E-mail: CommitteeServices@hors ham.gov.uk Direct line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 15TH JULY 2014 AT 2.00pm COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

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

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17th June 2014 (attached)

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

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

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

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

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

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 Pulborough and DC/14/0683 Land North of Highfield, Stane Street, Coldwaltham Codmore Hill

A2 Bramber, Upper DC/14/0489 Land West of Hivale, Sands Lane, Beeding and Small Dole Woodmancote

A3 Henfield DC/14/0720 West End House, West End Lane, Henfield

A4 Bramber, Upper DC/14/1088 15 Pepperscoombe Lane, Upper Beeding, Beeding and Steyning Woodmancote

A5 Billingshurst and DC/14/0634 The Barn, West Chiltington Lane, Shipley Billingshurst

A6 Pulborough and DC/13/0577 Parsons Field Stables, Pickhurst Lane, Coldwaltham Pulborough

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

DCS140617

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 17th June 2014

Present: Councillors: Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Philip Circus, Roger Clarke, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Jim Goddard, David Jenkins, Sheila Matthews, Brian O’Connell, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson, Diana van der Klugt

Apologies: Councillors: Jonathan Chowen, Gordon Lindsay, Roger Paterson, Claire Vickers

DCS/1 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

RESOLVED

That Councillor David Jenkins be elected Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing Council year.

DCS/2 APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

RESOLVED

That Councillor Sheila Matthews be appointed Vice- Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing Council year.

DCS/3 TIME OF MEETINGS

RESOLVED

That meetings of the Committee be held at 2.00pm for the ensuing Council year.

DCS/4 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20th May 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/5 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor George DC/13/1296 Personal – he knows both the Cockman applicant and a number of objectors Councillor David DC/13/1296 Personal – he knows one of the Coldwell speakers

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/5 Interests of Members (Cont.)

Councillor Sue DC/13/1296 Personal & prejudicial – she is a Rogers member of the Parish Council which has submitted an application for a similar proposal on a different site in Steyning

DCS/6 ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman advised Members that this was Jocelyn Brown’s (Principal Solicitor) last meeting as she was leaving the Council. On behalf of the Committee he thanked her for her support and wished her well in her new job.

DCS/7 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/2420 Huddlestone Farm, Horsham Road, Huddlestone Farm Steyning Solar Park Ltd DC/13/2123 Upper Buncton House, Spithandle Mr Iain Flitcroft Lane, Wiston

Informal Hearing

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/0577 Parsons Field Stables, Pickhurst Ms Sarah Barnes Lane, Pulborough

Appeals Withdrawn

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/1674 Marnor, West End Lane, Henfield Mr and Mrs Ron Richardson DC/11/1654 Land East of Billingshurst To North Devine Homes PLC, and South of A272, East Street, Reside Billingshurst Developments Ltd

2

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/7 Appeals (Cont.)

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/13/1149 Gay Street Farm, Gay Street, Mr and Mrs Allowed Pulborough Julian Trumper DC/13/1150 Gay Street Farm, Gay Street, Mr and Mrs Allowed Pulborough Julian Trumper DC/13/0964 60 - 62 High Street, Steyning Ms Jess Denny Allowed DC/13/1460 Timbers, Fir Tree Lane, West Mr and Mrs Allowed Chiltington Kevin and Lisa Bennett DC/13/0787 Land at Junction of Stonepit Mr Rob Phillips Allowed Lane and West End Lane, Henfield DC/13/0658 1 Cootham Brow, New Town Mrs S Allowed Road, Storrington Partington DC/13/1596 Whitebridge Farm, Wineham Mrs Susie Dismissed Lane, Wineham Russell-Smith DC/13/1380 The Andes, High Street, Mr and Mrs R Dismissed Partridge Green Hamilton DC/13/0752 Land North of South Wood, Wates Dismissed Melton Drive, Storrington Developments

It was agreed that all future reports on appeal decisions would indicate whether delegated decisions had been made by officers or in consultation with Members.

DCS/8 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1296 – CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE SKATE PARK IN THE CAR PARK AT REAR OF STEYNING LEISURE CENTRE AND INSTALLATION OF 20 REPLACEMENT CAR PARKING SPACES SITE: STEYNING LEISURE CENTRE, HORSHAM ROAD, STEYNING APPLICANT: MR PETER COMBER (Councillor George Cockman declared a personal interest in this application as he knew both the applicant and a number of objectors. Councillor David Coldwell declared a personal interest in this application as he knew one of the speakers. Councillor Sue Rogers declared a personal & prejudicial interest in this application as she was a member of the Parish Council which had submitted an application for a similar proposal on a different site in Steyning. She withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the application.)

3

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/8 Planning Application: DC/13/1296 (Cont.)

The Development Manager reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a skate park within the existing car park of Steyning Leisure Centre and the installation of 20 replacement car parking spaces. The application had been deleted from the agenda for the meeting on 15th April 2014 in order to address a number of inaccuracies identified within the report at that time.

The skate park facility would measure 20 metres by 18 metres and would be set into the existing ground level by approximately one metre. Whilst the design had yet to be finalised it was anticipated that it would include a range of elements including a mini ramp, steps, ramps and street features. It was proposed that there would be a beginners’ area and sufficient space on the two long sides of the park for skaters, bikers and spectators to assemble. Safety railings would be mounted on top of the quarter pipe platforms. An anti-climb weld-mesh fence, 2.8 metres in height and incorporating a lockable metal frame gate, would enclose the facility. Access would be via a single main entrance sited in the north west of the park.

The skate park would be located in the south-east corner of the car park, resulting in the loss of 18 car parking spaces. However, 20 replacement car parking spaces were proposed to the north and west of the existing car park on land which currently formed part of the school playing field. It was also proposed to provide two speed control humps, sited at each end of the existing access road to the car park. It was anticipated that the opening hours of the facility would be from 3.30pm to lighting up time on school weekdays and from 10.00am to lighting up time on weekends and in school holidays.

The application had been amended in response to the concerns of Sussex Police, including the removal of the north entrance gate, the provision of demarcation railings at the north west entrance, removal of sound deadening walls and confirmation of screened viewing areas.

The application site was located to the east of Horsham Road where vehicular access was achieved. The access road ran parallel to Horsham Road and there was a grass bank to the western boundary of the site, which separated the leisure centre from the road, where numerous trees were sited. Steyning Grammar School was located to the south of the leisure centre and St Andrew’s Primary School was located to the east.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012: Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12; National Planning Policy Guidance 2014 in respect of noise; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3 and CP14; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC2, DC9, DC21, DC22, DC40 and DC41; and the Horsham District Planning Framework preferred strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

4

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/8 Planning Application: DC/13/1296 (Cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

ST/67/01 2-storey extension at Steyning Sports Granted Centre ST/47/90 Sports centre and floodlighting to external Granted multi-sport area at Steyning Grammar School ST/10/97 Erection of community swimming pool with Granted link to dry sports centre service area and car parking (outline) at Steyning Sports Centre ST/63/97 Single storey community swimming pool Granted with link to existing dry sports centre and parking at Steyning Sports Centre DC/13/0903 Construction of a concrete skatepark in Withdrawn the car park at rear of Steyning Leisure Centre and installation of 15 replacement car parking spaces

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. A letter of comment from the Parish Council was also reported. 68 letters of objection and 59 letters of support had been received. Steyning Grammar School, Steyning Grammar School Foundation Trust, West Sussex County Council (as land owner) and Steyning Leisure Centre objected to the proposal. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the proposal and two members of the public addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members, in considering the principle of the development, acknowledged that there was an established need for a street sports facility within Steyning. However, whilst the principle of creating a further sports facility within the village was considered acceptable, it was important that the associated impacts of the proposed development on the area were assessed in order to establish if the proposal was acceptable in planning terms.

Policy DC9 advised that any new development should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or users of property or land through noise. Members were of the view that the proposal in its current location would have an impact on adjoining occupiers in this respect.

Members were also concerned that, due to the proposed development’s isolated location to the rear of the Leisure Centre, fear of crime was also a consideration. In addition, and with particular regard to the likely age range of the users of the proposed facility, concern was expressed regarding the safety of the means of access to the site and the potential conflict between users of the skate park facility and the car park.

5

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/8 Planning Application: DC/13/1296 (Cont.)

Members therefore considered that the proposal was not acceptable

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/1296 be determined by the Development Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee to allow refusal reasons relating to the isolated location of the proposed development (fear of crime), impact on adjoining occupiers (noise), safety of the means of access to the site and potential conflict between users of the proposed development and the car park to be formulated. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be refused.

DCS/9 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/0447 – PARTIAL REMOVAL OF EXISTING CLOSE BOARD FENCE AND THE ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PARKING SITE: LAND WEST OF HAMMONDS, EAST STREET, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MR JOHN GRIFFIN

The Development Manager reported that this application sought planning permission for the construction of two detached four-bedroom dwellings on land to the west of Hammonds (a Grade II Listed Building). The site would share an access with the newly built residential development of 14 dwellings at Windmill Place.

The application site was located on the northern side of the A272 at the entrance to the village of Billingshurst, and was within both the built up area boundary and the Billingshurst Conservation Area. The site consisted of an area of land that had become overgrown with trees and shrubs and shared a boundary with the garden area of Hammonds, which was a two-storey 16th century timber framed Listed Building.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012, Sections 6 and 12; National Planning Policy Guidance 2014; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3 and CP5; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9, DC12 and DC13; and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

6

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/9 Planning Application: DC/14/0447 (Cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

DC/10/2521 Erection of a detached dwelling with new Granted access and parking at plot No. 1, land adjacent to (west of) Hammonds DC/10/2522 Erection of a detached dwelling with new Granted access and parking at plot No. 2, land adjacent to (west of) Hammonds DC/11/1943 Amendments to approved planning Refused permission DC/10/2521 (Erection of a detached dwelling at plot No. 1) DC/13/2247 Partial removal of existing close board Refused fence and the erection of two detached dwellings with associated access and parking

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to the application and 12 letters of objection had been received. The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal and a representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered that, in view of the site’s location and the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, the principle of development on this site was acceptable subject to normal development control criteria.

Members acknowledged that the proposal would have some impact upon the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and the Conservation Area but it was not considered that this would be so significant as to justify refusal of the application. It was noted that a number of other residential developments, in particular Windmill Close, had recently been permitted in close proximity to the Listed Building and Members therefore considered that the current proposal would cause no additional harm. In addition, Members considered that the proposed design and siting of the two dwellings was acceptable.

Given the separation distances to neighbouring properties, which accorded with the Council’s adopted privacy standards, it was considered that the proposed dwellings would have no detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring dwellings to the north and east of the application site.

It was also considered that the proposed development would not have any detrimental impact upon highway safety and the proposed car parking provision was considered to be acceptable.

7

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/9 Planning Application: DC/14/0447 (Cont.)

Members therefore concluded that the proposal was acceptable in principle, subject to the framing of appropriate conditions.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/0447 be determined by the Development Manager, in consultation with the local Members, to allow the formulation of appropriate conditions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/10 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2328 – TO RELOCATE BREWERY FROM HORSHAM TO BRINSBURY COLLEGE CAMPUS INVOLVING THE ERECTION OF BUILDINGS, THE FORMING OF PARKING AND TURNING AREAS AND SECURITY FENCING, UPGRADE OF THE EXISTING FIELD ACCESS, PROVISION OF REED BED SYSTEM FOR WASTE WATER, SOLAR PANELS AND LANDSCAPING SITE: LAND SOUTH OF NYETIMBER WINE, STANE STREET, PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: HEPWORTH & CO BREWERS LTD AND CHICHESTER COLLEGE

The Development Manager reminded the Committee that it had previously resolved to grant planning permission for a new brewery for Hepworth & Co. on land currently part of the Brinsbury Campus of Chichester College (Minute No. DCS/110 (18.3.14) refers). The resolution to grant planning permission was subject to a number of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement principally securing a contribution of £41,000 for the introduction of a bus stop outside the campus to improve links to Pulborough and Billingshurst.

The S106 agreement had not yet been completed and the planning permission had not yet been issued.

One of the proposed conditions was: “The site shall be used as a brewery and associated visitor centre and shop only and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any use class in the schedule to the Town and Country use classes order 1987”.

However, the applicants had now been informed by their mortgage lenders that the wording of this condition was too prescriptive and constraints on occupiers too severe for funding to be provided.

The applicants had therefore requested that the condition be amended to read: “The site shall be used for B2 and B8 purposes with associated Visitor Centre and Shop only and for no other purpose in any use class in the

8

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/10 Planning Application: DC/13/2328 (Cont.)

schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) order 1987 (as amended)”.

The applicants, in acknowledging the need to maintain linkage between the development and the College, had also proposed an additional clause within the S106 agreement, as follows: “Following occupation of the buildings permitted under reference DC/13/2328 any occupiers will have an educational or training link with Chichester College, Brinsbury College Campus and evidence of this link shall be provided on a bi-annual basis to the LPA after any planning permission until such time as all parties agree it is unnecessary to do so”.

