 55 new car parking spaces on this site. As we know in Thakeham from having houses close to the mushroom growing facilities, industrial processes do not sit well with residential areas and vehicle movements are a particular problem. The Travel Plan as stated above is out of date -see 1) above. With limited and expensive (£7.80 return from Worthing) bus services available it is unreasonable to expect either buses or trains to make a real contribution to reduction in car travel. It would only be possible to reduce car usage by car sharing and the real incentive for this would be scarcity of car parking places but this proposal allows for 55 which for a ITEM A1 - 17
projected increase in employees of 50 to 75 seems rather generous. It would only be practicable for employees to walk from Storrington and for cycling only from Storrington or West Chiltington. Routes to Thakeham or beyond require using dangerous roads for cyclists ie fast, winding and with no verges for bailout. It is disingenuous to suggest walking, cycling or even public transport as a solution. Footpath to Northlands lane. Cars are often parked along the field side of Water Lane. There is no sign that this is a public footpath. We are concerned that carparking and Tesla development on both sides of the road could make using the footpath less attractive and more difficult.
3.10 1 letter of comment has been received highlighting the existing flooding problems in Brook Close and the heavy on-street parking within the area. The siting of the building is also questioned.
3.11 6 letters of objection have been received based on the following grounds:-
The area already experiences flooding and the increase in run-off from the site will exacerbate the situation Why build on a flood plain Increase in traffic will have an adverse impact on highway safety and increase in use of the only access point at Water Lane roundabout Increase in noise from the manufacturing operations and vehicle deliveries Light pollution No assessment of the visual impact of the development from Brook Close Greenfield site – development should be undertaken on a brownfield site Dangerous precedent – development could initiate ‘the thin end of the wedge’ and allow further development onto green fields There are numerous vacant existing buildings on the industrial estate Over-development – the site lies outside the Horsham development zone Proposal fails both the NPPF’s sequential and exception tests Unsustainable location Site has been previously assessed for development and found to be unsuitable Land has a restrictive covenant limiting the use to horticulture and agricultural use only
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime or disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of the application are considered to be the principle of development, the impact of the development on the surrounding landscape, environmental issues and the effect of the development on highway safety and capacity.
Principle of development
ITEM A1 - 18
6.2 The application site lies outside the built up area boundary of Storrington on land which is designated as countryside. Under Policy DC1 development is not normally permitted in the countryside except in ‘exceptional’ circumstances where development is considered necessary to ensure the continued sustainable development of rural areas. Such development might include that which is required to sustain the countryside as a place of varied and productive social and economic activity, such as subsidised housing, business uses, community facilities and tourism facilities.
6.3 From an employment perspective, Policy CP15 (Rural Strategy) is also relevant to the proposal as its aim is to encourage sustainable rural economic development. In addition, Policy DC25 (Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites/Intensification of Uses) follows on from the core policy and allows for proposals which deliver economic benefits to the rural area and the extension of existing commercial sites outside the defined built-up areas where they relate to the needs of the rural local economy. In these circumstances, it will be necessary to demonstrate the relationship to the needs of the local economy. The policy further states that rural commercial development may occur where a suitable alternative location cannot be identified from the existing commercial allocations or existing stock of commercial premises, firstly from that within a built-up area boundary. Therefore, the proposal could be considered acceptable in principle subject to evidence that the proposal would contribute to the wider local economy.
6.4 This approach is supported by current government guidance contained in the NPPF. Paragraph 28 is of particular relevance and states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should, amongst other things, ‘…support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.’
6.5 It is acknowledged that the application site formed part of a larger site known as ADS104 Land at Water Lane which was a mixed use scheme of approx. 1ha of employment land, 85 houses and informal recreation space. The Inspectors Report 2007 into the Site Specific Allocations of Land concluded that ‘’ This would be a relatively large proposal extending the built-up area on rising ground into the countryside at an important northern ‘gateway’ to Storrington. This area is particularly sensitive as part of a block of countryside that currently provides the means of retaining the physical local distinctiveness of a number of scattered settlements and groups of buildings. We have already concluded that there is likely to be a 9% overprovision of employment land so there is no compelling need for a further allocation at this stage’’. However, the current proposal differs from that considered by the Inspectors, in terms of site area and use, proposing an expansion of an existing business as opposed to a mixed use scheme. The current application should therefore be considered on its own merits and it is considered that the decision on the previous proposal has limited weight in this instance.
6.6 Therefore, and as previously advised at Para 3.1, the Head of Strategic & Community Planning advises that in principle no strategic policy objection is raised to the proposal as it would enable the expansion of an existing local company and thus support the rural economy of the District.
6.7 The application is strongly supported by the Head of Economic Development & Leisure who has advised that the Council has committed to planning for a successful local economy with high levels of employment as a priority in its District Plan. In her view, the application for the development of a state of the art, purpose built facility for Tesla Engineering, which is a world renowned company that supplies blue chip clients such as Seimens, Hitachi, Mitshibishi and Philips Healthcare would directly contribute to meeting this priority. The significance of the retention of this important local company, which is one ITEM A1 - 19
of the largest employers in Horsham District with over 250 employees, is an important factor in the consideration of this planning application. Many of these jobs are highly skilled positions.
6.8 The Head of Economic Development & Leisure further advises that the jointly agreed West Sussex Economic Strategy seeks to promote West Sussex as a first class business location and seeks to make the best use of land to support a robust and sustainable economy. Tesla Engineering is an award winning business having received the Queen’s Award for International Trade in 2000 that contributes to the wider rural economy both directly in terms of employees and indirectly by supporting local traders particularly through the frequent visits from overseas clients who stay in the District. The retention of this company also supports Internationalisation, one of the two key themes of the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development would allow the retention and potential expansion of one of the District’s largest businesses supplying a global market which contributes to rural employment, which is a key objective in this predominately rural District and is therefore strongly supported from an economic development perspective.
Description of the proposal
6.9 By way of background, Tesla Engineering Ltd. (Tesla) manufactures resistive and superconducting electromagnets for particle accelerators of all types and produces specialised gradient coils for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners. Tesla also supplies electromagnets for emerging applications, such as fusion research and the semiconductor industry. The company has been established in Storrington since 1973 and it is maintained that its existing staff of approx. 280 employees are among the most experienced magnet designers and builders in the world. The business has expanded over time and is continuing to grow with significantly increasing turnover which is predicted to be £27 million for 2012. The applicant has advised, however, that the company has been turning away orders since late 2010 due to limitations on existing capacity and jobs are being lost as a result. The business has an urgent need to expand their premises in order to continue its growth and meet an identified need. The existing premises are at capacity and if a solution is not found urgently the company would be forced to consider its options, including relocation outside of Horsham District or the UK. Work has also had to be transferred to Tesla’s Dutch sister company and Tesla has also had to subcontract machining work to a company in the north of England over the last six months due to lack of capacity in Storrington.
6.10 The application proposes the erection of an industrial building with a total floor area of 2323sqm on land opposite Tesla’s existing facility at Water Lane. The building would be sited in an elevated position in the eastern part of the site with the car parking area being provided on the lower western area which was formally subject to landfilling. The proposed building would be set into the ground by approx. 4m along its eastern side in order to reduce its height and bulk. The site would be surrounded by a 1.5m high post and wire stock proof fence and additional landscaping is proposed particularly on the north-western boundary to screen the building from the wider landscape. It is proposed that the facility would operate 24 hours a day Monday to Friday and 0700 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays.
6.11 The proposed building would enable manufacturing to take place in one building as currently the coils are constructed in four of Tesla’s buildings, with various elements made in different buildings and then assembled in another building. It is maintained that the proposal would make the entire process more efficient and cost effective. The existing buildings on Tesla’s site would then be used to make products for other industrial sectors such as proton therapy, semiconductors and MRI components.
ITEM A1 - 20
6.12 A Need and Sequential Assessment has been submitted as part of the application in order to demonstrate why the site is appropriate for development notwithstanding its location outside of the built-up area boundary. It is maintained that the new development needs to be located adjacent to the existing facility for the reasons of management, efficiency, viability, equipment and environmental impact. Various other options are explored within the report, such as the creation of additional floorspace within the existing site, however, the industrial estate is intensely developed with no additional space to accommodate the scale of development needed to meet the identified need. There are also no suitable, available or viable alternative brownfield sites on which the proposed development could be located. The assessment identified 14 sites within Storrington and neighbouring towns which were assessed against Tesla’s requirements. However, none of the sites met the requirements as they were either unavailable for rent or sale in a reasonable timeframe or were not of a size or height to accommodate Tesla’s operation. A third option would be for Tesla to have two separate premises. The company previously rented premises in Lancing, some 10 miles from Storrington, but following a trial period of 5 years this arrangement was terminated due to impracticalities and inefficiencies. As a result Tesla consider it essential that the business operates from a single complex and it is the company’s preferred option to expand adjacent to its existing premises. If this is not possible the company would need to consider relocating outside of the District or UK which would result in the loss of the existing 280 jobs at Tesla and the loss of the employment opportunities that would come about as a result of the proposed development – some 50 to 75 jobs.
Impact of the development on the landscape
6.13 It will be noted that the Council’s Landscape Architect strongly objects to the proposal and in particular to the siting of the building. It is considered that the building would be very visually prominent, due to its height and bulk, from the public footpath to the north and it would have a wider adverse impact on the attractive countryside to the north. Concern is expressed that the building would clearly be perceived as an isolated industrial building in open countryside which would have no relationship to the existing built form of the Water Lane Industrial Estate from a number of viewpoints.
6.14 Furthermore, whilst it is proposed that the building be set into the slope of the land by approx. 4m on its eastern side and hedgerow and some native structure planting would be undertaken this would not in his view be sufficient to mitigate against the adverse impact in the longer term, with inadequate screening in summer and winter. There is a danger the planting at least in the early years, due to the awkward configuration of the purchased site would only serve to emphasize the presence of the industrial building, as it does not fit with the existing field and hedgerow pattern. The parked lorries and lighting columns in this location would also add to the cumulative adverse landscape impact.
6.15 It is considered as a result the building should be resited preferably onto the low ground of the former landfill, if not at least towards the centre of the site where it would be more on the valleyside and in the context of the existing industrial buildings on the opposite valleyside. This would also give the opportunity to provide on the remaining land on the higher ground for substantial woodland copse planting to be provided. This could provide a proper landscape enhancement in itself as well as visual mitigation of the building.
6.16 Having regard to the above highlighted concerns, which are shared by your officers, discussions have taken place with the applicant with a view to re-siting the building in a more central location within the site to reduce its impact upon the landscape to the north and to move it closer to the existing development at the industrial area with a frontage along Water Lane. In response, the applicant has advised that there are a number of key constraints that would make relocation of the building to the centre of the site impossible in this instance. In this respect, it is submitted that the Ground Investigation Report advises that landfill is unsuitable for founding building structures and would require specialist ITEM A1 - 21
piling/vibro concrete techniques. The report further states that any concrete piled foundations would have to go through the full depth of the landfill to provide stable foundations. Piling to such a depth may provide routes for migration of contaminants to ground water sources or upward migration of soil gas from the landfill. The applicant also submits that if the building were to be moved further westward then the building would be sited in a higher flood risk zone and would be unlikely to gain support from the Environment Agency on flood risk grounds. Similarly, the Environment Agency requires water tanks to control surface water discharge to be located in a position that allows discharge to the existing ditch along Water Lane. Relocating the building to the centre of the site would not allow for this as it would be unacceptable to place the tanks in the landfill area. The final constraint is that of the size and shape of the site which is such that a more central location could not accommodate the building physically in its current form, without cutting off access to the rest of the site.
6.17 As further justification for not relocating the building to a more central location within the site, the applicant has compiled an estimate of the additional construction costs which would result. Whilst these are estimated costs, the overall result is that the total cost of constructing a load bearing ground slab compared to the current build proposal for the foundations would rise from just over £250,000 to over £900,000 for that part of the build alone. It is submitted that this would render the project completely unviable and it could not proceed.
6.18 Notwithstanding the above comments/advice an amended plan has been submitted whereby it is proposed that the access road to the north of the site be relocated approx. 5m further south which would allow for an increased depth of planting along the northern boundary and therefore an increased level of screening along this boundary and from the Public Footpath.
6.19 It will be noted however that the Landscape Architect is of the opinion that the proposed re- siting of the access road would only provide very marginal/limited benefit in terms of additional space for screening the building from the footpath and the wider countryside to the north. It would remain inadequately screened at least in winter due to the limited depth of screening vegetation. Whilst he fully appreciates, in terms of the Council’s corporate theme of economic development there is a will to support an important local business and promote employment, nevertheless, he is of the view that the proposal would be likely to have a significant adverse landscape character and visual impact and he therefore raises a strong objection to the proposal in its current form.
Environmental issues
6.20 In respect of land contamination, the Head of Public Health & Licensing has advised that the conclusions of the submitted Site Investigation Report are acceptable given that it is proposed to locate the building off the landfill site. However, it is noted that the car park and access road to the development would be constructed in the former landfill area. Therefore in order to ensure the sealing of the landfill is kept to a minimum it is recommended that the car park area is surfaced with materials that continue to allow ground gases to vent naturally.