The principle of development in the form of the brewery had been established and it was expected that the brewery would occupy the site and provide future jobs for local residents, a visitor attraction, a specialist training centre for brewing and would continue trading within Horsham District at a new site that would be able to accommodate the business expansion plans.

Members considered that the proposed amendments to the conditions and S106 agreement would allow the brewery to secure funding to progress its relocation plans whilst at the same time allowing the Council some degree of comfort that, in the event that the brewery ceased to occupy the development, a new occupier would fulfil requirements that the development would develop and maintain educational and training linkages with the College. Given the emphasis on economic growth within national guidance it was considered that, on balance, the economic benefits of the proposal would outweigh any possible planning harm and Members therefore considered that the amended proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

(i) That a revised supplemental planning agreement be entered into to secure transport infrastructure contributions and a restriction on the occupation of the development to occupiers with an educational or training link with Chichester College, Brinsbury College Campus.

(ii) That, on completion of the agreement in (i) above, application DC/13/2328 be determined by the Development Manager. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted subject to conditions, including the revised condition regarding the use of the development.

9

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/11 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/0328 – CREATION OF EARTH BUNDS SITE: STEYNING CRICKET CLUB, WISTON CRICKET GROUND, WASHINGTON ROAD APPLICANT: STEYNING REBELS CRICKET CLUB

The Development Manager reported that this application sought the retention of two rows of earth bunds which had been created adjacent to the west side of the cricket pitch and to the west side of the copse sited between the cricket pitch and the farmhouse track running north off the A283 Washington Road. The bund adjacent to the cricket pitch was approximately 1.3 metres high and 80 metres in length with one break to accommodate a footpath. The bund next to the track was approximately 100 metres long and 0.8 metre high with numerous breaks to allow for the existing trees and an access gate at the south west of the site. The works dated from January 2013 and the current application had been submitted as a result of a planning compliance investigation.

The works had been carried out to make unauthorised access to the copse and the cricket pitch difficult as there had been a number of theft, vandalism and fly-tipping incidents in recent years. It was also intended that the cricket pitch bund would reduce the frequency of cricket pitch balls being hit and lost within the copse.

The application site was approximately 1.5 kilometres west of Steyning, on the north side of the A283 trunk road. The site consisted of a cricket pitch and small pavilion building on the east side and a largely coniferous copse on the western side. The southern boundary consisted of a small row of trees between the cricket pitch and the main road and there was a large lay- by between the copse and the road. The northern boundary was marked by a hedgerow. The A283 marked the South Downs National Park’s northern boundary. Most of the area surrounding the site was either wooded or agricultural and the works were extremely difficult to see from the main road. There were breaks in the earthworks to accommodate a public footpath.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012, Sections 7, 10 and 11; National Planning Policy Guidance 2014; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC4, DC5, DC6, DC7 and DC9; and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Planning permission had been granted in 2005 for the replacement of the Pavilion building (DC/05/2016) and there were some recent telecommunications applications.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objection but expressed some concern regarding the welfare of

10

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

DCS/11 Planning Application: DC/14/0328 (Cont.)

the trees due to the amount of mud around the base of the tree trunks. One letter of support had been received.

It was considered that the principle of development was acceptable. The bunds would ensure that the cricket pitch could be used in the future without the problems of fly-tipping that had occurred recently. In addition, as the visual impact of the proposed features was minimal and the landscape character was protected, it was considered that the works accorded with Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant policies of the Development Plan.

It was considered that the impact of the bunds on the character and appearance of the site and the wider surrounding area was less than significant and that they would not adversely impact upon the local landscape character, including that of the South Downs National Park.

The Environment Agency had indicated that, although the material imported to the site to make up the bunds, whilst inert, was unlicensed, they were unlikely in this case to request that the material was removed. On balance, therefore, it was considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on environmental quality through soil contamination.

It was also considered that the development accorded with policies relating to residential amenity, biodiversity and flood risk.

Members therefore considered that the development was acceptable in principle, subject to the comments of the Arboricultural Officer in respect of the concerns raised by the Parish Council.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/0328 be determined by the Development Manager, in consultation with the local Members, following the expiry of the consultation period and consideration of the comments of the Arboricultural Officer. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The meeting closed at 4.33pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

11

Development Control (South) Committee 17th June 2014

12

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 15TH JULY 2014 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS

1. Appeals Lodged

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

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

SDNP/13/05646/FUL Change of Use from B1 (office) to C3 (residential) including the demolition of the existing commercial buildings and the redevelopment of the site with the erection of 2 no. detached houses, garages and associated works Horton Hill, Henfield Road, Small Dole For: Mr Christopher Boardman

3. Public Inquiry

DC/13/1187 Outline application for 58 residential dwellings, comprising 1 bed flat (4 no.), 2 bed flat (4 no.), 2 bed house (15 no.), 3 bed house (20 no.), 4 bed house (10 no.), 5 bed house (5 no.) with associated parking, garaging, informal open space and play space together with new attenuation basins. Land North of The Rise, Partridge Green For: Rydon Homes Ltd

4. Appeal Decisions

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

DC/13/0132 Retention of mobile home for equestrian worker and temporary timber building for ancillary office (Resubmission of DC/12/1266) Mobile Home, Furzefield Farm, Honeybridge Lane, Ashurst For: Furzefield Farm Equestrian Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/13/2306 Amendment to DC/12/1775 (Minor material amendment to DC/11/1522 (Amendment to previously approved bungalow and garage (SP/3/00) to form a 3-bay garage with home office above) comprising additional windows and alterations to internal layout) to change configuration of windows and doors on north elevation, removal of 2 x windows in south elevation, insertion of 2 x front and 2 x back windows, repositioning of car port wall, repositioning of staircase and insertion of flue for woodburning stove. Camomile Barn, Emms Lane, Brooks Green, Horsham. For: Ms Belinda Paisley Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/13/1342 Construction of 4-bed detached dwelling and attached garage. Land South of Springwood, Sandgate Lane, Storrington. For: Mrs H Amand Appeal: ALLOWED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

SDNP/13/01577/FUL Change of use of former Chapel to one-bed dwelling, erection of single storey rear extension and provision of 2 off street parking spaces. Watersfield Chapel, London Road, Watersfield, Pulborough. For: Mrs C E Judd Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/0926 Proposed change of use of land to a single pitch local gypsy site for a temporary period of 5 years. The Caravan, Littleworth Lane, Partridge Green For: Mr Billy Bath Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/1259 Addition of 3 x conservation rooflights to south pitch of roof (Listed Building Consent) The Old Coach House, High Street, Upper Beeding, Steyning. For: Mr Robert Hill Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/1271 Two storey rear extension and construction of lower ground floor to rear with internal alterations (Full Planning) Brookhill Cottage, Horsham Road, Cowfold, Horsham. For: Mr D Hiscock Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/1272 Two storey rear extension and construction of lower ground floor to rear with internal alterations (Listed Building Consent) Brookhill Cottage, Horsham Road, Cowfold, Horsham. For: Mr Dave Hiscock Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 15 July 2014 Approval for Reserved matters (appearance, scale, landscaping) relating DEVELOPMENT: to outline planning permission for 103 dwellings and open space (Ref.DC/11/0392) granted on the 13 December 2012 Land North of Highfield, to the east of the A29 and south of Stane Street SITE: Close, Pulborough WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham APPLICATION: DC/14/0683 APPLICANT: Hanbury Properties Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: That reserved matters be delegated for Approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to expiration of site notice deadline of the 17th July inviting public representations.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application details.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

1.1 This application seeks approval of outstanding reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, and scale) relating to an outline planning permission granted on the 13 December 2012 for the erection of 103 dwellings (4 one-bed, 51 two-bed, 26 three-bed, 19 four-bed, 3 five- bed) together with the provision of open space on land west of Stane Street, Pulborough (DC/11/0952). Layout and access detail were approved as part of the outline permission.

1.2 The application site has an area of 5.4 hectares with the approved development being broadly denser towards the eastern boundary bordering Stane Street (30-35dph) and gradually becoming less dense towards the western boundary at 19-21dph. Vehicular access to the development would be through a signalised junction access off Stane Street at the south-eastern corner of the application site and this was approved as part of the approved scheme. A new north/south footway/cycleway would be provided through the new development between the new site access and Stane Street Close. A total of 235 car parking spaces would be provided as well as 228 cycle parking spaces.

Contact Officer: Peter Munnelly Tel: 01403 215561 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

1.3 The proposed development would contain 40% affordable housing provision and the applicant has confirmed that the mix of affordable homes would be policy compliant i.e.60% social rented & 40% shared ownership/equity.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site lies to the north of Pulborough on the western side of the A29. The site is roughly rectangular and was formerly put to arable use. It sits approximately. 3.5 - 4 metres high above the A29 and its eastern boundary is marked by a steep sided tree embankment. The land slopes gently from northeast to southwest. The eastern and western boundaries of the site consist of mature hedging interspersed with trees whilst the northern and southern boundaries do not contain significant natural features.

1.5 To the north of the site is Stane Street Close, a residential development dating from the 1960s or early 70’s. The land immediately to the west of the site is laid out as horse gallops, through which a public footpath (no. 1995 runs) in a north-south direction and from which there are clear views of the application site and the South Downs beyond.

1.6 The application site is contiguous with the southernmost Built Up Area Boundary of Codmore Hill, a Category 2 settlement as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012):- - Paragraph 7 (The three dimensions to sustainable development are economic, social and environmental); - Paragraph 14 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development); - Paragraph 49 (Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development; - Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes); - Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) & - Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).

2.3 As can be seen from above the NPPF has a golden thread running through it which seeks to ensure a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

2.4 The NPPF is supported by Planning Practice Guidance which was introduced in March 2014 after a 2 year review by the Government and replaces numerous Circulars, Technical Notes and letters to Chief Planning Officers. It is available as a web-based resource, will be continually updated and includes guidance on matters such as Design, Noise and Use of Planning conditions.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.5 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

11th October 2013. This planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application. The Proposed Submission document was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 and is subject to a 6 week public consultation period.

2.6 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) are considered to be:- - CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character - CP2: Environmental Quality - CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development - CP5: Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land - CP12: Meeting Housing Needs - CP13: Infrastructure Requirements

2.7 The relevant policies of the adopted Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) are considered to be:-

- DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement - DC2: Landscape Character - DC5: Biodiversity and Geology - DC7: Flooding - DC8: Renewable Energy and Climate Change - DC9: Development Principles - DC12: Meeting Housing Needs - DC18: Smaller Homes/Housing Mix - DC22: New Open space, Sports and Recreation - DC22: Transport and Access

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

2.8 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Pulborough Design Statement Supplementary Planning Document (2013): Its principle role is to allow future applicants an appreciation of the character of the local area so that proposals can respond to this existing character. The application site is not covered by a character area study although areas immediately to the north (Stane Street Close) and to the south (Highfield and north of London Road) are. Respectively the key guidance within the SPD for development near to these character areas is that ‘any large scale developments should have a village feel’ and that new development ‘should reflect nearby materials, scales and design features’.

2.9 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2007);

2.10 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document (2009).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.11 Relevant and recent planning history for the site is as follows:

DC/14/0535 - Non-material amendment to revise plot size. (Permitted).

DC/13/0530 – Non-material amendment to confirm revised layout and that access and layout detail were considered at outline stage. (Permitted).

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

DC/11/0952 - Outline planning permission granted for 103 dwellings and open space including layout and access detail. (Permitted).

PL/21/58 – Residential use of the land. (Refused and dismissed on appeal).

PL/26/78 – Change of use of land from agricultural to recreational use. (Permitted).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

Where consultation responses have been summarised it should be noted that officers have been able to fully consider the full comments received by consultees and these are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 HDC Landscape Architect (summarised) –. No objection, subject to supply of requested further levels and tree survey information to demonstrate the cycleway and footpath can be satisfactorily accommodated on the eastern boundary without adverse impact on existing vegetation ( trees and hedgerow) and other hard and soft landscape amendments below prior to any approval by the planning committee.

3.2 HDC Public Health and Licensing – No comment.

3.3 HDC Access Officer – No comment

3.4 HDC Arboricultural Officer – No comment. However no objection registered at outline stage where the officer described the form and layout of the site as ‘respectful of the trees around the peripheries and unlikely to result in material harm from development or post development pressure for tree removal.’

3.5 HDC Strategic Housing Manager – Regards the proposed affordable tenure mix as set down in the Planning Statement as unsatisfactory as it indicates a greater degree of shared ownership units rather than units for affordable rent. The applicant has since however confirmed that affordable housing will be provided in accordance with the obligations set out within the outline section 106, namely that the number of Shared Ownership/Shared Equity Units will not be less than 40%.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.6 WSCC Highways – Noted that the access and access road layout formed part of the approved outline planning permission and offered no further comment.

3.7 WSCC Ecologist – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to bat habitat.

3.8 Sussex Police – No objection although expressed disappointment that the Design and Access Statement did not expand on Crime prevention measures. Requests mainly relating to ensuring adequate surveillance of public amenity space can be secured through effective consideration of pre-commencement landscaping and landscaping maintenance conditions.