6.21 With regard to the issue of noise, some concern was expressed as the facility is proposed to operate on a 24 hour basis and particularly as the proposed location of the building is elevated when compared to neighbouring residential properties. However, he considers the conclusions of the Noise Report to be satisfactory and the recommendations are considered appropriate. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions no objection is raised to the proposal.
6.22 The Environment Agency has advised that they are satisfied that the flood risk to the site from the watercourse has been adequately assessed. The Agency therefore raises no ITEM A1 - 22
objection to the proposed development on the grounds of flooding or drainage, subject to a number of conditions.
Highway issues
6.23 The County Surveyor has advised that based on the adopted WSCC TA Guidance, it would only be necessary to consider the capacity impacts of the development upon those junctions where flows are expected to increase by 30 or more movements in any given hour. Applying this threshold, the only impact is at the Water Lane/Thakeham Road roundabout, from where vehicle movements would then disperse across the network. The Water Lane/Thakeham Road roundabout has been modelled using industry accepted techniques. The result of the modelling indicates that with the development the roundabout would still work within capacity.
6.24 With regard to the issue of sustainability, the County Surveyor advises that the TA does provide some detail as to the travel plan and its potential for reducing vehicular trips. Again, the potential for reduced trip generation is based upon the extrapolation of a survey for the existing site uses. The anticipated vehicular trip reduction is relatively minor but could perhaps be considered realistic in the circumstances given the potential for shift times not tying in with bus arrival times nor for the future workers to live within walking or cycling distance of the site. Even so, the TP does offer a means of promoting and encouraging less dependency on the private car, and could reduce vehicle movements. The final details of the travel plan should be approved via condition or more preferably via a s106 agreement should an agreement be required for this proposal. The proposal is therefore not anticipated to have any detriment to highway capacity.
6.25 Having regard to the proposed access to the site, the County Surveyor has confirmed that its construction and use are not anticipated to result in any highway safety consequences. He has also confirmed that the proposed parking provision is within the maximum permitted standard. Accordingly no highway objection is raised to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Conclusion
6.26 The applicant, Tesla Engineering Ltd, is a long established company dedicated to the design and manufacture of resistive and superconducting electromagnets for science medicine and industry. The company currently employs 280 staff and a large number of these jobs are highly skilled positions. Many of the staff live in Storrington and approx. 80% of staff live within 15 miles of the existing facility. The business has an urgent need to expand their premises in order to continue its growth and meet an identified need. Whilst alternative options have been considered the company’s preferred option would be to expand adjacent to their existing site for the reasons set out in the report. If this is not possible the company would need to consider relocating outside of the District or UK which would result in the loss of the existing 280 jobs and the loss of the employment opportunities that would come about as a result of the proposed development – some 50 to 75 jobs.
6.27 The application site however is outside the defined built-up area of Storrington and is designated as countryside. Whilst there is no objection in policy terms to the development of the site, it is your officers’ view that the proposed location of the building is inappropriate. It is considered that the building would be very visually prominent, due to its height and bulk, from the public footpath to the north and it would have a wider adverse impact on the attractive countryside to the north. There is also concern that the building would be clearly perceived as an isolated industrial building in open countryside which would have no relationship to the existing Water Lane Industrial Estate. The proposed mitigation of re- siting of the access road would only provide very marginal/limited benefit in terms of ITEM A1 - 23
additional space for screening the building from the footpath and the wider countryside The proposal would thus clearly not protect or enhance the natural environment.
6.28 Efforts have been made by your officers to achieve a more appropriate siting of the building but for practical and financial reasons the applicants have declined to relocate the building. The identified harm to the surrounding landscape must therefore be balanced against the retention of an important local company which is one of the largest employers in the District with over 280 employees and who is a supplier to the global market. The proposed development would also create an additional 50 to 75 jobs with its associated benefits to the local economy. No other objections have been raised by the various consultees on the application. Given current government support for economic development and the strong economic justification for the proposal, with its potential loss of some 355 jobs, it is your officers view that in this particular instance, the resultant benefits to the local economy outweighs the significant adverse impact to the surrounding countryside and the proposal is therefore considered, on balance, to be acceptable.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and the completion of a Sec106 Agreement to secure a transport contribution - the sum to be advised by WSCC.
1. A2 – Full Permission 2. M1 – Approval of Materials 3. E3 – Fencing 4. J1 – Use Limitation….B2 5. L1 – Hard & Soft Landscaping 6. L2a – Protection of trees 7. L4 – Landscape Management Plan 8. L6 – Burning of Materials 9. L9 – Wildlife Protection 10. M9 – Sustainable Construction 11. O1 – Hours of Working 12. Whilst the hours of operation are unrestricted from Mondays to Fridays, no vehicles, plant or machinery shall be operated and no process carried out on the site outside the following times; 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and not on Sundays and Bank and Public Holidays Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies. 13. An assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of all internally and externally located plant and activity shall be undertaken in accordance with BS 4142:1997. The assessment shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority together with a scheme of attenuation measures to mitigate any adverse impacts identified in the acoustic assessment. The scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be fully installed before the use hereby permitted commences and shall be operated for as long as the use is continued. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.
14. The roller shutters doors to the proposed building shall be kept closed at all times and shall not be opened between 18:00 hours and 0800 hours on the following day. ITEM A1 - 24
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.
15. No works involving the use of power tools or other noise generating plant, machinery or equipment shall be undertaken in the open air. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.
16. Deliveries to or from the premises shall be restricted to 07.30-17.30 hours on Monday to Friday and between 08.00 hours and 13:00 hours on Saturdays, and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.
17. The windows on the east elevation of the building shall be sealed at all times. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.
18. Access No development shall commence until the vehicular access serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved planning drawing. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
19. Car parking space No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car and lorry parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide parking spaces for the use
20. Construction Management Plan No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security, details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area.
21 Travel Plan No part of the development shall be first occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel ITEM A1 - 25
Plan shall be completed in accordance with the latest guidance and good practice documentation as published by the Department for Transport or as advised by the Highway Authority. Reason: To encourage and promote sustainable transport.
22. Provision or Extension of Waiting Restrictions No development shall be commenced until such time as a Traffic Regulation Order, or revision to an existing order, securing the provision of no waiting at anytime restrictions in accordance with details to be submitted has been approved by the Highway Authority and written confirmation of this approval has been made available to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
23. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 years plus 20% climate change. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. We require:
The peak discharge rates and together with associated control structures and their position. Details of the drainage system capacity (e.g. 1:30 year). Safe management of critical storm water storage up to the 1:100year event. Overland flow routes for events in excess of the 1:100 (plus 20% Climate change Provide topographical information of pre and post development. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion
As the site is partially underlain by a former landfill site, no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground in areas of contamination is permitted other than with the express written consent of the LPA, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site and to prevent the mobilisation or migration of contaminants. This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
24. No development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the LPA), shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the LPA:
1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
all previous uses
potential contaminants associated with those uses
a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors
potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. ITEM A1 - 26
2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the LPA. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure the protection of controlled waters from contamination related to the former landfill site located within the site boundary. The site is underlain by a principal aquifer with a shallow groundwater level present and is also adjacent to a surface water feature.
25. No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the LPA. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a "long-term monitoring and maintenance plan") for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that any remediation, if deemed necessary, is satisfactorily completed in order to protect controlled waters.
26. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the LPA detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the LPA. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that any contamination identified during the construction works is fully characterised and assessed.
27. Piling or any other foundation designs including ground source heating and cooling systems using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the LPA which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: Piling or any other foundation designs including ground source heating and cooling systems using penetrative methods can result in risks to potable supplies from, for example, pollution / turbidity, risk of mobilising contamination, drilling through different aquifers and creating preferential pathways. Thus it should be demonstrated that any proposed piling will not result in contamination of groundwater.
ITEM A1 - 27
Informative
Erection of flow control structures or any culverting of an ordinary watercourse requires consent from the Lead Local Flood Authority which in this instance is West Sussex County Council. It is best to discuss proposals for any works with them at an early stage.
INFORMATIVE Section 278 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Works within the Highway The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader (01243 642105) to commence this process. The applicant is advised that it is an offence to undertake any works within the highway prior to the agreement being in place.
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
1. IECO1 – The proposal would make a positive contribution to the local economy and local job opportunities.
Background Papers: DC/12/1891 ITEM A2 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 15th January 2013 Construction of stable barn and retention of access track and DEVELOPMENT: menage, mobile home and change of use from agricultural to agricultural and equestrian use SITE: Pulborough Farm Storrington Road Thakeham West Sussex
WARD: Chanctonbury
APPLICATION: DC/12/1590
APPLICANT: Miss Jo Jones
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: To Refuse Planning Permission & Authorise Enforcement Action to secure the removal of the unauthorised development.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission for the erection of a stable barn and retention of the access track and sandschool, mobile home and change of use from agricultural to agricultural and equestrian use. The equestrian use involves buying horses predominantly from Ireland and selling the horses on from Pulborough Farm and running a proposed breeding programme. The stable barn would measure 25m by 16.5m and would have a ridge height of 4.8m. The overall floor area of the building would be 412.5 square metres. The stable barn would provide 14 stables, a rug room, tack room, toilet, trailer store, hay and feed store and young stock loose stabling. The stable barn would consist of tanalised yorkshire spaced boarding stained brown to the external walls and green fibre cement sheeting to the roof.
1.2 The sandschool built on site measures 60m x 25m and has been completed albeit without the silica sand surface on top. The sandschool is surrounded by post and rail fencing to the periphery. This proposal also seeks to plant a mix of trees as a copse around the sandschool along with a hedgerow mix which is to be planted between the trees.
1.3 The access track created on site measures 215m in length and is proposed to be 2.5m in width made of a hardcore surface with an adjacent 1m wide strip of gridforce topped with earth and sown to grass. A new native hedgerow would be planted on the northern side of the access track.
Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 ITEM A2 - 2
1.4 The unauthorised mobile home currently on site would be re-positioned further south within the site and would be sited 1.5 – 2m from the southern boundary and approximately 12m from the proposed stable barn which would be sited further northwards. An area of hardcore would be retained/created where the mobile home would be sited which would measure approximately 17m by 25m.
1.5 The application proposes a new native mix hedge along the northern boundary of the main field. The existing laurel hedge would then be removed after approximately five years once the native hedge had become established. The application also proposes additional planting along the western and eastern boundaries through the planting of trees which will form small copses.
1.6 The access currently measures 15m in width as opposed to 6m in width as permitted under DC/10/0220. The applicant has advised that the access would be reduced to 6m once construction works were completed as they require the wider access in order to get larger delivery lorries into the site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.7 The site is located in a countryside location to the north of Storrington and to the south of Thakeham. The site consists of two fields to the east of Storrington Road. There is an access track to the south of the site which gives access to Leaves Cottage, Little Thakeham Farm and Meadow Farmhouse. The southern boundary of the site consists of a native hedgerow interspersed with oak trees, the eastern boundary of the site currently consists of a post and rail fence, the northern field within the application site rises up quite steeply and the western boundary consists of fencing.
1.8 A 15m wide access, access track, sandschool, lunging ring, hardstanding, mobile home and 12 temporary stables have been erected on site without the benefit of planning permission.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP2 – Environmental Quality & CP15 – Rural Strategy.
2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development Principles, DC25 – Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites / Intensification of Uses, DC27 – Essential Rural Workers Dwellings & DC29 – Equestrian Development. ITEM A2 - 3
PLANNING HISTORY
2.5 Application DC/09/1247 for private stables and exercise school facilities for 4 horses, withdrawn December 2009.
Application DC/10/0220 for private stables and exercise school facilities for 4 horses, permitted April 2010.
Prior Notification DC/11/1392 for the erection of an agricultural farm building, prior approval not required August 2011.
Application DC/11/1862 for temporary siting of a caravan for use during construction works and for overnight site security, refused October 2011. Appeal Dismissed August 2012
Prior notification DC/11/1971 for the erection of an agricultural farm building was withdrawn in October 2011.
Application DC/11/1992 for the erection of a stable block and hay barn to replace existing approval for four stables, tack and feed room granted under DC/10/0220. Relocation and enlargement of sand school permitted under DC/10/0220 from 20 x 40 m to 25 x 60 m. New rolled stone track and hard standing area was refused in January 2012. Appeal Withdrawn.
On 10th February 2012 two enforcement notices were issued in respect of the unauthorised development. The first was:
EN/3/2012 - “Without planning permission, the change of use of the land from agriculture to mixed use for the stationing of a mobile home for residential use in the approximate position shown edged green on the Plan and for equestrian use, and the erection of a close boarded wooden boundary fence in the approximate position marked blue and shown on the photograph attached to this notice, which is an integral part of the unauthorised equestrian use”
The second was:
EN/2/2012 - “Without planning permission, the construction of a track, hardstanding and sandschool in the area marked blue on the plan.” The Enforcement notices were the subject of an appeal which was dismissed on 2nd August 2012 with correction and variation. The Appellants (Miss Jo Jones and Mr Angus Gordon) have six months until 2nd February 2013 to comply with the enforcement notices or alternatively secure the necessary planning permissions.
There is no other relevant planning history for the site.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Strategic & Community Planning has commented that “This application has been considered against the Local Development Framework, in particular policies in the Core Strategy (2007) Development Plan Document and the General Development Control Policies (2007) Development Plan Document. The recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework is also relevant to the consideration of the application.
I note that this application is a re-submission of a previously refused application DC/11/1992, which was appealed against but then withdrawn from appeal. I also note that comments were given by the Strategic Planning team on this previous application, the ITEM A2 - 4 previous comments remain relevant and should be read in conjunction with these updated comments.
The site is located outside the designated built-up area as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007) and is therefore considered to be in a countryside location. This application by virtue of its countryside location, and due to the nature of the proposal is subject to Policies CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character) and CP15 (Rural Strategy) of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC25 (Rural Economic Development), DC27 (Essential Rural Workers Dwellings), and DC29 (Equestrian Development) of the General Development Control Policies (2007). Any proposal will need to comply with all the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework; key policies related to this application are set out in these comments.
The proposal should be in compliance with policies DC1, CP1 and CP2 which restrict any development in the countryside to that which can be justified as being essential to the needs of agriculture, forestry, the extraction of minerals, disposal of waste or quiet informal recreational use. It is generally accepted however that equestrian development does require a countryside location, and as such, equestrian development is supported through policy DC29 provided that the proposal is of a scale and level of activity which is in keeping with its location and surroundings, and that it does not result in sporadic development which would lead to an intensification of buildings in the countryside. With this in mind, you as the Case Officer should be satisfied that the proposal is considered to be essential to this countryside location, would be in keeping with and not detrimental to this countryside location, would be of an appropriate scale and location, and does not result in a sporadic form of development.
I note that the previously refused application and subsequent enforcement action were appealed by the applicant, although the appeal for the refusal of planning permission was later withdrawn. I also note that the planning inspector dismissed the appeal against the enforcement notices due to the fact that the level of agricultural activity was very small and would appear to be incidental to the main use, and that the inspector was not persuaded that it was sufficient to qualify as one of the permitted exceptions under Policy DC1. In addition, the inspector also stated that the continued use of the mobile home after the construction period would result in a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside, and is an alien feature in a rural landscape, out of keeping with its surroundings and, consolidating sporadic development in the countryside. The inspectors view was that the development is not essential to its rural location, was contrary to Policy DC1 and that it also adversely affects the rural character of the surrounding area.
I see from the plans submitted that some amendments have been made, namely the reduction in size of the agricultural building and removal of proposed horse exerciser. I note that this proposal would no longer comprise a riding school business, rather, the applicants propose a business for breeding, rearing and training horses for sale combined with complimentary agricultural use in the form of breeding sheep flock and a small number of poultry. The agricultural use would still appear to be incidental to the main use and as such does not appear to address the concerns raised by the planning inspector in the appeal decision notice.
It is also noted that the application comprises the retention of the existing mobile home on site; as you are aware, the general countryside protection policies restrict development unless it is considered essential to be in a countryside location. The planning inspector had raised concerns regarding the continued use of the mobile home after the construction period due to the impact it has on the character of the location and its necessity in this rural location. These concerns do not appear to have been addressed. Nonetheless, this proposal should be assessed against Policy DC27 (Essential Rural Workers Dwellings), this states that outside the defined built-up areas new housing for rural workers which would include that in connection with the breeding and care of horses on a commercial ITEM A2 - 5
basis will be permitted in accordance with PPS7. The need for such development will be considered in detail when determining the application. Viability will be tested in accordance with the functional and financial tests set out in PPS7 Annex A.
As you are aware, PPS7 and Annex A are no longer adopted national planning policy, and have been replaced with the National Planning Policy Framework, which has the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances, such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. However, currently there are no specific guidelines in terms of defining essential need. Whilst Annex A is no longer part of National Planning Policy, in light of the current absence of any guidance on what is considered an essential need, in my opinion the principles of Annex A can be used as a ‘good practice’ method to assess the functional and financial merits of the proposed business and in order to establish if there is an essential need for the dwelling in the countryside. These tests are not absolute but are needed to establish where the exception to policy, in this case a new dwelling in the countryside in connection with a rural business, is likely to have a long term financial future, and whether there is a need to live at the site. I suggest, therefore, that you ask the applicant to provide further information in respect of the proposals to assess this application. The following may be of use;
Evidence that there is a functional need for the applicant to live on site due to the needs/requirements of the horses/agricultural business run on site;
Proof that the use is a profitable rural business/enterprise;
Conclusion
Having particular regard to the planning history of this site and the issuing of enforcement notices on this site, there is concern regarding the appropriateness of the proposed uses on this site. It is worth noting that the planning inspector dismissed the appeal lodged against the enforcement notices and commented that the proposal was not essential to its countryside location and considered it contrary to the relevant local plan policies. It is accepted that the current proposal has been amended from the previous refusal, however, it does not appear that the proposed works have been significantly altered and therefore the planning inspector’s comments should be taken into consideration for this current application.
Nonetheless, it is a matter of judgement whether this amended proposal proves that there is a functional, sustainable and genuine need for the mobile home in connection with the enterprise at this site, and in addition, that the business will be a profitable rural enterprise; in order to make that judgement evidence is required. Moreover it needs to show that the amendments are such that the proposal now results in a development that would not harm the rural character of the area by virtue of the level of activity involved, and that the proposal can be considered to be an appropriate form of development in the countryside. The matters above are best judged by you as a case officer having studied the evidence and after a site visit. However, I would be happy to offer further guidance if necessary.”
3.2 Public Health & Licensing have commented that “there is a potential for such a development to cause a nuisance amounting to a statutory nuisance to the neighbours, so if permission is to be granted, I would recommend conditions to control the potential adverse effects of the proposed activity as follows:
1. The siting of the Mobile Home should be agreed with the Planning Authority before installation to avoid causing statutory nuisance to neighbours by its use. If a generator is to be used in conjunction with the home, it must not be audible beyond the boundary of the site. ITEM A2 - 6
2. A satisfactory means of foul drainage must be provided and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority before installation. The new drainage provision may need permission from the Environment Agency for any discharge.
3. The mobile home must be adequately insulated if it is to be given permission for use as all year round living accommodation.
4. The mobile home must be provided with a wholesome water supply.
5. Hours of work for installation of any structures to be restricted to 8:00-18:00 Monday to Friday, 8:00-13:00 on Saturdays; no working on Sundays or public holidays.
6. No deliveries to the site to be received or dispatched outside the above hours.
7. No burning of waste or waste materials on site.
8. The manure heap should be sited distant from the neighbours such that nuisance from odour is not caused at neighbouring premises.
9. No exterior floodlighting unless prior written approval from the local planning authority has been granted.
10. The applicant must ensure that any lights installed in accordance with this application are positioned to minimise light trespass and glare into neighbouring residential properties. The lighting must be maintained in such position through the working life of the installation in accordance with the Technical Report No 5: ‘Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements’ published by the Institute of Light Engineers
If permission is to be granted the mobile home will need to be issued with a caravan site licence. I can provide the applicant with the information about the licence conditions if required.”
3.3 The Access Forum has no comments to make.
3.4 The Arboricultural Officer has commented that “I report further to my comments in regard to the previous proposal under DC/11/1992.
My principal concern in regard to these proposals is the successful retention of the strong hedgeline with semi-mature trees running along the northern edge of the lane running to Little Thakeham Farm. The 'new' trackway to the north of this had already been installed prior to my visit to the site on 5th January 2012 in regard to the previous scheme, but for reasons set out in my report pursuant to that proposal I did not feel that any serious damage had been done to either the hedgerow or the large trees. I am therefore concerned that these trees have not been marked on the submitted plans, other than the two at the eastern extremity of the lane in the area targeted as a yard. Nor is there any indication as to how these trees are to be protected. The detail regarding the access track refers to the "2.5m wide hardcore surface (approx 6 inches depth)", as has already been installed, but refers also to "adjacent 1 metre wide strip of Gridforce, topped with earth and sown to grass". As there is an indication of a proposed new hedgerow to be planted along the northern edge of the new track, "immediately adjacent to access track", it must be assumed that this Gridforce strip is to be fitted along the southern edge, close to the trees. No evidence has been indicated as to how this might be constructed, given that the trees within the hedgerow have been omitted from the plans completely. This is unsatisfactory and unacceptable. ITEM A2 - 7
A further cause for concern is the proposed hardcore area at the eastern end of the access track. Hardcore around trees can cause extensive problems for rooting function, including root compaction, poisoning due to leachate of alien toxins from infill, and disruption to, and prevention of, gaseous exchange. This problem is compounded when the hardcore is compacted, as would be normal for the kind of use intended here. The plans indicate the hardcore area being taken right up to the southern site boundary, right up to the base of one tree, and completely surrounding another. This is completely unsatisfactory, as it would very likely lead to the early demise of these two trees. I am also concerned as to the siting of the proposed mobile home, for although such constructions often have very limited foundation requirements, it has been sited within 1.5m of the boundary, and right next to the two trees previously noted. In the absence of further information on this proposal, this places the scheme in conflict with BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' [2012].
In summary, this scheme has both insufficient information regarding the protection of trees on the site, and in addition provides evidence that trees will be damaged by the proposals in conflict with BS 5837 [2012] and policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework Document (December 2007). I therefore register an objection to this scheme.”
3.5 The Landscape Officer’s comments will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.6 Reading Agricultural Consultants were asked by HDC to provide an independent report on the proposal. There comments are as follows “It is noted at the outset that the application does not propose to limit the siting of the temporary dwelling to a specified period of time (normally three years), as is usual for developing enterprises that require on-site accommodation. Although Miss Jones and Mr Gordon operated an equestrian enterprise for some time at another yard, that enterprise was mainly a livery and riding school, with the buying and selling of horses forming a much smaller part of the overall enterprise. The current proposals for the enterprise concentrate on buying and selling horses, whilst developing a small-scale horse breeding enterprise.
This is clearly a new enterprise which, as it is not well-established, does not meet the criteria for a permanent dwelling to support an equestrian activity. This appraisal therefore assesses the need for a temporary dwelling on the holding to support the proposed enterprise. The letter from Patrick Woodford of 13 November confirms that the applicant agrees that she would accept a condition limiting the mobile home accommodation to a period of three years.
Policy Basis
Policy DC27 relies on the tests that were set out in Annex A to PPS7 and which have since been cancelled, and replaced by the NPPF. There are no specific functional and financial tests in the NPPF, which refers only to an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work. However, the thrust of DC27 is clear in that it is stated that the local authority will consider the need for essential rural workers’ dwellings ‘in detail’. At a recent appeal at Birds Farm, Dursely, Gloucestershire (APP/C1625/C/12/2171928), the Inspector stated: “A convincing case has to be made that there is an essential need, as required by paragraph 55 of the Framework, for the appellants to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. I consider that the test for a temporary dwelling set out in Annex A to PPS7 is an appropriate starting point, even though it must carry less weight now that it did before the Framework was published.”
ITEM A2 - 8
Experience
Miss Jones and Mr Gordon clearly have considerable equine knowledge as they have previously operated a livery yard and riding school. The horse dealing enterprise has also been in operation for a number of years (albeit at a smaller scale than existing or proposed) and the applicant now considers that it is this area of the business which she wishes to develop in conjunction with a horse breeding enterprise. There is no intention to provide a livery service or riding school facilities at Pulborough Farm.
Essential Need
It is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that there is an essential need for a worker to be readily available at most times. Such a requirement might arise, for example, if workers are needed to be on hand day and night in case animals require essential care at short notice or to deal quickly with any emergencies. It is the intention of the applicant to keep all horses stabled overnight, including those horses which are brought in from Ireland. It is evident that there are needs associated with the stabled horses. Much of their needs and supervisory requirements can be undertaken during standard working hours although there is undoubtedly an increased supervisory requirement for horses which are stabled overnight. Whether there is a need to live on site to support stabled horses relies heavily on the number of horses stabled and further increases with the number of breeding mares. The brood mares have increased supervisory requirements close to foaling in order to ensure the successful delivery of a healthy foal. If the horse numbers are developed as planned with the introduction of five broodmares, the full use of the fourteen stables proposed and six or more young horses were also loose-stabled in the barn as proposed, I consider that an enterprise of this scale and nature would give rise to an essential need to live on site. I would note however that, at these levels, I consider the need to live on site is marginal.
Financial Viability
The Planning Appraisal prepared by Symonds and Sampson advises that there is a labour requirement of 2.88 workers in relation to the brood mares, foals, youngsters and sheep. No mention is made of the labour requirements relating to the horse-dealing enterprise. However, the summary included at Appendix 6a.1 of the business plan prepared by Mr Jones states: “The profit on the sheep is not significant but the sheep are also an important part of the overall management of the land. The profit on the ‘breeding programme’ could be significant but at this state is untried and untested. In view of the untried nature of these two ventures it has been decided not to include any profit from either but nevertheless without there [sic] inclusion the business is shown to be strongly economically viable and whilst the ‘sheep’ profits make little difference, profits from the breeding programme substantially further strengthen its profitability.” It is evident that there is a lack of consistency between the business plan and the planning appraisal. The argument is made that there is an essential need to live on site to support the breeding mares, but it is clear that this element of enterprise development has not been fully explored. I am concerned that the essential need to live on site relates primarily to the horse- breeding enterprise. However, the business plan does not include any income/expenditure relating to that enterprise.