3.9 Southern Water – No further comment save considerations forwarded at outline stage.

3.10 Environment Agency – No comment. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5

3.11 Natural England – No objection.

3.12 Pulborough Parish Council (summarised) – Made extensive initial objection to the proposals and followed this with a further letter following their Planning and Services Committee meeting on the 5th June. Objection to the scheme and concern is based on the following:

- Plans are inaccurate and are not to scale; - The height of the scheme particularly bordering the A29 is excessive; - The access road from the A29 is too steep; - Plans do not show which trees are to be felled; - Plans showing the footpath parallel to the A29 do not correlate with the space Available; - The A29 banking will need to be kept stable; - Capacity of sewage and drainage systems will be insufficient; - Requested a deferral of the decision to allow completion of Neighbourhood Plan which will seek to maintain green spaces between key settlements.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.13 All nearby dwellings were notified in April and were notified again in May following the submission of the additional information. A site notice was posted close to the site entrance. The Council has received a total of 11 letters of representation following the statutory notification exercises. The representation, all objections, can be summarised as follows:

- The new junction with the A29 will present a traffic safety issue; - The access road to the development is too steep; - There is insufficient car parking within the development; - The footpath and cycleway adjacent to the A29 is too narrow and of insufficient quality; - The development will cause an increase in crime; - The design represents overdevelopment of the site and in parts is excessively high; - There will be a loss of trees; - There will be a loss of views; - Loss of privacy for residents will be exacerbated; - The existing infrastructure, that is schools and medical provision, sewage and drainage systems will be ‘overwhelmed’ - Surrounding land will be more prone to flooding; - The development will exacerbate a general coalescence of settlements; - No community benefit has been provided; - Air quality will be reduced; - The development will cause detriment to local wildlife; - The development is contrary to Horsham’s Development Plan;

3.14 A number of the letters of objection referred to non-planning matters such as loss of value of existing property and there was also reference to alleged application and anomalies in the outline planning permission, principally ownership issues which are not considered germane to this application and the issues it raises.

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

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6

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 matters.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main considerations in the determination of this application are considered to be whether the detail submitted with regard to appearance, scale and landscaping are acceptable and are consistent with relevant policies contained in the Development Plan as referenced above and national planning guidance.

6.2 The principle of development has been approved with the granting of outline planning permission in 2012 and the provision and apparent deliverability of 103 dwellings clearly carries significant weight in any consideration of the detail provided.

Background

6.3 It may be useful at this stage to be reminded what elements of the scheme have already been considered and approved at outline stage. The outline application provided detail on access and road layout. The West Sussex County Surveyor in 2012 considered the implications of the scheme in terms of traffic generation and highway safety, particularly with reference to the new signalised junction onto the A29 from the scheme’s access road. The arrangement was considered satisfactory subject to discharge of a relevant pre- commencement condition which requires the signalised junction to have been constructed prior to any works commencing and all section 106 infrastructure and service contributions to have been made.

6.4 Furthermore the general layout of the scheme is not under consideration having been agreed at outline stage (and revised under a non-material amendment application in 2013). Informed largely by local development pattern the layout shows a hierarchy of streets and an organic development pattern centering on a principle street, an informal square and green space to the west. In light of the site’s edge of settlement location and the views afforded of the South Downs escarpment and the village centre, principally Saint Mary’s Church and its tower from the site it was agreed at outline stage that visual impact would need to be considered through a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which used key viewpoints. The LVIA could only be effective with agreement on building heights. Therefore a Building Heights Parameters Plan was also included to inform the LVIA at outline stage. The Parameters Plan allowed a variety of building heights and forms across the development up to 2.5 storeys with a central open space to prevent excessive build-up of development and single storey dwellings on the sensitive north-west boundary to lessen impact of the development.

6.5 The submitted detail complies with the approved parameters plan and further consideration of this matter is provided at the section of this report which addresses scale. An updated parameter plan and LVIA taking account of layout alterations have been provided with this application and notably building heights are, in places, actually lower than previously envisaged in 2012.

6.6 The outline permission provided an indicative level of housing types, sizes and tenure and it was considered that Policies CP12 and DC18 were satisfied in that an appropriate range of dwelling types, sizes and tenures were proposed to meet the needs of the District’s residents. Policy DC18 requires all new residential developments of 5 or more dwellings to APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7

provide a mix of units and that subject to consideration of the character of the area at least 64% should comprise 1 and 2 bedrooms in size. The indicative mix at outline stage achieved around 55% 1 and 2 bed dwellings but was considered acceptable in light of the need to respond to locality and character of the area and recent update of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which advocated flexibility in regard to this matter. The indicative number of dwelling types has altered slightly from outline stage as can be seen in the table below. This change would result in a fractional percentage decrease of smaller dwellings from the indicative outline figure however this is regarded as too small to be of significance, especially in view of the shortfall in the 5 year Housing Land Supply at the present time..

Type of dwelling Outline Permission Reserved Matters DC/11/0952 DC/14/0683

1 bed dwellings 0 4 2 bed dwellings 57 51 3 bed dwellings 25 26 4 bed dwellings 19 19 5 bed dwellings 2 3 103 103

6.7 Because of the need to provide layout and parameter plans, a density figure was also identified. The Council’s Development Framework indicates that although proposals must make efficient use of land, regard to the character of the surrounding context must also be had. The outline scheme proposes an average density of approximately 27 dwellings per hectare and this was considered as representing an efficient use of the site whilst responding to the character and context of the local area

Appearance

General concept

6.8 The scheme is based around three informal perimeter blocks separated by landscape corridors and two large areas of open space, one formal, and the other informal. The block set towards the east of the scheme broadly running parallel to the A29 is the finest grained with the slightly higher density able to create strong continuity and enclosure in an area that is visually less sensitive than other parts of the application site. The two other main blocks towards the west are much coarser grained and lower in density terms in response to the edge of countryside location and the sensitive views from the west. The blocks all contain key buildings and strong architectural features at prominent locations highlighting important corners or vistas.

Detailed appearance

6.9 The design of the proposals draws influence from the surrounding Pulborough context and West Sussex vernacular so as to create a distinct sense of place. The village can be said to lack a strong, coherent identity and is characterised by its unconventional form. This is due largely to its location on the north bank of the River Arun, varied topography, the railway and the A29 (Stane Street). These factors have resulted in piecemeal development over the last 150 years although the buildings around Church Place and the medieval St Mary’s church accessed from narrow lanes represent the most attractive part of the village. There have been too many smaller residential developments within the village that lack any sense of place or distinctive character.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

6.10 It is this that the scheme seeks to avoid with the introduction of a variety of houses but with a limited palette of materials. The properties are predominantly designed in short terraces and semi-detached configurations and have traditional forms allowing steeply pitched roofs set between 42.5 and 45 degrees with a number having dropped eaves.

6.11 It is proposed that all the dwelling types will incorporate architectural detailing and features which can traditionally be found in the locality including:

- a range of porches consisting canopy porches, brick porches, gable porches on gallows brackets and oak post; - particular brick detail including three brick quoins, single brick quoins, banding courses and dental coursing at eaves level with projecting and flush brick plinths; - additional roof detail including chimneys with stepped brick detail, flying hips, pitched and flat roofed dormers, cemented verges and barge boards. - window detail will include brick heads and sills. Arched and gauged brick headers, stone heads and sills.

Materials

6.12 The palette of materials proposed for the different types of dwellings reflects as closely as possibly the existing materials that can already be found within those more aesthetically pleasing areas of Pulborough which the applicant has carefully documented. The proposed elevation materials include a mix of red brick, render, white painted and black stained timber boarding, hung tiles and flint while the roof materials are equally varied and consist of plain tiles, slate, double roman tiles, and clay pan tiles.

6.13 The proposed windows and doors will all be painted timber and include balanced casements and sliding sash windows.

6.14 In summary it is considered that there is sufficient variance in texture and tone of the proposed building materials, many of which acknowledge the built vernacular of West Sussex and Pulborough, to allow the scheme to make a positive, sensitive and respectful contribution to the streetscene

Boundaries

6.15 The applicant has included a study of existing boundary treatments found in Pulborough in order to inform the proposals put forward within the scheme. The study indicated that stone or brick boundary walls were common in the village and that thresholds on older buildings were often the same material as the main elevation of the building which it served. The study concluded that on later 20th buildings there was understandably no dominant form or material rather a variety low walling, picket fencing and soft landscaping including hedges and shrubs.

6.16 In response to this assessment a rational and considered approach to boundary treatments has been devised acknowledging matters such as the need for maintenance, public and private safety and for adequate passive surveillance. The boundary proposals submitted show a range of garden enclosure and public-private separation through 4 different wall types, 8 fencing types, 7 gate types and various railings and close boarding features. A hard landscaping condition remains extant on the outline permission and it is likely that any discharge application relating to the hard landscaping will need to largely replicate the boundary type information provided in detailed form here at this stage.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9

6.17 In summary the proposed appearance of the buildings is welcomed. A broadly traditional design approach of houses with a variety of pitched roofs, locally familiar materials and architectural detail which echoes the vernacular style such as flint and weatherboarding all accords with key elements of Policy DC9 (Development Principles) of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007) which states at (c) that planning permission will be granted for development that ensures scale, massing and appearance is of a high standard and which relates sympathetically with the built surroundings and routes within and adjoining the site. Furthermore it is also asserted that the details comply with other elements of Policy DC9, namely (f) which states that planning permission will be granted for developments that presume in favour of the retention of existing important landscaping and natural features such as hedges and (h) – (k) which indicate that matters such as appropriate bin storage, surveillance of public areas and that the distinction be made between public and private spaces on a site will all need to be taken into account. The appearance details also can be said to accord with Policies CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 which aims to protect key landscape and settlement characteristics and CP3 of the same document which asks, amongst other things, that development will be expected to provide an attractive, functional, accessible, safe and adaptable environment.

Scale

6.18 The layout is designed to respect the views currently enjoyed by residents of the existing Stane Street Close estate whose rear gardens are elevated above the north boundary. The sloping topography of the site has enabled building terraces to be cut into the slope reducing the perceived scale of the development from these properties and together with a significant set back from the northern boundary this will reduce the impact of the new development in views from Stane Street Close and the gallops to the west. The density within the northern element is also reduced so as to allow breaks and views between the buildings. This will allow some of the existing properties to retain attractive views to the Downs and St Mary’s Church from first floor windows and from a number of gardens and ground floor windows.

6.19 The need to maintain some of the above referred views was a factored into the LVIA which was submitted at outline stage and re-submitted with this application and a key consideration in devising a building heights parameter plan which was approved as part of the outline application.

6.20 The overriding consideration however in terms of devising appropriate heights of dwellings and therefore scale for the scheme was the need to recognise its edge of settlement/countryside location and the sensitivity of the site from the gallops and the public track to the west where views would be afforded of the development. Early work on the LVIA proved helpful in allowing an understanding of the potential detrimental impact of the development from these locations and this resulted in the inclusion of a central open space to prevent a sense of overdevelopment on the site. Similarly the assessment saw the reduction in height of a number of properties to single storey bungalows, namely plots 13-16 on the sensitive north - western side of the site.

6.21 In addition to the response to the LVIA work at outline stage it is notable that the actual proposed heights of many of the individual dwellings and blocks is lower than first envisaged and the approved parameters plan allows. A parameters heights comparison table provided by the applicant shows that in over a third of the proposed dwellings, ridge heights will be significantly below parameters set down at outline stage. Accordingly a revised parameters height drawing is included in the detailed drawing submission.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10

6.22 In addition to a revised parameters heights plan the applicant has also revised the LVIA to take account of the general reduction in height of dwellings from outline stage. The revised LVIA seeks to demonstrate through photomontages that the revised heights significantly reduce impact of the scheme from the west and north-west. It is considered that they do this and it is acknowledged that boundary landscaping, which is shown in various stages of maturity, will play its own role in helping to obscure the development in years to come.

6.23 A number of objections referred to the unsuitably high dwellings on the easternmost elements or ‘blocks’ of the development close to the boundary with the A29. The dwellings are generally 2 and a maximum of 2 .5 storeys on this side of the site (2.5 storeys being read as those properties with roof storeys) and it is considered that the distinction from the more cottage scale properties on the western side of the side is not inappropriate. Context analysis showed historic and more recent precedent for 2.5 and 3 storey buildings in fringe locations around Pulborough such as Stopham Road, Riverside and The Ridings. Perception of the height of these dwellings from any point outside the site will be extremely limited due to the steep bank on the eastern side of the A29, existing mature hedgerow on these banks and appropriate landscaping which will delivered through the existing conditions on the outline application.

6.24 On the basis of the above the proposed scale of the buildings is considered acceptable and in accordance with the key elements of Policy DC1 (Country side Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character) and DC9 (Development Principles) of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007). DC1 states inter alia that ‘any development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location’, DC2 states that Development will be permitted where it …’conserves the key characteristics of the landscape character in which it is located’ whilst DC9 asserts at (c) that ‘planning permission will be granted for development that ensures scale, massing and appearance is of a high standard and which relates sympathetically with the built surroundings and routes within and adjoining the site.’