Horse dealing
The horse-dealing enterprise is based on an unusual business model in that it is suggested that all horses will be transported from horse dealers in Ireland on a sale-or-return basis. It is suggested that the horses would be imported from Ireland and delivered directly to ITEM A2 - 9
Pulborough Farm; they would then be advertised for sale and, once sold, the money would be transferred to the Irish owners. Mr Gordon and Mr Jones advised at the site visit that ASAP Investments Limited receive 10-20% commission on each horse sold.
I requested that purchase invoices and sales receipts for the horses be submitted to support the claims made in relation to numbers of horses sold and average purchase/sale price. Instead, Miss Jones has provided a list of horse sales from January 2011 through to October 2012. However, I have not been provided with accounts to support this level of activity. Furthermore, the sales information provided is not consistent with the financial data at Appendix 6a of the ASAP Investments Business Plan. No allowances have been made within the financial forecast for the purchase of any horses in the next three years. All sales relate to the Irish horses which are sold on commission although export incomes for the year ended 31 May 2013 and 31 May 2014 are included. This income, for which no explanation has been provided, forms a significant part of the net profit of the enterprise. In addition, Mr Gordon indicated that he would be responsible for paying the transport costs for about 50% of the horses which are imported. This cost has not been shown in the forecast. Furthermore, there are no formal contracts in place for the horse dealing enterprise. Mr Gordon advised that there are currently two dealers in Ireland who would be prepared to provide this sale-or-return service. However, with no contract in place, this is a tenuous base for the business. From the accounts information provided, it would appear that there are insufficient funds available for the business to be able to purchase a significant number of horses to sell if the current arrangement fails. There are a number of other matters over which I have concerns, namely:
the recent economic downturn in the UK has led to an increase in the number of horses for sale. This has led to a decrease in prices through an over-supply of the market – this fact has been well documented in the national press. The business forecasts appear optimistic and do not appear to make any allowances for a ‘worst case scenario’; no labour costs are included in the ASAP Investments financial history and forecast although it is stated at paragraph 8.6 of the Planning Appraisal that two stable girls are employed at weekends on a part-time basis with occasional part-time help during the week when required; no bedding costs have been included in the financial forecast; Mr Gordon advised that the horses often arrive from Ireland without the necessary horse passport. There is no doubt that this will need to be rectified before the horse can be vetted and sold. This will extend the time the horses remain on the holding which could further impact the viability of the enterprise; Mr Gordon confirmed that it will cost an additional £*** to connect to mains electricity. It is their intention to have this work completed once planning permission is in place. This expenditure does not appear in the financial forecast; and the advertising costs appear extremely low when the proposals include the sale of fifty horses. Whilst I understand that the website will generate some sales, advertising the horses will still form an important part of the business. It is often necessary to advertise a horse more than once in order to secure a sale. I consider that the business plans provided are not soundly based and fail to demonstrate that the enterprise could achieve long-term sustainability.”
Mobile home
The revised siting of the mobile home would be well placed to provide for the welfare needs of the stabled and grazing horses. ITEM A2 - 10
Stable barn
The proposed barn would measure 25m x 16.5m and would be clad with Yorkshire boarding to provide good ventilation whilst providing protection against drafts. The barn would incorporate fourteen stables, a tack room, a rug room, wc facilities; a hay and feed store, a trailer store and an area for loose stabling young stock. Further information has been provided in the letter of 13 November which confirms that the internal walls of the stables are to be movable to provide flexibility. However, the following approximate measurements are provided to give an indication of the areas of use:
tack room 4m x 3.5m; rug room 2.5m x 3.5m; average stable 3m x 3.5m; trailer store 4m x 6m; hay and feed store 8.5m x 6m; and loose stabling 12.5m x 6m.
British Horse Society guidelines indicate the minimum stable size for a horse is 3.6m x 3.6m whilst for a small pony it is 3m x 3m. It is evident that the size of stable proposed would only provide suitable accommodation for a pony rather than a horse but the information available on the Pulborough Equestrian website indicates that most of the horses bought and sold are full size (over 14h2”), with only a minority being ponies. Whilst the stabling provides a good degree of flexibility I am concerned that there is insufficient space to accommodate, in real terms, more than twelve horses – and less when foaling mares are stabled. This is an important factor because, whilst I have accepted that there is an essential need to live on site to support an enterprise of this scale, this need is marginal and a reduction in numbers of stabled horses would, in my opinion, negate the need to live on site.
Manège
The proposals include the provision of a large manège measuring 60m x 25m. The need for an outdoor school of this size is based upon the need to work and train competition horses bred on the holding or purchased for eventual resale. I am aware that Miss Jones and Mr Gordon both ride competition horses at a high level and these horses are also then sold on, as and when appropriate. In order to continue with this element of the enterprise, I consider it would be essential to exercise the horses in an arena of this size. ITEM A2 - 11
Land suitability
The British Horse Society (BHS) advises that grazing horses usually require a minimum of 0.5 ha each; the 9ha of grazing land (9.7 ha less 0.7 ha in non-grazing uses) available at Pulborough Farm would therefore be expected to support up to 18 horses – Mr Gordon advised that he considered there would be 20-25 horses on that holding at any one time. The lack of suitable and available land could therefore jeopardise the business plan, particularly in the light of the fact that the quality of much of the land is below average.
Conclusion
This is clearly a new enterprise which, as it is not well-established, does not meet the criteria for a permanent dwelling to support an equestrian activity. This appraisal has therefore considered the need for a temporary dwelling on the holding to support the proposed enterprise. I consider that, if the enterprise is developed to the proposed levels of five broodmares and full occupation of the proposed fourteen stables achieved with six or more young horses loose-stabled, there is an essential need, albeit marginal, to live on site. I do have concerns, however, that the proposed stable barn is not capable of accommodating the proposed level of activity. The essential need to live on site relates primarily to the horse-breeding enterprise. However, the business plan does not include any income/expenditure relating to this enterprise. The financial forecasts do not include all necessary expenditure, and the commission- based business is fragile in that it relies heavily on two providers with no contract in place for either of these. The business plan provided is not soundly based and fails to demonstrate that the enterprise could achieve long-term sustainability. The manège is necessary to provide the exercise arena for competition horses. The restricted land availability and the poor quality of the grassland could jeopardise the enterprise development.”
3.7 Reading Agricultural Consultants (additional comments) in response to Patrick Woodford of Symonds and Sampson letter dated 3rd December 2012.
I have taken note of all comments made and would respond as follows:
the need to live on site relates primarily to the breeding enterprise which is clearly a new enterprise and not well-established; the experience of Miss Jones and Mr Gordon is evident and accepted; I remain of the opinion that an enterprise of the scale and nature proposed (five broodmares, fourteen stabled horses and six or more young horses – loose- stabled) would give rise to an essential need to live on site although I consider that, at these levels, the need is marginal; no additional information has been provided to clarify the position in relation to the labour requirements of the horse-dealing enterprise – which could increase the labour requirements of the enterprise and, subsequently, increase the outgoings of the enterprise; whilst I appreciate that the applicant considers that the ‘stables girls’ will work in return for free riding, the labour requirement is still a cost to the business and should therefore be included in the financial projections; I am still concerned that the essential need to live on site relates primarily to the horse-breeding enterprise – for which the business plan does not include any income/expenditure relating to that enterprise; no purchase invoices and sales receipts have been provided to confirm the average purchase/sale price; ITEM A2 - 12
I remain of the opinion that the inclusion of income for horses sold through export, without the inclusion of any purchase costs, is not reasonable; no comment was made in relation to the lack of inclusion of the transport costs in the financial forecast; no further supporting documentation has been submitted to demonstrate that the horse-dealing enterprise is based on a sound footing I still have concerns over the lack of inclusion in the financial forecast of the cost of connecting to mains electricity; I note the comments made in relation to the flexibility of the stable barn, which is evident. However, I still have concerns that the barn is not of a suitable size to provide for the proposed enterprise development. The applicant has advised that there is a requirement to have areas within the proposed building to store machinery, trailer, hay and feed. However, Mr Woodford now advises that, if necessary, the equipment and hay will be moved outside; the need for the manège is accepted; and I understand that different management practices give rise to the requirement for differing areas of grazing, however I still have concerns that the poor quality of the land at Pulborough Farm could jeopardise the enterprise development.
3.8 West Sussex Highway Authority has commented that “a site survey was conducted on 26/09/2012.
Access to this site is achieved via an existing point of access onto an access track which is in private ownership; this track is considered to be a definitive public right of way (B.W.2488). Access to the publically maintained highway takes place from this access track onto Storrington Road, which is ‘B’ classified and subject to a 60mph speed limit at this location. It should also be noted that Footpath 2487 runs north/south along the eastern boundary of the site.
West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application DC/10/0220, for the erection of private stables and an exercise facility. This application was granted planning consent by the LPA and a condition included securing 2.4 x 120 metre visibility splays at the access to the publically maintainable highway (Storrington Road). Consultation was also sought on planning application DC/11/1862 for the temporary silting of a caravan to which no highways objections were raised due to the small scale temporary nature of the proposal. Most recently WSCC commented on planning application DC/11/1992 which was for a proposal similar in nature to that proposed above. No highways objection was raised to this proposal however the application was refused by the LPA for locally policy reasons.
The applicant has now decided to remove the riding school element of the proposal and concentrate on the breeding, rearing and training of horses for sale. From the information supplied this will reduce the potential number of vehicular movements visiting the site when compared to the DC/11/1992 application. Therefore no highways concerns would be raised to this proposal.
No highways concerns would be raised to the proposed reduction in width to 6 metres of the existing site access onto the private access track. This will result in the alterations being made to the site boundary with the adjacent Bridleway. Similarly it is noted from the Landscaping plan (20223/07) that the eastern boundary of the site will be replaced as part of this application. This boundary is adjacent to Footpath 2487. Any replacement to the public rights of way boundaries must be done in consultation with West Sussex County Council’s Rights of Way team to ensure the legal width of the path is maintained and there is no unlawful encroachment.
ITEM A2 - 13
From observation made on site an appropriate level of car parking is achievable; this has not been specifically detailed on the plans provided. We would ask that car parking and turning is secured via condition.
It was observed on site that the southern visibility splay as conditioned in the approval for DC/10/0220 has not been maintained. Should the LPA be minded to grant planning consent I would ask that the visibility splay condition of 2.4 x 120 metres is once again included and maintained in perpetuity in the interests of highway safety.
From the information supplied and taking into consideration the planning history of the site no overriding highway concerns would be raised to this proposal.”
3.9 The Environment Agency has commented that due to the level of risk posed by this development they have no comments to make.
3.10 Natural England has commented that this proposal “is in close proximity to Sullington Warren Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application submitted.”
3.11 Southern Water has commented that “there are no public sewers in the area to serve this development. The applicant is advised to consult the Environment Agency directly regarding the use of a package treatment plant which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner of the premises will need to maintain the works to ensure its long term effectiveness.”
3.12 WSCC Ecologist has stated that “The proposed track appears to run under the canopy of mature trees. The plans submitted with the application do not provide enough information to determine whether there would be an impact on the root areas supporting these trees. The plans do not appear to show the trees on the north side of the road. There is no indication that there is/was any intention to protect the trees. Q15 of the application form has been marked positive but no Tree Protection Plans or other arboricultural documents have been submitted to support the application. The application may not comply with BS5837:2012. Therefore, I strongly recommend consultation with Will Jones, Arboricultural Officer (Development).”
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.13 Thakeham Parish Council has raised an objection stating that “Development in the countryside should be related to agriculture or forestry, this application represents a change of use to agricultural, equestrian and domestic residential use. Furthermore the conditions attached to the permission granted under DC/10/0220 state that the stables and sand school shall not be used for commercial purposes whereas this application is for a commercial equestrian business. There is also concern over the potential for light pollution issues. The proposal constitutes sporadic development in the strategic gap between Thakeham and Storrington and would be detrimental to the rural landscape.”