6.25 The scale of the proposed dwellings can also can be said to accord with Policies CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 which aims to protect key landscape and settlement characteristics and CP3 of the same document which asks, amongst other things, that development shall be expected to ‘contribute to a sense of place both in the buildings and the spaces themselves and in the way they integrate with the surroundings….’ yet ‘optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development’.

Landscaping

6.26 Given the obvious sensitivities the site location has demanded that a careful landscape led approach be adopted. The landscaping and layout of the scheme has been subject to extensive negotiation with officers to allow for an acceptable position to be reached. The landscaping and open space features of the development can be considered as a number of different elements each with a particular function. Assessment of those distinct features is as follows:

6.27 Central Amenity Space: This open space was vital in breaking up the scheme as seen from sensitive locations to the west. It is also has an important role in allowing the openness of the surrounding countryside to permeate the site and creating an east/west green link. It is proposed that the space will be soft landscaped with clear stem individual trees. There will also be a single toddler and junior play area together with footpaths set within the space and these meet general equipped play standards utilised by Horsham.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11

6.28 Western Tree Belt and permissive Right of Way: These features will be carefully managed to allow some views out of the main amenity space. The tree belt will however play an important role in also filtering views of the wider development from the west. Between the tree belt and the hedgerow will be a permissive right of way which will allow residents from Stane Street Close to the north to access the amenity areas and to use the existing east/west path which then heads westwards towards Poachers Farm and the gallops. The planting will be mindful of the need for passive surveillance in this area.

6.29 The large informal amenity area: Is to be provided to allow for an open space for residents and the community with the hope being that it can be managed by the local community for the benefit of nature conservancy. Though within the red line plan, no formal indication of is provided with the submitted plans and this will need to be addressed through further detail submitted pursuant to the relevant outstanding soft landscaping condition.

6.30 Access Road: To the south east corner of the site the access road this road can create a linear natural open space and reinforce the southern boundary. The access point also can also allow for an attractive entrance point for residents and visitors alike. Hedgerow is proposed to the south boundary at this point and plant groups will include native trees and scrub. An informal avenue of trees will be provided adjacent to the A29.

6.31 The Stane Street (A29) Boundary: The stated objective for landscaping at this point is to supplement, enhance and reinforce the existing linear tree and scrub belt creating a strong boundary threshold to further filter views into the site from the A29 and from Soper’s Cottages to the east of the main road. The improvements would ‘gap-up’ the existing tree belt with native trees and shrubs and new trees would be planted on the embankment where necessary.

6.32 The Northern boundary: The objective on the boundary with Stane Street Close would be to provide a safe, naturally overlooked space while maintaining key views for existing residents of the South Downs, St Mary’s Church and Park Mound. It is proposed to primarily use soft landscaping and provide a new linear hedgerow along the boundary to unify the discordant rear garden boundary treatment of the southern facing properties on Stane Street Close.

6.33 The landscaping plans also provide detail on surface materials which are all visually acceptable and where appropriate, to adoptable standards. The range includes vehicular tarmacadam, pedestrian tarmacadam, concrete setts for drives and footpaths, resin bound gravel, wet rolled gravel – potentially for the amenity/play areas and concrete slab areas for bin stores and shed areas. Again as with boundary treatment any final detail required could be secured at discharge of condition stage.

6.34 The Council’s landscape architect has worked collaboratively with the applicant to achieve a scheme which he regards as acceptable in-principle. There are however some outstanding matters relating to landscaping and planting detail which will require further consideration and it is intended that any additional technical information relating to these matters shall need to be submitted pursuant to the extant pre-commencement landscaping and landscaping maintenance conditions attached to the outline permission in 2012 and the more specific landscape management condition that is recommended to be attached to this permission.

6.35 In summary it is considered that the proposed landscaping is acceptable at this stage, policy compliant and in aligned with key elements of Policy DC2 (Landscape Character) Policy DC9 (Development Principles) of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007) which respectively states that development will be permitted where it conserves the key characteristics of the landscape area in which it is located and planning permission will be granted for developments that presume in APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12

favour of the retention of existing important landscaping and natural features such as hedges.

6.36 The landscaping detail can also be said to accord with Policy CP1 of the of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 which requires that inter alia that the landscape character is protected and in that the buildings integrate with their surroundings whilst optimising the potential of the site and Part (c) of Policy CP3 of the same document which requires that development will be expected to contribute to a sense of place both in buildings and spaces themselves and in the way they integrate with their surroundings.

7. OTHER ISSUES

7.1 In addition to the proposed conditions on this permission there are a number of extant conditions on the outline permission which require submission of detail and information for consideration by officers prior to commencement of any works. Such detail includes hard and soft landscaping, landscaping management, materials, cycle parking, recycling, details of foul and surface water disposal, archaeological works and bat habitats. Other key conditions on the outline permission restrict any development taking place until the new traffic signalling from the site has been designed, laid out and constructed to the satisfaction of the Council. Additionally no more than 50 dwellings can be occupied before the new eastern pedestrian footpath/cycle link between the access road and Stane Street Close has been provided. A comprehensive Construction and Environmental Management Plan condition shall be attached this permission approving reserved matters detail strengthening the ability of the Council to control potential nuisance from the construction process.

Section 106 and Infrastructure

7.2 The outline permission was subject to Section 106 legal agreement which obliged the applicant to provide either contributions to the County or Horsham District Council for infrastructure or to carry out specific works themselves. The S106 can be summarised as follows:

· £9,392 Fire Rescue Contribution; · £231,621 Primary Education Contribution; · £249,294 Secondary Education Contribution; · £58,3986 6th Form Education Contribution; · £189,200 Transport Contribution; · £125,483 Community/District Facilities Contribution · Provision and maintenance of various footways/cycleways and permissive path works; · 40% Affordable housing (41 units); · Provision of open space and Equipped play area; · Provision of informal amenity area; · A29 Embankment Management Plan;

7.3 It is understood that the County Council has identified an amount of monies from the transport contribution to part-fund a pedestrian footbridge to Pulborough railway station which would negate the need for pedestrians to use the existing A29 road bridge when accessing the northbound station platform The need for a pedestrian only footbridge was identified in the Village Transport Plan. Using S106 funding from other recently approved developments in the village, the County Council has already commissioned and considered a feasibility study into the matter. The study affirmed the need for the bridge and provided design options. However even taking into account S106 transport contributions from recent APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13

residential development, a capital cost funding shortfall means other sources of funding will need to be secured if the bridge is to be provided.

Flooding and Surface Water Drainage

7.4 A standard condition relating to details of foul and surface water disposal was attached to the outline planning permission. It is however proposed that this condition will be reinforced by a specific Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) related condition which will require details of how the housing scheme proposes to incorporate storm water management features such as permeable paving and storm water detention to reduce the risk of flooding.

Noise Survey

7.5 The current application provided an updated Noise Survey to take account of minor changes in proposed layout of the scheme that was secured by a non-material amendment granted by the Council in 2013. The report assessed that the changes will not result in any discernible increase in traffic noise levels from the A29 experienced by residents.

Habitat Survey

7.6 Similarly an updated Habitat Survey was provided which concluded that the site’s moderate ecology value, which is principally provided by the hedgerows to the east and west of the site boundary would be maintained as indicated at outline stage and notwithstanding the changes proposed.

Tree Survey

7.7 A Tree Survey was also included in the suite of supporting documents to take account of minor changes in proposed layout of the scheme that was secured by a non-material amendment granted by the Council in 2013. The report concluded that the site’s important trees, particularly those on the eastern boundary would remain unaffected by the minor layout changes.

8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 The detail can be said to respond to a number of different issues identified in the Pulborough Design Statement, namely that proposals reflect existing local built character, that there be a network of open ‘living spaces’ for outdoor recreation, that development be permeable and connective with legible footways and cycleways linking into existing routes within the village and that sustainable building practices and materials are used where possible.

8.2 It has been demonstrated that the proposed detail relating to appearance, landscaping and scale is acceptable and accords with relevant Development Plan policies on countryside protection, the principles of new development, landscape character and environmental quality. Significantly the development and the detail shown demonstrate that there will be adequate levels of amenity for future residents of the development and that there will be no diminution of existing residential amenity for the dwellings on Stane Street Close that are located adjacent to the site. Approval of the detail will allow the scheme to be delivered thereby assisting the Council in addressing its 5 year housing supply shortfall.

8.3 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted and relevant reserved matters on appearance, scale and landscaping discharged subject to the following conditions:

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14

8.4 1. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application plans, drawings and documents hereby approved and as detailed below

Site layout Drwg no. PL001B Received: 02.05.2014 Drwg no. PL002 B Parameters Height Plan Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. PL003 A House Type Distributions Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. PL004 A Parking Distribution Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. PL005 A Roof Materials Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. PL006 C Wall Materials Received: 02.05.2014 Drwg no. PL007 Wall Materials Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no.PL008 C Street Scene Received: 01.04.2014

Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P100 Plots 1 and 2 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P101 Plots 3 - 5 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P102 Plots 6 - 7 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P103 Plots 8, 17 and 18 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P104 Plots 9 and 12 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P105 Plots 10, 11, 55, 88, 102 and 10 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P106 Plots 13 - 16 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P107 Plots19, 31 and 31 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P108 Plots 20 - 24 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P109 Plots 25 and 26 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P110 Plots 27 - 30, 48 and 49 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P111Plots 33, 91 and 101 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P112 Plots 34 and 87 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P113 Plots 35 - 38 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P114 Plots 39 - 41 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P115 Plots 42 47 and 72 - 75 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P116 Plots50 - 52 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P117 A Plots 53 and 54, 83 - 86 Received: 02.05.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P118 Plots 56 and 57, 70 and 71 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P119 Plots 58 - 61 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P120 Plots 62 - 69 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P121 Plots 76 and 100 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P122 Plots 77 and 78 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P123 Plots 79 - 82 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P124 Plots 89 and 90, 94 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P125 Plots 92 and 93 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P126 Plots 95 and 96 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P127 Plots 97 - 99 Received: 01.04.2014 Plans and Elevations Drwg no. P128 Parking Barns and Garage Received: 02.05.2014

Design & Access Statement 1586/DAS/RPT/01 Rev A Received: 02.05.2014 Planning Supporting Statement Received: 01.04.2014 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Received: 01.04.2014 Tree Survey Received: 01.04.2014 Acoustic Assessment Ref.5697/DO/pw. Received: 01.04.2014 Verifiable Views Update Ref.DLA/1586/VV/RPT/03 Received 02.05.2014

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15

Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-01 Rev A Hard Surfaces Sheet 1 of 5 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-02 Hard Surfaces Sheet 2 of 5 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-03 Hard Surfaces Sheet 3 of 5 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-04 Hard Surfaces Sheet 4 of 5 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-05 Rev A Hard Surfaces Sheet 5 of 5 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-06 A Planting Proposals Sheet 1 of 6 Received: 02.05.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-07 A Planting Proposals Sheet 2 of 6 Received: 02.05.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-08 Planting Proposals Sheet 3 of 6 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. 6 DLA-1585-(L002)-09 Planting Proposals Sheet 4 of 6 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-10 Planting Proposals Sheet 5 of 6 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1585-(L002)-11 Planting Proposals Sheet 6 of 6 Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. DLA-1586 Landscape Masterplan Received: 02.05.2014 Drwg no. 4413/109 Rev D Access Road Outline Junction Received: 01.04.2014 Drwg no. 4413/117 Rev B Proposed Road Site Levels Received: 01.04.2014

Reason: To accord with the terms of the submitted application and to ensure minimal impact on local amenity and the environment in accordance with policy DCV9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

2. Notwithstanding Condition 15 of outline permission DC/11/0952 prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) to be used across the site shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Southern Water where appropriate. The submitted information shall demonstrate:

• how the SUDS are to be maintained and managed after completion; • how the development has been designed for exceedance events and flood flow paths. • effective coordination with all landscape details submitted pursuant to condition 5 of this permission and 7 of DC/11/0952, and with existing trees on the site.

The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of the building and shall thereafter be retained and maintained as approved.

Reason: To ensure the development is properly drained and to prevent the increased risk of flooding, in accordance with policy DC7 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. Notwithstanding Conditions No’s 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of outline permission DC/11/0952 no development work shall take place until a Construction Environment Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall provide for: APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16

1) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; 2) Loading and unloading of plant material; 3) Storage of plant materials used in the construction of development; 4) The erection and maintenance of security hoardings; 5) Wheel washing facilities; 6) A management plan to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction identifying suitable mitigation measures; 7) Details of the storage of potential ground water contaminants; 8) A scheme for protecting trees; 9) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and 10) A scheme to control noise during the construction phase. 11) A dedicated contact point (telephone number/website) which allows residents to register comment in regard to construction matters.

Site works shall only take place in accordance with the approved construction management plan unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

To accord with the terms of the submitted application and to ensure minimal impact on local amenity and the environment in accordance with policy DCV9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4 Notwithstanding the submitted landscape detail drawings [Drg. Refs. DLA-1585- (L002)-01 Rev A - DLA-1585-(L002)-11] prior to the commencement of development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

· A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice; · Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers, showing the location of existing trees and hedgerows agreed to be retained on the same plans; · Tree pit and staking/underground guying details; · A written specification (National Building Specification compliant) of hard works and soft works (including ground preparation, cultivation, planting and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); · Existing and proposed levels, contours and cross / long sections, taking account of any approved finished floor levels plan, details of any earthworks associated with sustainable drainage features (SUDS) and information on the volumes of cut and fill, specifying the volume of material that will be reused on site and the volume that will be taken off site; · Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels · Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials, including elevation details; · Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, play equipment, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns.

The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting and seeding shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the practical completion of the development. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 17

Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

5 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term 25 year Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

The plan shall include: • Landscape Aims and Objectives; • A description of Landscape Components; • Management Prescriptions; • Details of maintenance operations and their timing; • Details of the parties/organisations who will be maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for

The plan shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of planting shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and nature conservation in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6 No existing trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, other than those the Local Planning Authority has agreed to be removed as part of this permission, shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled/removed, topped or lopped without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority until 5 years after completion of the development hereby permitted. Any trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, whether within the tree protective areas or not, which die or become damaged during the construction process shall be replaced with trees, hedging plants or shrubs of a type, size and in positions agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation on the site unsuitable for permanent protection by Tree Preservation Order for a limited period, in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

NOTE TO APPLICANT

In submitting details of the equipped play areas pursuant to the hard and soft landscape condition no 7 of DC/11/0952 the applicant shall ensure bespoke designs are provided using non- standard equipment and demonstrating a satisfactory integration of earthworks, planting, boundary treatment and play equipment.

Background Papers: DC/14/0683 Case Officer: Peter Munnelly DC/14/0683 Land North of Highfield

Scale : 1:5000

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Not Set Date 04 July 2014

SLA Number 100018563 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th July 2014 Erection of detached 3 bed detached dwelling and erection of single DEVELOPMENT: detached garage SITE: Land West of Hivale, Sands Lane, Small Dole, West Sussex WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/14/0489 APPLICANT: Mrs A Edwards

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: More than 5 letters of objections have been received.

RECOMMENDATION: To Grant Planning Permission subject to Conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks to erect a detached house on the vacant plot, along with a detached garage and driveway. The property would have a rectangular footprint of around 8.5m x 11.5m at ground floor and a reduced footprint at first-floor of around 8.5m x 8.5m. The roof form would be a simple gable-ended roof with a chimney set to the western elevation. The additional floorspace on the ground floor would provide a flat-roofed rear projection with a glazed lantern roof.

1.2 Internally, the accommodation would provide an open-plan kitchen, family room and dining room at the rear of the house, with a more formal lounge and study at the front, along with a utility room and a WC. At first-floor, there would be three bedrooms with two bathrooms.

1.3 The garage would have external dimensions of 4.9m x 2.8m which provide internal an clearance of 4.6m x 2m. The roof would also be a matching gable-ended design to a maximum height of 3.7m.

1.4 The proposed dwelling would be positioned on the plot so that it aligned with the western boundary, with a separation distance of 1m from the boundary. The closest distance to the

Contact Officer: Nicola Pettifer Tel: 01403 215382 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2

eastern boundary with Hivale would be approximately 5.2m and approximatley 3.3m from the rear boundary to No.11 Tottington Drive where the irregular eastern boundary steps in.

1.5 The detached garage would be set alongside the eastern boundary with Hivale at a distance of about 0.9m. The proposed front driveway would provide off-street parking for at least 2 vehicles clear of the highway in a tandem arrangement.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.7 The application site comprises a plot of vacant land situated to the west of a detached dwelling called Hivale, on the northern side of Sands Lane. The site lies within the settlement boundary of Small Dole, which is a Category 2 settlement as identified within Policy CP5 of the LDF (Core Strategy) 2007.

1.8 The plot has a street-frontage of about 15m and a maximum plot depth of some 30m. Previous site history indicates that this land was originally part of the rear curtilage of No.12 Tottington Drive. This adjacent property lies to the north of the current site boundary and is a semi-detached bungalow. It is clear that land levels rise marginally to the north, as the adjacent rear bungalow lies at an elevated position.

1.9 At the time of the site visit, all of the boundary screening across the Sands Lane frontage had been removed and a number of small trees had been felled from within the site. Temporary Heras fencing had been erected across the front boundary to secure the site.

1.10 The wider character of Sands Lane is varied, with adjacent properties exhibiting differing architectural features, external materials and, roof forms, plot sizes and orientations in relation to the road.

Background History

1.11 In 2012, permission was sought for the erection of a pair of semi-detached houses on the land west of Hivale, which would have had a staggered building line, off-set to suit the relationship of the plot with the road (DC/12/1586). Back-to-back distances to No.12 Tottington Drive to the north were achieved at 21.5m, with a minimum rear garden depth of 11m. Off-street parking for both dwellings would have achieved space for an overall 4 vehicles and the minimum offset from the eastern boundary with Hivale would have been 1.5m.

1.2 At the time of the proposal, an objection was raised by the Strategic Planning Department, on grounds of the proposal being located within a Category 2 settlement as defined by policy CP5 of the LDF (Core Strategy) 2007. Furthermore, the scheme did not address any specific local housing need, nor did it provide for affordable housing, criteria which would need to have met in order to satisfy the criteria of policy CP5.

1.13 The proposal was accordingly refused for the following reasons:

1. Having regard to the location of the site within a category 2 settlement it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the development would meet identified local requirements for housing, including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities or how the new development would not reinforce unsustainable travel patterns. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP5 & CP12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

2. Having regard to the size of the plots, layout of the proposal and the dwellings relationship with each other and neighbouring properties together with the pattern and character of the surrounding development, it is considered that the proposal represents an unsympathetic, cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the occupiers of the dwellings & neighbouring occupiers and the character of the locality, contrary in particular to policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport and community facilities infrastructure and is thereby contrary to Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy 2007 as it is not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.2 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

· Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport · Section 6: Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes · Section 7: Requiring Good Design · Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment · Section 14: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Planning Policy Guidance (2014)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

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

· CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character · CP2: Environmental Quality · CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development · CP5: Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land · CP12: Meeting Housing Needs · CP13: Infrastructure Requirements

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

· DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement · DC2: Landscape Character · DC8: Renewable Energy and Climate Change · DC9: Development Principles · DC40: Transport and Access

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

2.5 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. This planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application. The Proposed Submission document was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 for a 6 week consultation period.

2.6 PLANNING HISTORY

DC/12/1586 Construction of 2 No. semi-detached dwellings Refused 2012

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic and Community Planning: No comments have been received

3.2 Housing Department: No comments have been received

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 WSCC Strategic Planning (summarised):

· Sands Lane is a private lane not maintained at public expense. From an inspection of the proposed access point there would be no apparent visibility issue. There is a limited amount of space to turn on site but given the anticipated low speeds this is not likely to result in a highway safety issue. The parking arrangements on site are considered sufficient for the needs of the proposal. · The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant increase in traffic movements and thus would not be anticipated to result in a highway safety issue.

3.4 Southern Water (summarised):

· A formal application for a connection to the public foul sewer would be required from the developer / applicant · It is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the site. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, number of properties served and potential means of access before any further work commences on site · If the LPA is minded to grant consent, then a number of planning informatives would be advised regarding works

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 Upper Beeding Parish Council:

The Parish Council objects to the proposal on grounds of overdevelopment.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5

3.6 Elected Ward Members:

· Access as illustrated on the plans will be very difficult · Backland over-development so too big for the site · Sandy Lane cannot cope with existing traffic and parking pressures so proposal would make matters worse

3.7 To date, 25 letters of representation have been received, some of which are noted to be from the same address and also from non-local address points.

3.8 A total of 10 objections have been received:

Design: · Spoil street-scene of Sands Lane

Neighbour Amenity: · Loss of privacy to Waterford house (opposite) due to proximity · Loss of light and increased overshadowing to Waterford house (opposite) · Overlooking to 12 Tottington Drive (at rear) · Potential to build above single-storey element would come closer to boundary at No.12 Tottington Drive · Overshadowing to The Gallery (to the east) · Loss of privacy to Hivale (immediate neighbour to east) · Loss of afternoon and evening light to Hivale · Increased noise to Hivale during construction and after

Parking & Access: · Private access road maintained by other residents. New dwelling would have no access to the site. Legally, the only access to the site can be through No.12 Tottington Drive. Plans need to be changed to reflect this · Vehicular traffic over Sands Lane is already at saturation point · Sands Lane is a single track road, not sufficiently wide enough to take additional traffic · Pedestrian safety is paramount as the lane is used daily by dog walkers and walking groups · Three-bed house would generate need for 4 vehicles · Adverse impact access to adjacent commercial properties

Landscaping: · Compromise of rural nature of Sands Lane · Removal of hedges and trees

Other matters: · Drainage system is already at saturation point and could not cope with any additional drainage · Nuisance during construction of dust, smells, disturbance and construction traffic.Would be Intolerable to neighbours · Surely proposal is contrary to Council’s policies on garden development, loss of open space and concreting over the environment · Damage of adjacent greased verges. Limited turning ability onto the site for construction traffic · Need to remove the electricity pole · Drainage ditch that runs along the front of the property · Lack of dimensions on plan. Difficult to judge positioning on the plot APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

· Blocking of lane during construction by the delivery vehicles · Character of Small Dole already changing from a village into a town · Viability of objections some of which appear to have been made by the applicant and land owner

3.9 A total of 15 letters of support have been received:

The following comments are made in support of the proposal:

· Family housing is needed in Small Dole · Small-scale sympathetic development is preferable to massive scale developments · Does not detract from surrounding area · In keeping with the existing infill properties already built in the lane · Appropriate design and positioning

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 key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

· The principle of the development · Whether the proposal is considered to amount to a sustainable form of development in respect of the three tests: economic, social and environmental · Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area · Amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties · Highway safety and capacity

Principle of the development

6.2 The application site is located within the built-up area boundary of Small Dole, which is a Category 2 settlement. As such, the LDF policy CP5 is considered to be relevant to this case. Accordingly, policy CP5 would only support new residential infill development in a Category 2 settlement which is of a small scale development and addresses a specific local housing need such as affordable housing.

6.3 In respect of strategic housing land supply within the District, para49 of the NPPF states that:

“Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7

considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.”

6.4 In this regard, it is acknowledged that the Local Authority does not have a five-year housing land supply, and therefore, this proposal would go some small way towards meeting the housing needs of present and future generations. An assessment must therefore be made as to whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF.

6.5 Given the lack of a five-year housing land supply, policies which seek to apply restraint to new housing development outside of Category 1 settlements need to be applied flexibly. Given that a presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, as set out by the NFFP, the local planning authority would be required to grant permission for such residential developments, unless there are significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of the proposal, when assessed against the policies in the Local Development Framework as a whole.

6.6 As the site is surrounded by housing and is located within a Category 2 Settlement, the development is considered to be sustainable. The site relates well to the existing settlement pattern and is within walking distance to limited local services. In carrying out in the planning balance on recent appeal decisions, Inspectors have attributed very significant or substantial weight to the delivery of housing in light of the current shortfall in the identified supply of deliverable sights (2011 – 2017).

6.7 Therefore, on balance, based on the sustainable location of the site and the integrated nature of the development site with a Category 2 settlement, the principle of this proposed development is considered to be acceptable. The site is recognised to lie within the built- up area boundary of Small Dole and is located within an area of wider residential development, close to limited local services. The proposal therefore accords with the terms of ‘sustainable development’ under the NPPF.

6.8 The applicant has offered to enter into a S106 agreement to ensure that the property is first offered for occupation (for an initial period of 6 months) to local people. Due to Council’s lack of ability to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and the sustainable nature of the site it is considered that this would not be necessary. As stated above the application is considered to be in accordance with Paragraph 49 of the NPPF and the provision of affordable housing is considered to not be necessary in this instance

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

6.7 Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Core Strategy require new development proposals to maintain and enhance landscape and townscape character, as well as providing a safe, attractive, accessible and functional environment, and complement the varying character of the District. Within the General Development Control Policies it is DC9 which requires new development to respect the character and setting of the surrounding area, and presume in favour of retaining existing important landscaping and natural features, such as hedges. This policy also requires new development to be of a scale, massing and appearance that is of a high standard of design and layout and relates sympathetically to the built surroundings and open spaces within and adjoining the site.

6.8 These criteria also form part of the NPPF (chapter 7) which calls for development promote or reinforce local distinctiveness and optimise the potential of a site in order to accommodate development, whilst responding to local character and history.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8

6.9 The wider development along Sands Lane includes a variety of property styles and types and plot sizes, to which this proposal would add without leading to any detrimental harm. The style and design of the property with its weatherboarding and traditional styled fenestration would sit comfortably within the street scene and the wider area. The proposed plot and footprint of the development would be similar to that of the adjacent property Hivale.