3.14 Thakeham Village Action has objected on the grounds of:
The changes made in this application compared to DC/11/1992 are not sufficient to override the fundamental conflicts with policy; Changing the open undeveloped agricultural fields into a commercial equestrian centre with a house, buildings, hardstanding and tracks would not be in keeping with the open countryside character of the location; The scale of the proposal and the level of activity would seriously harm what has been farmland. It would lead to intensification of activity in this countryside location; ITEM A2 - 14
It would result in sporadic development leading to intensification of buildings in the countryside; The mobile home would be out of character and result in sporadic development; The development is visually prominent from the roads and rights of way; It does not constitute farm diversification as the two fields are not part of an existing farm holding;
3.15 5 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
Planning application DC/11/1992 for a very similar proposal was refused in January 2012; The Local Planning Authority stated in its previous decision that the structures due to their size, siting and design would represent an unacceptable form of scale of development that would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of this countryside location. This application seems to differ from the previous refused and appealed applications only cosmetically; The buildings proposed would not enhance the landscape character of the area and would not be grouped with any other buildings contrary to Policy CP1 & CP15; The agricultural use is incidental to the main equestrian use and has been added to the applicants proposals recently. There are 20 sheep and a few chickens currently on site; The assertion that there are no rentable properties in the surrounding area is disingenuous as three of the four adjacent properties are let; In justifying the scale of the barn, the information submitted suggests that the applicant intends to keep a greater number of horses (25) and sheep than are presently on site which would not be sustainable on the size of this holding; There are currently 12 horses and 18 sheep on site which on the basis of DEFRA good husbandry guidelines would leave no available grazing land for additional stock or hay production; The prospect of any development on this site takes on an added importance now that the Abingworth development has been approved as the land in question will shortly constitute half of the remaining 'green corridor' between Thakeham and Storrington. The original plans DC/10/0220 were for private use with only 6 stables and a small sandschool close to the access; The siting of the mobile home and the barn would be directly opposite Meadow Farmhouse approx 10m away, which would cause a visual impact, noise, disturbance and light pollution; The mobile home which was allegedly required for construction was dismissed on appeal as an alien feature in the countryside; The 2010 consent would have far less visual impact than the current proposal as it permitted a small stable block with limited hard standing and small 20 x 40m sandschool, with no requirement for a 200m long access track; The applicant’s statement that the western end is lower and wetter than the eastern end of the field is not correct; The development is contrary to Policy DC29 as it will lead to an intensification of buildings in a countryside location; The Mobile home is not necessary as there are many Equestrian yards that do not have this facility; We hope that the enforcement notices in place will take effect as soon as possible;
3.16 13 letters of support have been received on the following grounds:
The proposal is beneficial to the local economy; Significant improvements have been made to the land since it was purchased; New trees have been planted; The mobile home is important for the care of the horses on site; ITEM A2 - 15
The original DC/10/0220 menage and stables were in direct line of sight of our house and our three neighbours. It should have been granted instead in the south-eastern corner of the field where there have been existing buildings for many years. The visual impact from our four houses, from the ridge behind us and the road is significantly less in this corner than the original proposal. This application has been the most sympathetic to the landscape; It is of a scale and mix of equestrian and farming which should not cause undue concern to any of the neighbours or others who enjoy this area;
3.17 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the effect of the development on the visual amenities and character of the rural area, on the hedgerows and trees, whether there is sufficient agricultural justification for a temporary dwelling and whether the development materially affects neighbouring occupiers
6.2 Policy DC29 (Equestrian Development) states:
Planning permission will be granted for equestrian related development if:
a) it can be demonstrated that the re-use of existing buildings on site for any related equestrian use is not appropriate before new or replacement buildings are considered; b) the proposal is appropriate in scale and level of 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 particularly in an urban fringe location.
6.3 The National Planning Policy Framework states that “Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
The essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.” Policy DC1 states that “Outside built-up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria:
a) supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; b) enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; c) provides for quiet informal recreational use; or d) ensures the sustainable development of rural areas. ITEM A2 - 16
Any development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead, either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside.”
6.4 The applicant bought the application site in approximately September 2011 from what comprised a much larger agricultural farming unit. The application site has previously been in agricultural use. The applicant seeks consent for the erection of a stable barn, retention of the access track, sandschool, mobile home and change of use from agricultural to agricultural and equestrian use. The stable barn would measure 25m by 16.5m and would have a ridge height of 4.8m. The overall floor area of the building would be 412.5 square metres. The stable barn would provide 14 stables, a rug room, tack room, toilet, trailer store, hay and feed store and young stock loose stabling.
6.5 A previous planning application (DC/10/0220) granted consent for a stable block comprising 4 stables and a hay/feed store. The stable block was sited in an ‘L’ shape and measured 8.5m by 14.4m and had a floor area of 69.48 square metres. The ridge height of the building was 3m. A sand school was also permitted which measured 20m by 40m and was sited adjacent to the stables at the western end of the field adjacent to the field access. The permission has not been implemented. Application DC/10/0220 followed the withdrawal of application DC/09/1247 which sought consent for a larger ‘U’ shaped stable block with a floor area of 134.64 square metres and sandschool. The stable block was considered too large, the creation of a permanent access track across the field was considered to harm the rural character of the area and the siting of the building was considered to be inappropriate. Discussions took place with the applicant at that time to reduce the size of the stable block, remove the long access track and re-site the building to the south west corner of the field thus and removing the need for an access track, which resulted in the submission and subsequent approval of DC/10/0220.
6.6 An agricultural prior notification was submitted under DC/11/1392 for the erection of an agricultural farm building in July 2011. This building measured 18m by 25m. It was considered at the time that the building was reasonably required for agricultural purposes and that the building be constructed in accordance with the plans and details contained within the Prior Notification providing that all requirements of Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 relating to agricultural permitted development were complied with. In July 2011, the Local Planning Authority was not aware that the applicant ran a commercial equestrian business. However, the applicant submitted another agricultural prior notification under DC/11/1971 for the erection of another agricultural farm building but the applicant withdrew this application in October 2011 as he stated that the agricultural barn would not meet his equestrian needs and would therefore not be reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes as required by Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning Order 1995.
6.7 The applicant has resided in the mobile home since December 2011 and application DC/11/1862 for the temporary siting of the caravan for use during construction works was refused in October 2011 and was later dismissed on appeal in August 2012. The Inspector considered the mobile home an alien feature in a rural landscape which was out of keeping with its surroundings and owing to its location consolidated sporadic development. Application DC/11/1992 sought consent for the retention of a track, hardstanding and sandschool and the erection of a barn for stabling purposes. This was refused in January 2012. The applicant appealed the decision but he later withdraw the appeal.
6.8 On 10th February 2012 two enforcement notices were issued in respect of the unauthorised development. The first was:
EN/3/2012 - “Without planning permission, the change of use of the land from agriculture to mixed use for the stationing of a mobile home for residential use in the approximate position shown edged green on the Plan and for equestrian use, and the erection of a close ITEM A2 - 17
boarded wooden boundary fence in the approximate position marked blue and shown on the photograph attached to this notice, which is an integral part of the unauthorised equestrian use”
EN/2/2012 - “Without planning permission, the construction of a track, hardstanding and sandschool in the area marked blue on the plan.” The Enforcement notices were the subject of an appeal which was dismissed on 2nd August 2012 with correction and variation. Please see Appendix A for a copy of the decision notice. The Appellants (Miss Jo Jones and Mr Angus Gordon) have six months to comply with the enforcement notices (by 2nd February 2013) or alternatively secure the necessary planning permissions.
6.9 This current application has been submitted in response to the appeal decision as the applicant has until 2nd February 2013 to comply with the enforcement notices or secure planning permission. This application still incorporates many of the unacceptable elements that application DC/11/1992 and DC/11/1862 covered with the main differences being:
The change of use from agriculture to mixed agriculture & equestrian use (horse dealer & breeding) rather than from agriculture to equestrian use (livery, riding school & sale horses) as proposed under DC/11/1992. The barn refused under DC/11/1992 measured 24m by 16.5m with a ridge height of 7.4m. The barn submitted under this current application measures 25m by 16.5m with a ridge height of 4.8m. The floor area of the building proposed is 16.5 square metres greater but the ridge height is 2.6m lower; The mobile home is the same but is to be relocated; The sandschool is the same; The access track is predominantly the same, albeit with 1m width of gridforce; Additional hedge planting is proposed; Additional tree planting is proposed; The area of hard standing has been reduced. The land to the north of the barn where the mobile home is currently sited is to be put back to grass; An area of additional hard standing is proposed where the mobile home is to be re-sited adjacent to the southern boundary.
6.10 With regard to the essential need for a worker to be readily available at most times. It is the applicant’s intention to keep all horses stabled overnight, including those horses which are brought over from Ireland. It is evident that there are needs associated with stabled horses. Much of their needs and supervisory requirements can be undertaken during standard working hours although there is undoubtedly an increased supervisory requirement for horses which are stabled overnight. This need relies heavily on the number of horses stabled and further increases with the number of breeding mares. The brood mares have increased supervisory requirements close to foaling in order to ensure the successful delivery of a healthy foal. The Agricultural Advisor has stated that “If the horse numbers are developed as planned with the introduction of five broodmares, the full use of the fourteen stables proposed and six or more young horses were also loose- stabled in the barn as proposed, I consider that an enterprise of this scale and nature would give rise to an essential need to live on site. I would note however that, at these levels, I consider the need to live on site is marginal.”
6.11 With regard to the financial viability of the enterprise, the Planning Appraisal prepared by Symonds and Sampson advises that there is a labour requirement of 2.88 workers in relation to the brood mares, foals, youngsters and sheep. No mention is made of the labour requirements relating to the horse-dealing enterprise. The summary at Appendix 6a.1 of the business plan prepared by Mr Jones states: “The profit on the sheep is not significant but the sheep are also an important part of the overall management of the land. The profit on the ‘breeding programme’ could be significant but at this stage is untried and untested. In view of the untried nature of these ITEM A2 - 18
two ventures it has been decided not to include any profit from either but nevertheless without there [sic] inclusion the business is shown to be strongly economically viable and whilst the ‘sheep’ profits make little difference, profits from the breeding programme substantially further strengthen its profitability.” It is clear that there is a lack of consistency between the business plan and the planning appraisal. The applicant states that there is an essential need to live on site to support the breeding mares, but it is clear that this element of enterprise has not been fully explored yet. The Agricultural Advisor has stated that “I am concerned that the essential need to live on site relates primarily to the horse- breeding enterprise. However, the business plan does not include any income/expenditure relating to that enterprise.”
6.12 With regard to the horse dealing enterprise, the majority of horses are transported from horse dealers in Ireland on a sale-or-return basis to Pulborough Farm. Once they arrive at Pulborough Farm they would then be advertised for sale and, once sold, the money would be transferred to the Irish owners. The applicant receives commission on each horse sold. The Agricultural Advisor requested that purchase invoices and sales receipts for the horses be submitted to support the claims made in relation to numbers of horses sold and average purchase/sale price. Instead, the applicant has provided a list of horse sales from January 2011 through to October 2012. However, accounts to support this level of activity have not been provided. The sales information provided is not consistent with the financial data at Appendix 6a of the ASAP Investments Business Plan. No allowances have been made within the financial forecast for the purchase of any horses in the next three years. All sales relate to the Irish horses which are sold on commission although export incomes for the year ending 31 May 2013 and for the year ending 31 May 2014 are included. This income, for which no explanation has been provided, forms a significant part of the net profit of the enterprise. In addition, Mr Gordon indicated that he would be responsible for paying the transport costs of 50% of the horses which are imported. This cost has not been shown in the forecast. There are also no formal contracts in place for the horse dealing enterprise. The applicant advised that there are currently two dealers in Ireland who would be prepared to provide this sale-or-return service. However, the Agricultural Advisor has stated that “with no contract in place, this is a tenuous base for the business. From the accounts information provided, it would appear that there are insufficient funds available for the business to be able to purchase a significant number of horses to sell if the current arrangement fails.”
6.13 The Agricultural Advisor has also raised concerns with regard to:
the recent economic downturn in the UK has led to an increase in the number of horses for sale. This has led to a decrease in prices through an over-supply of the market. no labour costs are included in the ASAP Investments financial history and forecast although it is stated at paragraph 8.6 of the Planning Appraisal that two stable girls are employed at weekends on a part-time basis with occasional part-time help during the week when required; no bedding costs have been included in the financial forecast; The Applicant advised that the horses often arrive from Ireland without the necessary horse passport. This will extend the time the horses remain on the holding which could further impact the viability of the enterprise; The Applicant confirmed that it will cost an additional £*** to connect to mains electricity. It is their intention to have this work completed once planning permission is in place. This expenditure does not appear in the financial forecast. the advertising costs appear extremely low when the proposals include the sale of fifty horses.
It is the Agricultural Advisors view that the business plans provided are not soundly based and fail to demonstrate that the enterprise could achieve long-term sustainability. ITEM A2 - 19
Therefore, there is insufficient agricultural justification for a temporary dwelling at this present time contrary to the NPPF and Policy DC27.
6.14 The proposed barn would measure 25m x 16.5m and would have a ridge height of 4.8m. The barn would incorporate fourteen stables, a tack room, a rug room, wc facilities; a hay and feed store, a trailer store and an area for loose stabling young stock. The barn has much the same footprint as the barn refused under DC/11/1992 but would be 2.6m lower in height which is an improvement on the previous barn proposed. However, it is still considered that the barn would be overly large in size and its siting would be prominent within the landscape setting. It would be highly visible from public footpath ROW2487 which runs along the eastern boundary of the application site and bridleway ROW2488 which runs along the southern boundary of the site.
6.15 The first application on the site (DC/09/1247) for a ‘U’ shaped stable block with a floor area of 134.64 square metres and a sandschool was recommended for refusal due to its size and siting, however this application was eventually withdrawn before a smaller more appropriately sited stable block was permitted under application DC/10/0220. Application DC/11/1992 for the access track, sandschool, hardstanding and barn were refused by reason of their size, siting and design as they were considered to represent an unacceptable form and scale of development that would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of this countryside location. Furthermore the proposal was also considered to constitute an undesirable element of sporadic development in the rural area. The current proposed barn would have a floor area of 412.5 square metres which is nearly 6 times the floor area of the stables approved under DC/10/0220 which had a floor area of 69.4 square metres.