6.10 The proposed development would therefore be of a suitable design and character that would complement the wider development along Sands Lane.

Residential Amenities

6.11 LDF policy DC9 (General Development Control Policies) 2007 states that planning permission will be granted for developments which’ do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers / users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking or noise, whilst having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development’.

6.12 Concerns have been expressed by a number of adjacent residents regarding a potential loss of light and privacy arising as a result of the proposed new dwelling.

6.13 Given the separation distances involved and the off-set angles between properties, it is considered that the proposed development would not lead to any significant and detrimental loss of outlook, light or privacy of adjoining properties. It is noted that the property situated directly opposite, Waterford House, would have a front-to-front distance of separation of some 21m and would be viewed across a private road which has been described as being ‘well-used’ by the representations received.

6.14 The back-to-back distance between the first-floor of the proposed development and the rear building line of No’s 11 and 12 Tottongton Drive is 25m, which also satisfies the minimum separation distance of 21m which is advised in the Council’s Design Guidance. The previous proposal on this site (DC/12/1586) set out a back-to-back separation distance between the proposed new dwellings and No.12 Tottington Drive, which officers considered acceptable at the time. There are no reasons for this similar distance to raise any material planning concerns for the current proposal.

6.15 Previous concerns regarding overlooking of the rear amenity space to No.12 are also noted, with one of the dwellings being sited within 11m off the rear boundary and including two larger and rear-facing habitable windows.

6.16 This current proposal includes two bathroom windows at the rear and one bedroom, of which it would be possible to secure the bathroom windows as being obscure-glazed, thus reducing the amount of habitable outlook gained towards No.12 Tottington Drive. The current scheme also increases the distance between the rear boundary and the first-floor windows to 12m.

6.17 The positioning of the proposed dwelling would be further into the plot than the adjacent dwelling at Hivale, thus potentially leading to some reduction to the evening sunlight received in the garden of this neighbouring dwelling. However, given that the proposed dwelling would be set some 7m off the common boundary, and set at an angle to the neighbouring house, Hivale, this potential loss of evening sunlight is not considered in planning terms of be significantly harmful to the residential amenities of the occupants therein.

6.18 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development on this plot would not lead to any material adverse impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9

The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the provisions of policy DC9 (General Development Control Policies) 2007

Highways Impact

6.19 West Sussex County Council Highways Officers have noted that the proposal would be accessed off a private road. Any access agreement would therefore need to be sought separately and privately between the owners of Sands Lane and the applicant / agent.

6.20 The low speeds and narrow nature of the lane would not result in any anticipated adverse highway safety issues occurring as a result of the proposed new access in association with the development.

6.21 Furthermore, the proposed parking accommodation on the site would appear to satisfy the needs of the proposed development, being a 3-bed dwelling without lead to any further pressure for on-street parking in an area where on-street parking is limited.

6.22 In relation to the NPPF, para 32 states that Development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development would be severe. In this instance, the likely impacts arising as a result of the proposal are not considered to be severe, and the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of Policy DC40. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant increase in traffic movements and thus would not be anticipated to result in a highway safety issue.

Conclusion

6.23 The proposed development has been assessed in respect of the three Golden Strands of sustainable development as set out by the NPPF: a social role, an environmental role and an economic role.

6.24 The proposed scheme would provide social and economic benefit through the provision of housing and investment within the local area due to the siting of the development within the built-up area of Small Dole which is a category 2 settlement. It is considered that the proposal would not lead to any demonstrable harm to the wider settlement of Small Dole

6.25 In considering this application, all of the respondent’s views have been taken into account. It is considered that the proposal is of a sympathetic design, scale and character given the wider context of Sands Lane. The application plot is also considered to be sufficiently sized to accommodate the proposed development of one detached dwelling. The proposed positioning of the dwelling on the plot is not considered to lead to materially detrimental impacts on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. The siting of the new dwelling and the provision of on-site parking would not lead to any adverse and severe highways safety and capacity impacts.

6.26 The NPPF directs decision makers, in this instance the local planning authority, to grant permission for development proposals where the development plan is out of date unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation: Application Permitted

Conditions:

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 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 external walls and roofs of the proposed building(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3 The first-floor rear facing bathroom windows in the northern elevation and the half-landing window in the eastern elevation of the building hereby approved, shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening details shall be permanently maintained at all times.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4 Before development commences precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B C D E F G and H of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6 The dwelling(s) shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such national measures of sustainability APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11

for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling(s) shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure the dwelling makes the most efficient use of renewable energy and to comply with policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

NOTE TO APPLICANT Statement pursuant to Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

NOTE TO APPLICANT The applicant is advised that a formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required on order to service this development. Please contact Southern Water, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

Background Papers: DC/14/0489 DC/14/0489

Land West of Hivale

Scale : 1:1250

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Not Set Date 04 July 2014

SLA Number 100018563 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th July 2014 Variation of Condition 1 of HF/91/02 (Removal of condition 4 on HF/55/93 DEVELOPMENT: to allow garage loft & room to be used for ancillary accommodation) to permit use of the one bedroom flat above garage for a holiday let SITE: West End House, West End Lane, Henfield, West Sussex, BN5 9RE WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/14/0720 APPLICANT: Mr Ian Cox

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Five or more objections have been received.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal concerns the conversion of the existing annexe accommodation into a holiday let from its current use as ancillary accommodation to the main house. At the current time, there remains a restrictive condition in place to secure the use of the annexe as part of the wider residential unit only (HF/91/02). The proposal seeks to allow the existing annexe to be used for holiday let / B&B accommodation in association with the main house, West End House.

1.2 No external changes are proposed to the annexe and no further access points are proposed as part of the proposal, so the accommodation would continue to be served by the existing driveway and parking area. Internally, only minor changes would be needed to the accommodation to update the rooms suitable for holiday accommodation.

Contact Officer: Nicola Pettifer Tel: 01403 215382 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site comprises a detached house set on a large plot of land to the west of Henfield, about 1.2km outside of the defined Built-Up Area Boundary, but located within an enclave of other residential dwellings and rural buildings.

1.4 The proposal concerns a detached garage building which is set to the north of the dwelling and its small circular driveway. The vehicular access to the property comes off West Lane and is gated by a set of entrance gates. Parking spaces are provided around this circular drive and in front of the garage / annexe.

1.5 The detached garage appears externally as a triple bay with three sets of doors and a half- hipped roof. The building is set against a backdrop of dense vegetation which wraps around the north and west and effectively screens views of the structure form the road.

1.6 Internally, the annexe is accessed along the eastern elevation and leads to a staircase and small ground floor shower-room. At first-floor, the accommodation consists of three interconnecting spaces comprising a bedroom with a west-facing gable window, central living space and small kitchen with an east facing Juliet balcony. All of the rooms are set within the roof-space and further natural daylight is provided by way of roof-lights.

1.7 The accommodation is currently used on occasion by the extended family at West End House.

Background History:

1.8 The annexe was initially approved as a garage and workshop only with a small mezzanine storage space (HF/55/93). It was subject to restrictive planning conditions limiting its occupation and use, which stated:

Cond 2 : "No business, trade or profession shall be carried on in the garage, workshop and store hereby permitted, which shall be retained solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the private dwellinghouse West End House. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents”

Cond 3 : “The building shall be used as a private domestic garage on connection with West End House only and for no other purpose. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring properties."

1.9 In 2002, permission was sought for the use of the building as ancillary accommodation. This application was refused on grounds of the site falling outside of the built up area and the annexe constituting an independent dwelling (HF/44/02). The justification which had been provided by the applicant at the time that the garage was intended to provide occasional accommodation for a disabled family member, was not considered to be a sufficiently strong reason to overcome other policy concerns.

1.10 A subsequent application was lodged later that same year in 2002 (HF/91/02) for the loft room to be used as ancillary accommodation. This application was allowed subject to a restrictive planning condition:

Cond 1: "The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of West End House as a dwelling, and shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

Reason: The site is located within a rural area where it is the policy of the Local Planning Authority to strictly control the formation of additional independent units of residential accommodation.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

· Section 3: Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy · Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport · Section 7: Requiring Good Design

2.3 Planning Policy Guidance (2014)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

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

· CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character · CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development · CP5: Built Up Areas and Previously Developed Land · CP15: Rural Strategy · CP18: Tourism and Cultural Facilities

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

· DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement · DC9: Development Principles · DC28: house Extensions, Replacement Dwellings and Ancillary Accommodation · DC39: Tourism · DC40: Transport and Access

2.6 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. This planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application. The Proposed Submission document was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 for a 6 week consultation period.

2.7 PLANNING HISTORY

2.8 DC/09/1875 Re-build 19th Century 2-bed cottage within Application Refused on grounds of West End House – located to east of 26.11.2009 current application site APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

2.9 HF/91/02 Removal of condition 4 on HF/55/93 to allow Application Permitted on garage loft & room to be used for ancillary 29.10.2002 accommodation

2.10 HF/44/02 Removal of condition 4 of HF/55/93 to allow Application Refused on garage loft and room to be used for ancillary 21.06.2002 accommodation

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 WSCC Strategic Planning:

No comments have been received

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Henfield Parish Council Consulation: No objection, all agreed.

3.3 Elected Ward Member: Concern is raised by the potential removal of the restrictive condition as it would create a separate dwelling in this very rural location. If permission is to be granted, then a restrictive ‘holiday letting’ condition should remain in place in order to ensure that the "garage"/holiday accommodation remains tied to West End House and is permitted only eleven months renting with one month void.

3.4 Neighbours: Following neighbour notification, 5 letters of representation have been received. A summary of the responses are as follows:

· Creation of a separate dwelling in a countryside location. Against current policies · Creation of a separate planning unit, Would be used to argue for an additional replacement dwelling, resulting in overdevelopment in the countryside contrary to development policies · Removing the ancillary condition would create an independent dwelling in an unsustainable location · Nearby property 'Lancaster's' was approved as a holiday let with a restrictive condition to ensure it could not be used continuously throughout the year and to ensure that it remains ancillary to the main dwelling. Complete removal of condition therefore not necessary · Loss of amenity for closest neighbours · More accommodation means more traffic on an overburdened road · The site can only be accessed by car and is 1 1/2 mile form the only facilities (retail and public transport) in the high Street · Users of that dwelling would not have right of way over the private lane which is only used by West End House due to the applicants creating an unnecessary / unchallenged opening (in the 1980’s). The access proper to West End House is from the main West End Lane opposite Lancasters · Vehicular access should only be from the approved access point along West End Lane (opposite Lancasters) and not as per the continued use of the unmade lane APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

· Seeking ‘additional income’ is not a valid reason for planning permission to be granted · Inaccuracies in red line / blue line and extent of application site · Attention is drawn to a number of previous applications seeking to erect a new dwelling on this site

· If holiday letting is permitted the planning condition should ensure the accommodation remains ancillary to the main house, as intended by the original planning permission · The flat above the garage should remain ancillary to West End House.

3.5 Officers have reviewed the site plan and are satisfied that the information provided by way of the red line / blue line satisfies the needs of the planning application.

3.6 Questions regarding the authorised use of the access to the west of the site are not subject to considerations under this application. Any private access arrangements fall outside of the planning remit.

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 key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

· The principle of the proposal · Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area · Highway impacts · Economic and social role of the development

Principle

6.2 Policy DC39 of the General Development Control Policies supports holiday accommodation provided that it is appropriate to its surroundings, is a sympathetic conversion and is supported by a statement setting out how it would contribute to the economic potential of the district.

6.3 An adjacent occupant, running a similar holiday let, has submitted a statement setting out that their accommodation was let for 50% of the year in 2013, and provides a comparable business to that being proposed in this instance. No further details are set out by the applicant in terms of marketing or potential holiday lease.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

6.4 Notwithstanding this lack of information, officers are satisfied that the structure would be well sited for the use as short-term holiday let / B·&B accommodation due to its village location with immediate access to thue open countryside. This is broadly in line with the Horsham District Economic Strategy 2013 – 2023 which advocates the provision of well located business ventures.

6.5 The continued use of the ground floor of the garage / annexe building as part of the wider residential use of the main house West End House, would ensure that an ancillary activity remains in place, thus reinforcing the continued link and connection to the main house.

6.6 The proposed variation of the specified condition would still allow for continued occasional use of the annexe by members of the extended family, thus also ensuring that an ancillary activity remains in place.

6.7 In this particular instance, it is noted that the conversion of the garage into habitable accommodation has been established on the site for over 10 years, albeit restricted to ancillary use in connection with the main house. Some form of residential use has therefore already been established on the site, which this proposal would not unduly intensify. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy DC39 in terms of being appropriate to the wider setting and the wider locality.

6.8 The continued tie between the annexe and the main house would ensure that the resulting use of the annexe as holiday accommodation would not lead to the creation of a new and independent dwelling unit in the countryside. Therefore, the proposal would not conflict with the provisions of policies CP5 of the LDF (Core Strategy) 2007, or DC1 of the LDF (General Development Control Policies) 2007, both of which seeks to restrict the creation of new dwellings outside of the defined built-up area boundaries.