6.16 The average stable size proposed within the barn measures 3m x 3.5m which appears to be on the small size. The British Horse Society guidelines indicate the minimum stable size for a horse is 3.6m x 3.6m whilst for a small pony it is 3m x 3m. It is evident that the size of the stables proposed would only provide suitable accommodation for a pony rather than a horse but the information available on the Pulborough Equestrian website indicates that most of the horses bought and sold are full size (over 14h2”), with only a minority being ponies. The Agricultural Advisor has commented that “Whilst the stabling provides a good degree of flexibility I am concerned that there is insufficient space to accommodate, in real terms, more than twelve horses – and less when foaling mares are stabled. This is an important factor because, whilst I have accepted that there is an essential need to live on site to support an enterprise of this scale, this need is marginal and a reduction in numbers of stabled horses would, in my opinion, negate the need to live on site.”
6.17 The sandschool measures 60m x 25m. The applicant has stated that the need for an outdoor school of this size is based upon the need to work and train competition horses bred on the holding or purchased for eventual resale. The applicant rides competition horses at a high level and these horses are also then sold on, as and when appropriate. The Agricultural Advisor has stated that “In order to continue with this element of the enterprise, I consider it would be essential to exercise the horses in an arena of this size.” This is acknowledged by the Local Planning Authority. In addition, it is acknowledged that planning permission was granted for a sandschool measuring 20m by 40m to the eastern end of the field for private use only but this was sited close to the entrance of the field and close to the southern boundary in order to minimise its’ impact within this open countryside location and to avoid having to create an access track across the land. There is no objection in principle to a sandschool on the site, but it needs to be sited close to site boundaries in order to minimise it’s visual impact but the sandschool built on site is located approximately 18m from the southern boundary.
6.18 The track runs almost the entire width of the site and although it is proposed to plant a hedge along the northern edge of the track to screen, the hardcore track would still ITEM A2 - 20
introduce an access track of approx 215 metres in length in what was an otherwise undeveloped stretch of rural land. A new area of hardstanding is also proposed to the southern side of the site which would go right up to the southern boundary which consists of a hedge and two large oak trees. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted on this and he has objected to the proposal as the mobile home is too close to the trees/hedgerow, the trees along the southern boundary have not been plotted on the plans and there is no information as to how these trees will be protected. The submitted information refers to the access track with an "adjacent 1 metre wide strip of Gridforce, topped with earth and sown to grass" to the side of the existing access track but there is no mention which side of the track this would be laid. It must be assumed that this Gridforce strip is to be fitted along the southern edge, close to the trees as a new hedge is proposed to the northern side of the access track. No evidence has been provided to show how this might be constructed, given that the trees within the hedgerow have been omitted from the plans. A further cause for concern is the proposed hardcore area at the eastern end of the access track which would be laid up to the southern boundary which consists of hedging and mature oak trees. Hardcore around trees can cause extensive problems for rooting function, including root compaction, poisoning due to leachate of alien toxins from infill, and disruption to, and prevention of, gaseous exchange. This problem is compounded when the hardcore is compacted, as would be normal for the kind of use.
6.19 The mobile home that has been on site since December 2011 is proposed to be re-sited to within 1.5m of the southern boundary of the site. The mobile home was refused under application DC/11/1862 as the Local Planning Authority was not satisfied from the information provided that the mobile home was essential to its rural location, and due to its position within the site would result in the consolidation of sporadic development in the countryside to the detriment of the rural character of the area. This view was supported at appeal by the Inspector. The Inspector stated that Policy DC1 requires “rural development not to lead to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside. The continued use of the mobile home after the construction period is just such a significant increase.” Additionally, the mobile home is an alien feature in a rural landscape, out of keeping with its surroundings and, owing to its location, consolidating sporadic development in the countryside.” The siting of the mobile home is very close to the southern boundary and two large oak trees. If permission was granted for the mobile home it would need to be issued with a caravan site licence which requires 2 metres to be retained to boundaries of the site which in its current position would fail to provide the necessary distance.
6.20 The application site consists of 9ha of grazing land (9.7 ha less 0.7 ha in non-grazing uses) and the applicant has stated that he considered there would be 20-25 horses on the holding at any one time. The British Horse Society (BHS) advises that grazing horses usually require a minimum of 0.5 ha each. Therefore, the application site could support up to 18 horses based on these calculations. The increased horse numbers would mean the land will become overgrazed and poached especially in the winter months resulting in a landscape of much less visual quality. The lack of suitable and available land could jeopardise the business plan, particularly in light of the fact that the quality of much of the land is below average.
6.21 In summary, the agricultural advisor considers that, if the enterprise is developed to the proposed levels of five broodmares and full occupation of the proposed fourteen stables achieved with six or more young horses loose-stabled, there is an essential need, albeit marginal, to live on site. However, she does have concerns that the proposed stable barn is not capable of accommodating the proposed level of activity. This also has a knock on effect as the Local Planning Authority has concerns over the proposed size of the barn given its exposed rural location, without the likelihood of it being extended in the future should permission be granted.
6.22 The essential need to live on site relates primarily to the horse-breeding enterprise. However, the business plan does not include any income/expenditure relating to this ITEM A2 - 21
enterprise. The financial forecasts do not include all necessary expenditure, and the commission-based business is fragile in that it relies heavily on two providers with no contract in place for either of these. It is considered that the business plan provided is not soundly based and fails to demonstrate that the enterprise could achieve long-term sustainability. Therefore, it is considered that there is insufficient justification for a temporary dwelling at this present time contrary to the NPPF and Policy DC27.
6.23 It is also considered that the cumulative impact of the size, design and siting of the barn, access track, hard standing, mobile home, sandschool and the mixed equestrian / agricultural use would represent an unacceptable form and scale of development that would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of this countryside location. Furthermore the proposal would constitute an undesirable element of sporadic development in the rural area contrary to policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC29 and policies CP1 and CP15.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused on the following grounds & enforcement action authorised to secure the removal of the unauthorised development.
1) The proposed barn and the retention of the sandschool, access track, hard standing, mobile home and use by reason of their size, siting and design and level of activity would represent an unacceptable form and scale of development that would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of this countryside location. Furthermore the proposal would constitute an undesirable element of sporadic development in the rural area. The proposal thus conflicts with policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC29 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), policies CP1 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
2) The proposal is unacceptable on the basis of the financial information submitted as the Local Planning Authority considers that there is insufficient agricultural justification for a temporary dwelling at this present time. The proposal therefore conflicts with Government advice in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy DC27 of the General Development Control Document 2007.
3) It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the hedgerow and trees along the southern boundary of the site will be protected from damage and from the information submitted the new hardcore area which would abut the southern site boundary, the base of one tree, and would completely surround another tree is unacceptable and is in conflict with BS 5837 [2012] and policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework Document (December 2007).
Background Papers: DC/11/1992, DC/11/1862, DC/09/1247, DC/10/0220, DC/11/1392 & DC/11/1971 Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler ITEM A3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 15th January 2013 Replacement of kennel buildings with a detached single dwelling and DEVELOPMENT: double garage and new vehicular access and reversion of other commercial kennel buildings to purposes ancillary to the dwelling SITE: St Andrews Farm, Coolham Road, Brooks Green, Horsham WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/12/2024 APPLICANT: Ms A Silver
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Five letters of representation in support of this application have been received.
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE planning permission.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The proposal seeks planning permission to demolish seven existing kennel buildings within the westerly half of the application site and the erection of 1 No. detached chalet bungalow and a detached double garage. The proposed dwelling would be orientated to the east, facing the proposed parking area and single storey double garage building. The proposed dwelling incorporates four bedrooms within the roof space which incorporates barn hipped ends and dormer windows. The proposed dwelling would incorporate a brick, timber and rendered façade with clay roof tiles. The proposed dwelling would measure 17 metres by 13.5 metres and 6.5 metres in height.
1.2 This proposal also seeks planning permission for the formation of a new vehicular crossover onto Coolham Road and an access driveway to the south-east of the proposed dwelling. The proposed crossover would be situated between two existing trees adjacent to the road and the access driveway would extend approximately 140 metres in length across the grassed field to the application site. The new access serving the property would be tarmaced for the first 10.5 metres from the road and would then incorporate a surface of Horsham stone or similar chippings.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier Tel: 01403 215382 ITEM A3 - 2
1.3 The application site is located outside the built up area and is currently accessed from Coolham Road via a shared access with the westerly neighbouring dwellings at St Andrews Farm and St Andrews Lodge. The existing kennels site can incorporate up to 60 dogs and 40 cats within the numerous single storey kennel buildings which are situated on the site.
1.4 The site is situated at an elevated level in comparison to the road level and the existing shared vehicular access to the site from Coolham Road is on a steep incline and is only wide enough for one car to pass. The topography of the site and the adjacent grassed paddock falls away to the south.
1.5 The surrounding area is predominantly rural in terms of character and to the south of the kennels site there is a grassed paddock that has previously been used for the exercising of dogs in conjunction with the kennels business. To the east of the site there is a single storey building which comprises an animal crematorium that is run as a stand alone business separate from the kennel business. To the north of the application site there is a public right of way and to the north-west there is the neighbouring dwelling at Chilvers Farm.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as the golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. The relevant sections of the NPPF which are considered to relate to this proposal are Section 1 (Delivering sustainable development), Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy), Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport), Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), Section 7 (Requiring good design) & Section 11 (Conserving & enhancing the natural environment). The key points of relevance in relation to this proposal are considered to be:
Section 1 of the NPPF specifies that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything can to support sustainable economic growth. Therefore the Government advises that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth in the planning system.
Section 3 of the NPPF specifies that planning should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable development.
Section 6 advises that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local Authorities are advised to avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as the i) essential need for a rural worker ii) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset iii) where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to the enhancement to the immediate setting or iv) would comprise a building of exceptional quality or innovative nature of design.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
ITEM A3 - 3
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007 – Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4 & CP13 & CP15.
Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007 – DC1, DC2, DC6, DC9, DC24 & DC40.
PLANNING HISTORY
2.4 SP/9/96 – Planning permission was approved in 1996 for the demolition of existing kennel block and erection of a boarding block for cats.
SP/12/89 – Planning permission was refused in 1989 for the erection of a bungalow, garage and new vehicular and pedestrian access.
SP/1/88 – Planning permission was approved in 1988 to demolish ex-outbuildings and erect 24 additional boarding kennels.
SP/20/83 – Planning permission was approved in 1983 for 20 quarantine kennels.
SP/45/73 – Planning permission was approved in 1973 for use of existing building for breeding & boarding of cats and dogs.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Council’s Public Health Officer has raised no objection to this application provided that the following recommended conditions are adhered to.
Limitation of demolition and construction activities (including deliveries and dispatch) to 08:00 – 18:00 Monday until Friday; 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays; and no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays No burning of materials Removal of all clearance debris and construction waste from the site by a licensed waste removal contractor. Suitable assessments should be made to identify any asbestos contained within the building and controls put in place to ensure safe removal and disposal.
The Council’s Public Health Officer has also advised:
History “There is an ongoing noise complaint from one neighbouring property only. This dates back to 1999 and has never been proven to be a statutory nuisance.
Pollution “Due to the close proximity of neighbouring properties this department has serious concerns over the proposed application in relation to potential noise disturbance from the demolition and construction activities, including deliveries and waste removal.”
3.2 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has objected to this application on the basis of the proposed vehicular access. He has provided the following comments in relation to this application:
“In regard to the part of the scheme around the existing farm buildings, I have no issues. I support the provision of a new hedgerow alongside the proposed new track way across the field from Coolham Road. However, the proposal involves the new track way adjoining the ITEM A3 - 4
Coolham Road itself by way of a tarmac access from a new crossover and thence between two large oak trees on the bank which rises up from the verge to the higher land level of the field. I note the following on this:
The two questions at S.15 of the application form regarding the presence of trees on or adjacent to the site have been ticked in the negative. This may be a clerical error, but it is a worrying one, for the track way requires access between two large roadside oak trees of considerable size and importance. To be fair, these trees are marked on the submitted drawings; however their root protection areas (RPA’s) have been underrepresented by a factor of around 50%. The trees are part of a line of 6 good quality oaks sited some distance from, but along, the roadside. Though typical countryside specimens, they are nonetheless trees of high public amenity value, and indeed the specimen to the south of the proposed access is the largest and finest of the group; a very large and substantial tree of considerable merit. They lie outside the site boundary, either at the head of, or down the side of, or on slightly lower ground than, the steep bank which rises to a level at the point chosen for the access of approximately 2m above the datum point of the carriageway. The plans indicate a new access rising from the road to a new farm gate “at a gradient of 1:15 (7%)”. No details have been provided as to how this can be achieved, though clearly a graded bank will be required. However this is to be constructed, it lies wholly within the RPA’s of both trees, and as it must involve the import of a considerable amount of material – which will require compacting to form a base for a road surface – root compaction and damage is inevitable. Although the road surface could be limited to around 3.5m in width (as shown on the plans), the ‘ramp’ will require edge fill, graded down to existing land levels. As there is little more than 10m between the two trees, a very high percentage of this area could be expected to be covered over by the infill. Hard surfaces can in many circumstances be placed in fairly close proximity to trees. The publication Arboricultural Practice Note APN12, 'Through the Trees to Development' (Patch & Holding, 2007) published by the Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service sets out guidance for how this can be achieved successfully by use of the ‘no dig’ method. However, this can only work where surfaces are roughly level and even; the large amount of infill required in this case to construct the required ramp means that this construction technique cannot be applied. Hence this proposal is at odds with BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations [2012]. Matters are made worse by two requirements set out by the Strategic Planning Officer from West Sussex County Council (consultation response, 10 Dec 12) who states that the proposed 1:15 gradient of the ramp should be “lowered to 1:20 if achievable”. As the datum point of the carriageway cannot be altered, the sole way of achieving this is to excavate into the head of the bank. This will clearly cause direct root severance to both trees. Moreover, it is requested that “suitable surface water drainage methods” are installed to prevent surface water draining onto the public highway. No plans have been submitted in regard to this, which might require the provision of excavation into existing soils for culverting (within the RPA’s of the trees) and an alteration of the complex hydrology of the site which both trees will have been accustomed to for over a hundred years.