Residential Amenities

6.9 LDF policy DC9 (General Development Control Policies) 2007 states that planning permission will be granted for development which “does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers / users of nearby property and land, for example, through overlooking or noise, whilst having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development”.

6.10 Comments regarding the potential neighbour amenity impact have been noted. The garage / annexe structure, which has no rear-facing windows or other openings, is set a total distance of 27m from the rear of the northern neighbour ‘Nettlecombe’, 41m from the front elevation of the western neighbours ‘Brookside’ and ‘Downland Farm’, some 55m off the corner of a south-western neighbour ‘Riverside’ and about 72m off the closest residential cottage forming part of the ‘Lancasters’ site.

6.11 The proposed use of the application site for holiday lets would therefore not give rise to any potential increased levels of noise or activity which would lead to adverse neighbour harm, particularly given the distances of separation involved.

6.13 The level of traffic associated with the proposed holiday use of the annexe building would similarly not lead to any adverse or material increase in traffic along West End Lane, which already serves a number of other residential and agricultural / commercial businesses.

6.14 The proposal would be very small in scale, and the activity and noise likely to be generated by the use of the annexe as a holiday let would accordingly be restricted by the one- bedroomed nature of the accommodation being offered thereby according with Policy DC9 (General Development Control Policies) 2007 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

Conclusion

6.15 The garage / annexe building is currently well-screened from the site’s boundaries and that this would remain the case, particularly as this proposal does not include any external amendments to the existing structure. The garage / annexe building would therefore continue to relate to the wider setting as per the existing situation.

6.16 The suitable variation of the condition would allow for the use of the annexe as a holiday let / B&B, along with continued accommodation in connection with the main house, without creating a self-contained and independent dwelling in this location.

6.17 Given the distances involved and the nature of the proposed scale of the holiday let, the proposed use of the annexe as short term holiday accommodation would not lead to any significant and undue levels of disturbance to the amenities of neighbouring properties.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) The accommodation hereby permitted shall only be occupied as holiday accommodation and shall not be occupied by an individual, family or group for more than 4 consecutive weeks in any 8 week period commencing with the first day of letting to that individual, family or group, or shall not be occupied by any individual, family or group for more than 4 consecutive weeks in any 26 week period commencing with the date of the first letting to that individual, family or group.

Reason: To ensure that the holiday accommodation in accordance with policy DC24 and DC39 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3) The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall at all times remain in the same ownership as West End House.

Reason: The use of this accommodation as an independent unit would be contrary to policy DC1 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/14/0720 DC/14/0720

West End House

Scale : 1:2500

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Not Set Date 04 July 2014

SLA Number 100018563 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th July 2014 DEVELOPMENT: Erection of a two storey rear extension with extension to side dormers SITE: 15 Pepperscoombe Lane, Upper Beeding, Steyning, West Sussex WARD: Steyning & Upper Beeding APPLICATION: DC/14/1088 APPLICANT: Mr Nigel Howe

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Referred to Planning Committee (employee of the council)

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission subject to Conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full permission for the erection of a two storey rear extension and an extension to the side dormers

1.2 The rear extension would extend to the rear of the property by a further 3m. The extension would stretch across the full width of the rear of the property (8.2m). The proposed height of the extension would be in line with the existing pitch of the roof at 6m. The finishing materials would match the existing dwelling.

1.3 The dormer windows would be increased in size: by 1.5m to the east side elevation and 1.4m to the west side elevation of the dormer windows.

1.4 The proposal would include two further roof lights to serve both the west and east side elevations and a light tunnel would be added to the east elevation. A new gable window would serve the first floor.

1.5 The ground floor addition would allow for a kitchen/breakfast roof extension whilst a proposed third bedroom would be provided on the first floor.

Contact Officer: Stuart Corbey Tel: 01403 215 633

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site is a two-storey detached chalet style property within the built up area of Upper Beeding.

1.6 The application site is bordered by detached dwellings of similar size, appearance, and architectural design.

1.7 Access to the site is via a side gate to a carport running along the east elevation of the property. A detached garage extends along the boundary shared with No.14 Pepperscoombe Lane.

1.8 The dwelling is set close to the shared boundary with No.16. Pepperscoombe Lane.

1.9 The property is served by a large rear garden, which is bound by close boarded fencing.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012):-

Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Paragraphs 7 and 14 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development)

2.3 National Planning Policy Guidance (2014)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Policies CP 3 of the Core Strategy (2007)

2.5 Policy DC 9 (Development Principles) of the General Development Control Policies (2007)

OTHER RELEVANT GUIDANCE

2.6 HDC Design Guidance Advice Leaflet No. 1 House Extensions (2008)

PLANNING HISTORY

UB/35//97 Construction of front dormers Application Permitted on 22.10.1997

UB/44/98 Ground floor extension to roof & Application Permitted on Erection to form a two-storey house 18.11.1998

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

No objections have been received from the neighbouring properties.

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 No comments received

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 No comments received

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Upper Beeding Parish Council

3.3 No representations received

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

Principle of the Development

6.1 Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) is the main policy against which proposals for extensions are considered. It requires that new development is of a high standard of design and layout having regard to its natural and built surroundings in terms of scale, density, height, massing, siting, orientation, views, character, materials and space between buildings. An extension should be of a scale which is sympathetic to the original building. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

6.2 The application seeks the erection of a two storey rear extension and extension to dormer windows.

6.3 As the site is located within the Built Up Area of Upper Beeding, the scale of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle. The extension would be to the rear of the dwelling with the development set at an even height to the ridge and eaves of the existing dwelling. The resulting development would be considered to be in proportion and in character with the area without detracting from the exiting dwelling.

6.4 The dormer extensions as proposed are considered to be scaled and aligned with the original dwelling and add a sense of balance to the existing dwelling.

Residential Amenity

6.5 As stated within policy DC9, all development should have consideration for scale, density, and orientation to ensure that schemes do not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

6.6 The neighbouring property, 16 Pepperscoombe Lane is set away from the shared boundary and is separated by an access drive serving this neighbouring property beyond the shared boundary fencing. Due to the limited projection of the development and the space between properties the amenity of no.16 Pepperscoombe Lane would not be significantly affected.

6.7 The proposal to extend the first floor would relocate the window occupying the gable to serve the new bedroom. Although this brings the first floor window nearer to the rear garden serving No.16 Pepperscoombe Lane it is not considered to cause significant addition harm to the amenity of the neighbouring occupier.

6.8 The proposed extension is therefore not considered to significantly adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Design of Development and Character of the Street Scene

6.9 Policies CP3 and DC9 promote development of high quality design, which ensures that the appearance of the development is of good quality and layout, and relates sympathetically to the character of the dwelling and built surroundings.

6.10 The proposed extension would be of similar design and appearance to the host dwelling and built surroundings, with materials to match. As this is generally in keeping with the existing, it is considered that the proposal retains the character of the dwelling and as such is sympathetic to that of the existing and surroundings.

6.11 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with policies CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

Conclusions

6.12 It is considered that the proposed would not materially impact on the character, residential amenities, street scene of the site and its surroundings.

6.13 The application is therefore compliant with policies CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007), policies DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007). The application is also fully in accordance with those policies within the framework that seek to promote good design and sustainable development; namely sections 7 and 14 of the Framework.

7. RECOMMENDATION

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

STANDARD CONDITIONS

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DC/14/1088 15 Pepperscoombe Lane

Scale : 1:1250

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Not Set Date 04 July 2014

SLA Number 100018563 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th July 2014 Change of use of land and demolition of existing commercial/agricultural DEVELOPMENT: buildings to form a gypsy/traveller site consisting of 3 mobile homes and associated amenity blocks SITE: The Barn West Chiltington Lane Billingshurst West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/14/0634 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs J Ray

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters contrary to Officer’s recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of the existing site, to form a mobile home site for gypsies and travellers. The application proposes the positioning of three mobile homes on the site, with two associated amenity blocks, parking and turning area and a children’s play area. The proposed amenity blocks would contain a sitting, cooking and dining area, a bathroom, female toilet and male toilet. The building would be 10 metres wide and 3.75 metres long with a height of 3.875 metres to the ridge. The existing buildings to the north of the main dwelling would be removed as part of the proposal.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site is located on the western side of West Chiltington Lane. The site is outside of the defined built up area boundary in a rural location. West Chiltington Lane is characterised by sporadic linear residential development. To the east of the site is the residential property of Duncan’s Lodge which is a detached single storey property. Adjacent to Duncan’s Lodge are a pair of semi-detached two storey properties known as Homestead Cottages. To the north of the site is Willowcroft which has a garage situated close to the shared boundary. On the boundary to West Chiltington Lane is a panel fence screened by hedgerow planting limiting views into the site. To the west of the site are open fields.

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2

1.3 Within the application site is a mobile home and various outbuildings. There are also building materials and equipment stored in the open. The access to the site is in the north western corner of the site. To the south of the site is a one and half storey residential dwelling, and a detached garage with accommodation within the roof space known as The Barn (which is also owned by the applicant).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National planning policy aims are embodied in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. Paragraph 14 tells us that at its heart is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking’.

Paragraphs 17 and 109 advocate the recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and the need to protect and enhance valued landscapes.

The Government also published ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ in March 2012 alongside the NPPF. Policy H advises on the determination of planning applications for traveller sites. Of particular relevance to this application are:

· Paragraph 21 which states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. · Paragraph 23 which states that ‘Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan’. · Paragraph 24 which states that weight should be given to the effective use of previously developed land and sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as ‘to positively enhance the environment’. · Paragraph 25 states that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to- date supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission. However, Policy I: Implementation, paragraph 28, makes it clear that this only applies to applications for temporary planning permission for traveller sites made 12 months after this policy came into force

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Relevant policies within the Core Strategy 2007 include CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15, CP16 and CP19.

2.4 Relevant policies within the General Development Control Policies 2007 include DC1, DC2, DC9, DC32 & DC40.

2.5 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. This planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3

limited weight in the assessment of this planning application. The Proposed Submission document was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 for a 6 week consultation period.

PLANNING HISTORY

BL/104/01 Certificate of lawful use for agricultural barn as a dwelling PER Site: The Barn West Chiltington Lane Billingshurst

BL/102/91 Retention of agricultural buildings PER Site: The Nurseries West Chiltington La Billingshurst

DC/08/2603 Replacement dwelling (4-bed). REF

DC/09/0657 Regularisation of residential curtilage PER

DC/09/1138 Replacement 3 x bed dwelling. PER

DC/11/1588 Erection of a double garage/garden tool/cycle/refuse/recycling PER store with storage area in the roof

DC/11/1599 Erection of a double garage/garden tool/cycle/refuse/recycling REC store with storage area in the roof

DC/12/1437 Erection of a single stable with associated store PER

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Strategic and Community Planning (summarised) have raised no objection in principle to the application.

Public Health and Licensing (summarised) has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions.

Housing Department – comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

Landscape Architect - comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

Environmental Management, Waste and Cleansing comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

Gypsy Liaison - comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

Access and Equalities Advisor- comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

West Sussex County Council Highways (summarised) has raised no objection to the application.

Southern Water (summarised) has noted that there is no public foul sewer in the area of the site.

Environment Agency has stated that they have no comments to make on the proposal.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Billingshurst Parish Council (summarised) – has objected to the application on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, unsustainable location, there are two sites nearby with a combined total of 15 pitches, Horsham District Council are supporting a plan led approach, there are no means of foul drainage, and there is an ongoing enforcement complaint relating to the use of the mobile home for storage of building materials and machinery.

Two letters and a petition letter signed by 6 households have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds; overdevelopment of the site, applicants no longer living a traveller lifestyle, site not environmentally or socially acceptable, existing site agricultural not commercial, proposal contrary to policy, proposal would double the size of the population within the hamlet and would damage the nature of the local community, no public transport, increased risk of accidents, lane has no footpath or streetlights, accommodation available on alternative sites, long standing problems with sewage, proposal would damage the scenic harmony and character of the area.

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 It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application are the need for the proposed mobile homes, the effect of the proposal upon the character of the landscape and street scene, and the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Principle

6.2 The main aim of the National Planning Policy Framework is to achieve sustainable development. The document sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. It seeks to create a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well being and contributes to protecting and enhancing our natural, built APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5

and historic environment. The document makes a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking.

6.3 In March 2012, the government published its ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ to be read alongside the NPPF. Policy H of the guidance relates to the determination of planning applications for traveller sites. At paragraph 21, it states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this respect, the site is outside of the built-up area and the nearest settlement is Billingshurst, defined in the Local Development Framework as a Category 1 settlement which in terms of Core Policy CP5 is defined as being a town or village with a good range of services and facilities. The built up area boundary of Billingshurst is approximately 2km away from the site as the crow flies.

6.4 In June 2012, the Council commissioned WS Planning and Architecture to produce a Gypsy and Travelling Showpeople/Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation needs assessment to help “inform the direction of travel” for developing policy. The report was presented to the Council in December 2012 and was then considered by Members at the Council’s Strategic Planning Advisory Group (SPAG) in January 2013.