From the tree point of view, the selected site is a really bad place for a new crossover and field access. The application provides a completely insufficient level of detail as to how such an access can be constructed, and would in its present guise cause considerable and extensive harm to two trees of landscape and public amenity value contrary to BS 5837 and policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework (December 2007). “
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
ITEM A3 - 5
3.3 West Sussex County Council has requested a total s106 contribution of £3,848 (£363 libraries, £135 fire & rescue and £3,350 TAD, no. of fire hydrants: TBC).
West Sussex County Council Highways department have made the following comments:
“This application seeks the redevelopment of use of a former kennel facility to create a single residential unit. At present the site is access via a point of access onto Coolham Road, which is ‘C’ classified and subject to a 40 mph speed limit. This proposal will see a new point of access created approximately 120 metres to the south onto Coolham Road; at this point the national speed limit applies however it is appreciated that vehicles will be decelerating to enter the 40 mph limit. Our latest traffic flows data indicates that Coolham road is lightly trafficked with vehicle movements generally averaging one per minute in each direction.
On site it was observed that the majority of vehicle speeds along this section of road do not exceed 40 mph. It was also confirmed that the road is lightly trafficked and that the level of traffic seen on Coolham Road was consistent with the latest traffic flow data WSCC has available, approximately one movement per minute in each direction. With this in mind WSCC would be satisfied that a Manual for Streets approach can be taken when considering the highways aspects of this application. It was also noted that the existing point of access is on a steep gradient with seriously sub-standard visibility in either direction, due to both the vertical and horizontal alignment of the road.
The proposed point of access will possess visibility splays of 2.4 x 105 metres to the south and 2.4 x 81 metres to the north. With regard to the Manual for Streets II Stopping Sight Distance calculation this would equate to vehicle speeds of and 55 mph and 46.5 mph respectively. WSCC is satisfied that vehicle speeds in this location are unlikely to exceed these speeds and therefore would conclude that these splays are appropriate to safeguard highway safety. It should also be noted that this proposal would have the result of removing vehicular movement’ from a seriously sub-standard point of access while also decreasing the number of potential movements generated by the site overall.
On site it was observed that the creation of these splays will involve the removal of roadside vegetation to the north of the access point, it is advised that the degree of vegetation removal is demonstrated to the LPA and that the applicant demonstrate they have control over this land. The speed limit change sign and ‘Brooks Green’ sign do fall within the northern visibility splay however on site it was judges that this does no significantly interfere with visibility.
While it is appreciated that the existing point of access to Coolham Road can not be extinguished due to the access requirements of St Andrews Lodge, it would be advised that the access way is extinguished so that the new residential movements are required to use the new point of access.
The access will be bound for the first 10.5 metres and be set at a gradient of no more than 1:15. It would be advised that the gradient be lowered to 1:20 if achievable. The proposed gate is set back an appropriate distance into the site. As the access slopes towards the highway I would therefore ask that suitable surface water drainage methods are installed to prevent surface water draining onto the public highway. An access width of 3.0 metres would be considered appropriate for a single dwelling access; the applicant will be required to contact the Community Highways Officer to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway.
It has come to my attention that a modification may be made to this planning application, whereby St Andrews Lodge would also seek to make use of the proposed point of access. In principle the Highways Authority would support this modification subject to a condition whereby the existing substandard and unsafe point of access onto Coolham Road is ITEM A3 - 6
obliterated and reinstated to verge to the satisfaction of the LPA. If this modification is to be made WSCC would seek the proposed point of access measure 4.5 metres in width to allow for vehicles to be able to pass and re-pass off the public highway.
From the information provided and the observations make on site we would consider the application difficult to resist from a highway safety perspective.
If the LPA are minded to grant planning consent we would ask that conditions securing the following be included:
Access Access way closure Access Road Cycle parking Garages Prevention of Surface Water Draining onto Public Highway Vehicle parking and turning Visibility (2.4 x 105 south, 2.4 x 81 metres north)
Informative The applicant is advised to contact the Community Highways Officer (01243 642105) to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway.”
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.4 Five letters of representation have been received in support of this application, the mains reasons for supporting this proposal include:
The existing kennels causes noise disturbance to neighbouring dwellings and the proposals would improve conditions for neighbouring residents. The proposed dwelling would be more attractive than the existing kennel buildings and remain in keeping with neighbouring residential properties. The proposed access would provide a safer access to the dwelling than the existing access point and would reduce vehicular movements to the site.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 It is considered that the principal issues for consideration in the determination of this planning application are the impacts of the proposal on the countryside location, trees, the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and highway safety.
ITEM A3 - 7
6.2 The application site is located outside the built up area and therefore within a countryside location. This proposal seeks planning permission for the replacement of seven existing kennel buildings with a four bedroom detached chalet bungalow dwelling, detached double garage building and associated access. Within the countryside new residential development is considered to be unsustainable and is generally resisted in terms of national planning policy within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) unless it is required for an agricultural or forestry worker, would incorporate the reuse of existing buildings and the enhancement of the area or would provide a building of exceptional quality. Policy DC1 of the HDC LDF General Development Control Policies 2007 specifies that outside the built up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location. It is considered that the proposal would not meet any of these exception requirements and would therefore conflict in principle with national and local planning policy. The crematorium building and remaining kennel building to the west have not been incorporated in the red edged application site but are proposed for the conversion to ancillary residential accommodation with the existing dwelling at St Andrews Farm, this proposal would require the benefit of planning permission.
6.3 The NPPF advises Local Authorities that planning should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. Policy CP15 supports sustainable economic development within rural areas and encourages development that seeks to maintain the quality and character of the area whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity. The site currently comprises a dog and cat kennels and this commercial employment use would be lost as a result of the proposal to redevelop the site as a single residential dwelling. In a supporting statement, the Agent has specified that the existing kennel business is no longer viable as a boarding kennel mainly due to the removal of the requirement for pets to undergo quarantine, replacing this with blood tests and waiting period in the country of origin. Given that there is an established commercial business use on the site which has been in situ since 1979, it is considered that proposals for a different commercial use on the site for example in the B use classes may be considered more suitable in terms of local planning policy rather than the residential redevelopment of the site. No detailed information has been submitted with this application in relation to the viability of the site for alternative commercial uses or any associated marketing activities that have taken place.
6.4 The Agent is of the view that the kennels currently create a significant amount of noise disturbance to the surrounding neighbouring occupiers and that an alternative employment use of the site would perpetuate unsustainable levels of traffic movements at the existing substandard access point. The closest neighbouring dwellings to the kennel buildings are situated approximately 40 metres to the north-west (Chilvers Farm House), 20 metres to the east (St Andrews Farm) and 65 metres to the south-east (St Andrews Lodge). It is noted that the closest dwelling comprising St Andrews Farm situated to the east would have previously been used in conjunction with the former farm use of the site prior to the kennel business occupying the site. The existing dwelling at St Andrews Farm has however subsequently been separated from the kennel business. The Council’s Public Health Officer has been consulted on this application and has advised that there is an ongoing noise complaint from one neighbouring occupier which dates back to 1999 but this has never been proven by the Council’s Public Health department to be a statutory noise nuisance.
6.5 No detailed information has been submitted with this application in relation to the viability of the site for an alternative commercial uses or the associated traffic movements of such related uses. The supporting information also states that there is a surplus of rural employment premises where alternative employment opportunity might arise, however this is not supported by any accompanying information on rural employment sites in the local area. It is also claimed that the demolition of the unattractive kennel buildings and the erection of the chalet style bungalow would visually improve the appearance of this rural site. The existing buildings are however single storey and are not considered to be ITEM A3 - 8
particularly prominent from any public vantage points outside of the application site. It is also considered that visual improvements to the site could be made through the alternative commercial uses on the site. On the basis of the information submitted, it is considered that the alternative arguments that the proposal would result in an improvement in visual amenity and a reduction in neighbouring noise disturbance and traffic levels are without foundation and would not outweigh the fundamental planning policy concerns relating to the loss of a commercial business and the erection of a new dwelling in the countryside.
6.6 The proposal also seeks planning permission for a new vehicular crossover situated between two existing Oak trees adjacent to the Coolham Road and an access driveway which would extend approximately 140 metres in length across a grassed paddock to the south-east of the application site. The new access serving the property would be tarmaced for the first 10.5 metres from the road and would then incorporate a surface of Horsham stone or similar chippings. The existing shared vehicular access situated to the east of the kennel buildings is on a steep gradient and serves the neighbouring properties at St Andrews Farm and St Andrews Lodge.
6.7 West Sussex County Council Highways Officer has confirmed that the existing access has substandard visibility splays in both northerly and southerly directions due to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the road. However, when examining the position of the proposed access, it is noted that a line of 6 Oak trees lie adjacent to Coolham Road and the proposed access would be situated between two of these Oak trees. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer considers that that these trees are of high amenity value and that the specimen to the south of the proposed access is the largest and finest within this group of trees. Due to the difference in land levels between the road and westerly adjacent field, a graded bank within the root protection areas of both trees would need to be constructed and this would involve the import of a considerable amount of material which would require compacting to form a base for a road surface. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer considers that this process would involve inevitable root compaction and damage to the two adjacent Oak trees and he has therefore objected to this proposal on the basis that it would be likely to cause considerable harm to two trees of landscape and public amenity value. In order to ensure the continued preservation of these trees, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has served a provisional Tree Preservation Order on these six Oak trees. The likely loss of the trees would also have a significant impact on the visual amenity and character of the surrounding area.
6.8 The proposed access track would extend approximately 3.5 metres in width and 140 metres in length across an existing grassed paddock to the south-east of the kennel site. It is considered that this would create a significant amount of partly tarmaced and partly Horsham stone track which would appear as an urban feature within this open field and visually detract from the countryside setting.
6.9 In conclusion, the considerations put forward by the Agent with this application that the proposed demolition of seven kennel buildings and erection of a detached chalet bungalow would result in an improvement in visual amenity and a reduction in neighbouring noise disturbance and traffic levels caused by the existing kennels have been taken into account in the assessment of this application. Whilst it is considered that the proposal may provide some improvement to the noise created by the existing kennels, it is also noted that the despite the kennel use being established since 1979, it has never been proven to be a statutory noise nuisance by the Council’s Public Health department. There are also concerns regarding the associated visual impact of the proposed access and hard standing on the rural locality of the area in particular relation to the landscape setting and trees of amenity value adjacent to Coolham Road. The proposal which would result in the loss of a commercial employment site and the creation of a new isolated residential dwelling in the countryside would also fundamentally conflict with NPPF guidance which seeks to promote economic growth in rural areas and ensure that new housing is located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. On this basis, it is considered that ITEM A3 - 9
this proposal would have an adverse impact on the visual and economic locality of the rural area and would conflict with local planning policies and National planning guidance.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that permission be REFUSED subject to the following reasons:
1. The site is outside the limits of any existing town or village and the development, if permitted the proposed dwelling, garage building and associated access would consolidate an undesirable element of sporadic development in a rural area which would result in visual intrusion into the countryside to the detriment of the rural character of the area. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), Policies CP1, CP5 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
2. The proposed development would result in the loss of a commercial employment site within a rural location which would conflict with policy CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 which seeks to promote economic growth in rural areas.
3. The proposed access would be likely to result in the damage to the root protection area of two Oak trees which have landscape and public amenity value and the likely loss of trees would cause significant harm to the rural character of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with policies DC1, DC6 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policies CP1 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).
4. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport and community facilities infrastructure and is thereby contrary to Policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) as it is not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.
Background Papers: DC/12/2024 ITEM A4 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 15 January 2013 Erection of new dwelling to rear of Steeton, including new access DEVELOPMENT: driveway and garage to serve existing house SITE: Steeton Rock Road Storrington Pulborough WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/12/1629 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs L Reineck
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Request by neighbours to speak
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning approval
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a new dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling plus a new garage and access from Rock Road to serve the existing dwelling of Steeton. The proposed dwelling would comprise 3 bedrooms plus an integral garage. The proposed dwelling and the single garage would be constructed in materials similar to those of the existing dwelling of Steeton, comprising of facing brickwork under a plain tiled roof.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The site consists of a chalet style bungalow in the northern part of the residential curtilage with a double garage in the south east corner, whilst the main vehicular access lies in the southern corner leading onto Hillside Walk. A small strip of land along the north eastern boundary owned by applicant and formerly part of the adjacent woodland, though is not part of the established residential curtilage or the application site. The site is positioned within the built up area of Storrington & Sullington.
1.3 The site is bounded to the south/south west by development in the form of Hillside Walk. The styles of dwellings within the area are predominately single storey buildings or larger chalet style bungalows, there are however a small number of two storey dwellings further into Hillside Walk. Rock Road runs along the north-west boundary with woodland situated to the north-east.
Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522 ITEM A4 - 2
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework – Section 7, Requiring good design
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are CP1, CP3, CP5, CP13 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC9 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
PLANNING HISTORY
2.4 DC/07/1319 - Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of replacement dwelling and garage - Permitted
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 HDC’s Arboricultural Officer made the following the comments:
The plot for the proposed new dwelling is just to the north-east of the Hillside Walk area, which is protected by an old area Tree Preservation Order, dating from 1969. However, the proposal will not have any adverse effect on any of the trees within this designated area. On the site itself are a number of oak trees in fairly close proximity to the footprint of the proposed dwelling, but although these include specimens of some considerable size, none is in my view of any especial or particular merit. Furthermore, the closest trees to the footprint have been very heavily crown reduced, altering their individual root/shoot ratios. Two specimens (T8 and T10 on the submitted drawings) have hard surfacing and/or foundation development within their RPA’s as defined under BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations [2012] but given their relative low amenity merit as well as the presence of a considerable amount of existing hard surfacing around them, I do not assess that this is of particular concern. Both are category ‘C’ trees, and as such should not constitute a significant constraint on the development. The vehicular access is an existing feature, and its upgrading is also unlikely to adversely affect any trees of particular merit.
In summary, I feel that this proposal can be successfully integrated into the landscape without causing any inappropriate loss of, or harm to, any tree of particular merit. The scheme therefore appears to comply with the relevant parts of policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework (December 2007). Accordingly I raise NO OBJECTION.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 The Environment Agency made no comment
ITEM A4 - 3
3.3 West Sussex County Council’s Highways dept requested that a speed survey be undertaken and a further plan is provided showing maximum achievable visibility splays in conjunction with the data from the speed survey.
Following the undertaking of the speed survey, they were satisfied that there would be no concerns raised to this application from a highway safety perspective, subject to a number of conditions.
3.4 Southern Water has no objection to the application, however did request an informative be included to request that an application is submitted for the connection to the foul sewer.
3.5 Thakeham Parish Council are yet to make any formal comments, as they considered insufficient information was available at that stage. Any further comments would be given verbally at the meeting.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.5 6 letters of representation have been received from residents of neighbouring dwellings in objection to the application. On the following grounds:
The proposed dwelling is out of keeping with the surrounding area Overdevelopment of site Access would be dangerous onto Rock Road Plans do not represent the proposal accurately Garden grabbing Would cause overlooking to neighbouring dwellings
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 is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 The principal issue is the effect of the development on the character of the surrounding area.
6.2 The existing dwelling is a single storey building, which was constructed following the granting of planning permission (DC/07/1319) in 2007, which included a double garage positioned in the southern part of the site. The site has an existing access off Hillside Walk, which would serve the proposed new dwelling with a new access proposed along the north- west boundary to serve the existing dwelling. The proposed new dwelling would be assessed against Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007). Policy DC9 states that where planning permission is granted for new development which ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings, does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers of nearby property, with regards to overlooking and noise.
ITEM A4 - 4
6.3 The proposed new dwelling would be in the form of a chalet bungalow, much like the surrounding dwellings, which consist of both bungalows and chalet bungalows. The proposal would provide a three bedroom dwelling on two levels with an attached garage. The proposed dwelling would be 18m in width including the garage with the depth varying from 9.5m down to 6.3m. The proposed ridgeline at its highest point would rise to 6.8m, though is set on varying ground levels and therefore in parts would appear higher. The proposed dwelling would be set back from the site frontage and would be screened by existing vegetation and the two neighbouring dwellings ‘Longshaw’ & ‘Oaklea’, which lie along the south west boundary. The proposed dwelling would replace the existing double garage which serves ‘Steeton’. It is recognised that the proposed dwelling along with the existing dwelling of ‘Steeton’ are larger in scale than some of its immediate neighbours, which typify the character of the entrance to Hillside Walk. However, further along Hillside Walk, the street scene is comprised of contrasting designs, as well as size. Therefore it is considered that whilst the proposed dwelling is not typical in terms of scale is also not out of character with regard to its proposed design.
6.4 The proposed dwelling would be located towards to its official north east boundary, with a gap of approximately 1m; however the current boundary fence lies further to the north-east, due to the non-residential land forming part of the applicant’s ownership. The proposed residential curtilage would therefore lie to the front (south-east) and side (north-east) of the dwelling with the front aspect forming a parking and turning area from the existing access in the southern corner. The proposed dwelling takes up approximately 24% of the proposed plot area, which is similar to the neighbouring properties within Hillside Walk. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling is in keeping within the surrounding dwellings, in terms of its plot size to dwelling size ratio and therefore would not be an overdevelopment of the site. It is also considered that given the separation distances to the nearest neighbouring dwellings of between 20 & 30 metres and the positioning of the first floor windows, there would be no detrimental impact upon the neighbouring dwellings by way of overlooking or loss of privacy.
6.5 As part of the proposal a new access and single garage is proposed to serve the existing dwelling of ‘Steeton’, as well as an area for parking and turning. The proposed garage would be a modest size garage along the north-west elevation of the existing dwelling with a width of 3.8m and depth of 6m and would have a pitched roof rising to 4.3m. The proposed garage would be constructed with materials to match those of the existing dwelling. The proposed new access would be located in the north-west corner of the site and would provide a separate and more appropriate access for the existing dwelling. The existing boundary is made up of dense vegetation, which screens the dwelling from Rock Road, however it is not considered that the creation of the access would have a detrimental impact upon the street scene. The County Council’s highways department originally objected to the proposal and requested a speed survey be undertaken, as there was concern over the change in speed limit from 30 to 40 mph along this section of Rock Road, which is in close proximity to the proposed access point, there was also concern over the width of the entrance and the achievable visibility splays. However following the submission of a speed survey and further detail of the visibility splays, the County Council were satisfied and therefore the proposal was considered to be acceptable in highway terms.
6.6 For the reasons given above it is therefore considered that the proposed new dwelling along with new access and garage would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would not be considered to have any detrimental impact upon the street scene or neighbouring dwellings. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007).
ITEM A4 - 5
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
01. A2 Full Permission 02. M1 Approval of Materials 03. D5 No Windows…….first floor level on South-east & north west elevations 04. M8 Sustainable Construction 05. D6 Finished floor levels 06. E3 Fencing 07. G6 Refuse/recycling 08. H6 Wheel Washing 09 H4a On Site Parking 10. L1 Landscaping 11. O1 Hours of working 12. O2 Burning of materials 13. O3 Site Clearance 14. V5 No extensions
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
ICAB1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
Background Papers: DC/12/1629 ITEM A5 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 15 January 2013 Demolition of existing single storey dwelling and the erection of a 3 DEVELOPMENT: bedroom chalet with detached garage and garden/bike store SITE: Beehive Bentons Lane Dial Post Horsham WARD: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/12/2221 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Peter Scroggs
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Parish Council request
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission for the replacement of the existing single dwelling with a new 3 bedroom dwelling and double garage.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The site consists of a single storey dwelling consisting of two bedrooms, there are also a number of outbuildings, which include a small studio and carport. The dwelling sits within a large plot formed of residential curtilage and further land to the rear of the application site, which forms part of the applicant’s ownership.
1.3 Bentons Lane is a private road positioned off London Road, the main thoroughfare through Dial Post and consists of dwellings of varying size and design. Dial Post is located outside any defined built up area boundary.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522 ITEM A5 - 2
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework – Section 7, Requiring good design
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are CP1 & CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC9 & DC28 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
PLANNING HISTORY
2.4 DC/05/2732 – Replacement dwelling - Permitted
DC/12/1332 – Replacement dwelling and double garage - Withdrawn
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 No internal consultations received
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 West Grinstead Parish Council has no objection to the application and has requested to speak at the committee meeting in support of the application.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.3 1 letter of objection has been received stating the following:
“It appears that the depth of the proposed dwelling is approximately double that of the existing bungalow and if permitted will extend southwards to such a degree that it will detrimentally impact on the aspect of our garden. We appreciate that care has been taken not to include windows on the east side on the upper floor and a hedge can be grown for privacy at ground level. The problem remains, the height, size and depth of mainly the lounge area. “
A signed petition supporting the proposal has been received, which includes 46 signatories. However it should be noted that the petition includes the names of the above objectors.
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 is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.
ITEM A5 - 3
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 The principal issue is whether the proposal complies with the relevant criteria of Policy DC28 and the impact on the surrounding countryside.
6.2 The existing dwelling is a modest single storey rectangular building positioned within the northern part of a large plot. The existing dwelling consists of 2 bedrooms, a sitting room, dining room, kitchen, shower room plus a small detached studio with WC located adjacent to the dwelling. The dwelling is located within a large area of residential curtilage with a number of outbuildings within the site, the applicant also owns further land to the south of the site, though this does not form part of the residential curtilage or the application site.
6.3 The proposed replacement dwelling would be located on the same site as the existing dwelling and would take a L-shape form providing 3 bedrooms in the style of Scandia Hus. The current application is a resubmission of a previously withdrawn application (DC/12/1332), which following discussions with officers was not considered reflect the scale and character of the existing dwelling. An application was also approved in 2005 for a replacement dwelling, which was never implemented and subsequently lapsed, this however was assessed against policy within the former Horsham District Local Plan 1997, therefore would not be a material consideration.
6.4 Current planning policy under the General Development Control Policies (2007) (Policy DC28) states that replacement dwellings outside the built up area should be accommodated appropriately with the curtilage and not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling. The current proposal has been amended from the previous application, however these alterations are considered to be insignificant. The ridge height has been reduced by 0.25m with a smaller amount reduction to the depth of the proposed dwelling. The porch has also been reduced in size, however an additional dormer window has been included to the front elevation. The applicant submitted amended plans prior to the previous withdrawal, which saw a reduction in the overall size of the proposal from the originally submitted scheme, plus the inclusion of a hipped roof on the west elevation. These were however not considered to be an appropriate reduction or amendment to the previously withdrawn proposal. The current proposal proposes a scheme in between the two previously submitted sets of plans, in terms of size. It is however considered that the current proposal has not addressed the previously identified concerns of the previously unacceptable application, in terms of its scale and massing and therefore officers are unable to support the current proposal.
6.5 The existing dwelling measures 10.3m in width with a varying depth of between 7.3m and 8m, which provides a footprint of 79.5m2. The proposed replacement dwelling would be 15.6m in width with a maximum depth of 14.3m, though is smaller in one section with a depth of 8.3m, this overall provides a footprint of 161.3m2. This equates to an increase in footprint of 103%, however it does not include the additional first floor accommodation that would be provided by the increase in height from 5.2m to 6.8m. The proposed dwelling is thereby significantly larger than the existing dwelling with an increase in footprint of more than double along with an additional increase in height. It is therefore considered that the proposed extension would be disproportionate to the scale of the existing bungalow.
6.6 The street scene of Bentons Lane consists of dwellings of varying sizes and styles, which are positioned in large plots, similar to those of the application site. It is accepted that the proposed dwelling maybe similar in proportions to those of the neighbouring dwellings, when looking at the dwelling to plot size ratio and therefore not necessarily out of keeping with the character of the area. However whilst the setting of the proposed dwellings within the street scene is an important factor, the impact upon the existing dwelling is of greater importance when assessing a replacement dwelling within a countryside location, therefore the loss of this dwelling with an inappropriately sized replacement would be considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy DC28. ITEM A5 - 4
6.7 The proposal also includes a new double garage with plant and storage, which essentially replaces the existing dilapidated outbuildings along the north-west boundary. The proposed building would be located along the north-west boundary, though set further back than the existing outbuildings in this location. The proposed building would be 9m in depth with a width of 6m and would utilise the same design and materials of the proposed dwelling with clay tiles and facing brickwork. The garage would be 4.8m in height with a hipped pitched roof, thereby minimising the massing of the roof. The proposed garage in isolation is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of its size and appearance, having a minimal impact upon the street scene or the neighbouring dwellings.
6.8 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would not reflect the scale and character of the existing dwelling, due to its scale, mass and bulk and therefore contrary to DC28. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal is unacceptable in terms of the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007).
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that permission be refused.
7.2 Permission should be refused for the following reason:
The proposed replacement dwelling, by virtue of its scale, mass and bulk is considered not to reflect the scale and character of the existing dwelling and therefore does not meet the requirements of Policy DC28 of Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Background Papers: DC/05/2732, DC/121332, DC/12/2221