6.5 The report assesses current pitch provision and the potential future needs for the period up to 2027, in accordance with the advice set out in the Government’s “Planning Policy for Travellers Sites”. This requires a 5 year supply of specific, deliverable sites to be identified and updated annually. It also requires a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for the following 5 years and, where possible, a further 5 year period beyond that.

6.6 In December 2012, it was ascertained that 75 pitches were, at that time, provided within the District. The 2012 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment established a requirement for the provision of an additional 39 pitches (between 2012 and 2017). It was noted that there is an existing need for 29 pitches to address a current backlog of accommodation need arising from sites which may be unauthorised or subject to temporary permissions or through overcrowding. The assessment also revealed that there is an additional need for a further 10 pitches due to expected new family formations over the next five year period up to 2017.

6.7 The Council is currently inviting representations on its Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Proposed Submission document between 16th May and 27th June 2014. It is intended that the HDPF will be adopted in Spring 2015. To meet the identified need from the existing backlog and future need up until 2017 HDPF Draft Policy 20 identifies 5 sites to be allocated for permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, which in total identifies 32 pitches. In addition to this the policy identifies 6 pitches on sites that are the subject of a planning application or have been granted planning permission since the 2012 study. In total the policy amounts to a total of 38 pitches, thus there is an under supply of 1 pitch. Therefore the Council will rely on Draft Policy 20 to allow appropriate windfall sites to come forward through the planning application process on non allocated sites. In addition to this when considering this application particular regard needs to be had to the fact that the Council has a duty to consider the need to provide for the backlog of gypsy and traveller sites beyond 2017. The 2012 Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment identified that there was a need for additional pitches over and above the 39 pitches required up until 2017, therefore additional sites will be required between 2017 and 2027. Therefore this application would help to address the existing backlog and future need for additional gypsy and traveller pitches across the district.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6

6.8 In total 78 pitches will be needed over the full 15 year period up to 2027, thereby increasing current provision from 75 up to a total of 153 pitches within the Horsham District as a whole. It is accepted therefore that there is an unfulfilled need for pitches in the District.

6.9 In the most recent appeal decision at Deer Park Farm, Hampers Lane (DC/10/1974 – March 2014) the Inspector noted with regards to the provision of sites that “there has been a consistent undersupply of traveller sites in Horsham District since at least 2007 and it cannot therefore, be assumed that this will necessarily change in the future, given that there is still no demonstrable 5 year supply” (paragraph 51). This also reflects an earlier gypsy appeal decision at Kingfisher Farm (December 2011), where the Inspector concluded that “The harm to the character of the area would not be great. On the other hand, the general need for sites in Horsham is significant and this is unlikely to be addressed in the near future. There is currently a lack of available alternatives and because progress in making planned provision for sites has been slow this is likely to remain the case for some time to come. Taken together these factors and the benefits arising from meeting a proportion of the unmet need for gypsy sites at Kingfisher farm outweigh the harm that would arise.”

6.10 Although new policies are emerging through the HDPF the Council is currently reliant on Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 as the most up to date development plan policy and NPPF policies through the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites. Paragraph 21 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites document states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In addition Policy DC32 states that:

“Proposals for sites for caravans for Gypsies and Travellers will be granted planning permission provided that:

a) the Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting the established need; b) the identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.

If the need cannot be met at any alternative suitable sites as set out above, the following criteria will apply:

1) the site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities; 2) a satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site; and 3) the proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles.”

6.11 In respect to the first criterion, the site is outside of the built-up area and as such is classified as being in a countryside location. The nearest settlement is Billingshurst, defined in the Local Development Framework as a Category 1 settlement and therefore having a good range of services and facilities.

6.12 In terms of sustainability the site is located within a rural location with access to limited services and facilities, however the site is approximately 650 meters from the existing Gypsy and Traveller site at Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane and approximately 1000 meters from Kingfisher Farm. In the Kingfisher Farm appeal decision the Inspector concluded that “even if not ideal in terms of proximity to services the location of the appeal site is nevertheless a reasonable one” (para 30). The Inspector also specified that “issues of sustainability should not only be considered in terms of transport mode and distance APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7

from services. A settled base for gypsies would bring about general and wider benefits of easier access to GPs and other health services and allowing any children to attend school on a regular basis” (para 28).

6.13 Therefore after taking into consideration the current situation and other appeal decisions within the District it is your Officers view that the proposal accords with criterion (b) and (1) of Policy DC32 and criterion (d) of Policy 22 of the HDPF. Concern has been raised with regards to the need for the site to respect the scale of the nearest settled community and this concern is reflected within paragraph 23 the NPPF Planning Policy for Traveller Sites which recognises that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing undue pressure on the local infrastructure. It is recognised that there are two Gypsy and Traveller sites nearby at Kingfisher Farm and Greenfield Farm however, it is not considered that the addition of three further pitches would dominate the nearest settled community.

Landscape and Street Scene . 6.14 It is clear that a need for site provision exists and it is considered that the proposal could represent an adequate way of meeting an established need. With regards to the landscape impact of the proposal, the applicant is agreeable to planting additional native tree and hedge planting along the northern, southern and western boundaries in order to help screen the mobile homes. The site is located in an area already characterised by linear groupings of residential properties, and indeed on the site are existing former agricultural buildings which would be removed as part of the proposal. It is considered therefore that with the benefit of additional screening the proposal would not appear unduly prominent in its landscape setting, in so much as the open nature of the immediate area has already been compromised to some extent by existing residential properties.

Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

6.15 With regard to the impact on neighbouring occupier’s amenities, it is acknowledged that there are residential properties within close proximity. Willowcroft is located to the north of the site, whilst Duncan’s Lodge and Homefield Cottages are located on the opposite side of West Chiltington Lane and face towards the site. It is considered that the mobile homes due to their height would be screened by the planting to the front of the site, and consequently there would be limited visibility into the site from West Chiltington Lane. However, it is also considered that due to the single storey nature of the mobile homes and associated amenity blocks that the proposal would not result in overlooking of neighbouring properties. The applicant is also willing to supplement the existing landscaping in order to screen the development.

Highways

6.16 The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the scheme and therefore a refusal on highway grounds could not be justified. The County Surveyor has noted that the site has limited access to facilities except by car. However, the County Surveyor has stated that this would be the case for any small residential development at this location. The Authority therefore does not consider that an objection on the basis of accessibility could be sustained for a development of only 3 caravans. It is also considered that there is room on site for the parking and turning of vehicles with easy access for service and emergency vehicles.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8

Drainage

6.17 Concerns have been raised relating to drainage issues on the site. The Environment Agency were consulted regarding the application, and it is considered that a condition could be placed on the proposal which would require details of drainage to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that the site is properly managed in terms of foul drainage.

Conclusion

6.18 In conclusion, it is considered that the Council cannot currently meet the identified backlog of unmet gypsy and traveller accommodation need or future need in accordance with policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies and emerging policies in the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF). Although the Council is proposing to allocate sites through the HDPF this is yet to be tested through examination. Overall it is considered that although the application site is located within the countryside it is considered to be within a reasonable distance from services and facilities. Furthermore the proposal would result in a visual enhancement of the existing site, through the removal of the existing building materials and equipment. Therefore it is considered that the principal of development for 3 gypsy and traveller pitches and associated amenity block is considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies DPD, emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and the guidance within the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2012.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012). Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and in accordance with Policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

3) There shall be no more than 3 pitches on the site with no more than one caravan (as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968) stationed on each pitch at any time. Reason: To avoid an overcrowded appearance and to secure satisfactory standards of space and amenity in accordance with Policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

4) No industrial, commercial or business activity shall be carried on from the site, including the storage of materials. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 9

5) No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

6) Details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

7) No development shall take place until details of storage provision for refuse and recycling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the pitches. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of refuse and recycling facilities in accordance with Policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007.

8) 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 external walls and roofs of the proposed mobile homes and amenity blocks have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

9) No development shall take place until details of screen walls, gates and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no mobile home shall be occupied until such screen walls, gates and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

10) No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11) No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on APPENDIX A/ 5 - 10

Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

12) No burning of materials shall take place on the site. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

13) The mobile homes shall not be occupied until the access drive has been constructed to a specification submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The access shall thereafter be constructed to the approved agreed specification. Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

14) The mobile homes hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking, turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose). Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

15) Full details of means of foul and surface water drainage to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on the development hereby approved. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such an agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained.

16) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted all existing buildings shall be demolished (including the removal of foundations) and all materials arising from such demolition removed from the site. Reason: The site lies in an area where, under policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), permission for new development would not normally be granted.

Background Papers: DC/14/0634 DC/14/0634

The Barn

Scale : 1:1250

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Not Set Date 04 July 2014

SLA Number 100018563

ITEM A6 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th July 2014 Removal/variation of condition 1 and 2 (relating to timescale for permission and occupancy) pursuant to application DC/09/2130 (Change DEVELOPMENT: of use of land to caravan site for two caravans for occupation by single gypsy family with timber shed and hardstanding)

SITE: Parsons Field Stables, Pickhurst Lane, Pulborough West Sussex WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham APPLICATION: DC/13/0577 APPLICANT: Ms Sarah Barnes

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Forthcoming appeal – Informal Hearing .

RECOMMENDATION: To agree that the appeal is not contested

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was first reported to committee on the 19th November 2013. A copy of the original committee report is attached at Appendix A. At the meeting the recommendation to remove condition 1 and 2 of DC/09/2130 was overturned and it was agreed that condition 1 should be varied to allow a further temporary consent until the 19th November 2015, and condition 2 relating to named occupiers retained. The applicant has now submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to be heard by way of an Informal Hearing.

1.2 In this respect with regards to the proposed Hearing the Council has to provide a statement of case highlighting the grounds and justification for the imposition of the agreed conditions. On further considering the proposal and having taken further advice it is considered in this instance that the appeal should not be contested for the reasons set out below.

Background

1.3 The application site has a detailed planning history. The site has been occupied by the applicant since 2007, and was the subject of enforcement action, an appeal and a refused planning application. The enforcement appeal related to the stationing of a mobile home (EN/22/2007) which was dismissed by the appeal Inspector. The Inspector in his consideration of the application determined that “Overall, I conclude that the family’s

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 ITEM A6 - 2

membership either individually or collectively, does not satisfy the definition of gypsies and travellers set out in Circular 01/2006. Consequently, there is, on this occasion, no need to examine any requirements for special residential accommodation for travellers in any depth or to assess whether there is any overall shortage of gypsy and traveller accommodation in this part of West Sussex that could be met by this site.” However the Inspector did agree that the applicant is ethnically a Romany Gypsy.

1.4 Following the dismissal of the enforcement appeal a planning application was received in April 2009 for permission for the stationing of a mobile home for settled gypsy accommodation. This application was refused on the grounds that the situation on the site had not changed since the previous Inspectors decision and that insufficient information has been provided to overcome the Inspectors previous reasons for dismissing the appeal.

1.5 A further application was then submitted in November 2009 (DC/09/2130) and permission was granted for a temporary permission personal to the applicant. At this time the status of the applicant was considered; “It is your Officers view that the applicant was not fully aware or did not wish to make public information with regards to her ethnic group and that information which may have influenced any application on gypsy status was not fully considered. Since the enforcement appeal a more detailed family background of travelling has emerged and it would now appear that the reason for the family settling on the site was due only to her son’s educational needs. The applicant also did not submit the standard information sought by the Planning Inspectorate to assess Gypsy status for either the enforcement appeal or the more recent planning application. The family on the site have local connections within West Sussex with her parents living at Partridge Green, her Aunt and Cousins at a gypsy site in Honeybridge Lane, Dial Post, her brother at a site in Fontwell, her sister and grandmother at Easthampnett gypsy site and further cousins at Adversane and Cousins Copse gypsy sites.”

1.6 The applicant has continued to occupy the site and in April 2013 an application was submitted to remove condition 1 and 2 of DC/09/2130.

Context

1.7 In March 2012, the government published its ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ document to be read alongside the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Policy H of the guidance relates to the determination of planning applications for traveller sites. At paragraph 21, it states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

1.8 The Government’s “Planning Policy for Travellers Sites” requires a 5 year supply of specific, deliverable sites to be identified and updated annually. It also requires a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for the following 5 years and, where possible, a further 5 year period beyond that.

1.9 In December 2012, it was ascertained that 75 pitches were, at that time, provided within the District. The West Sussex Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTAA) 2007 established a requirement for 39 pitches in the District between 2006 and 2011. The background document Horsham District Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling ITEM A6 - 3

Showpeople Site Study, Final Report, October 2011 by Baker Associates, which forms part of the evidence base for the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Proposed Submission document, identified the application site as a potentially suitable site for 1 pitch subject to suitable landscape mitigation and alterations to the site entrance. The assessment also revealed that there is an additional need for a further 10 pitches due to expected new family formations over the next five year period up to 2017.

1.10 In total 78 pitches will be needed over the full 15 year period up to 2027, thereby increasing current provision from 75 up to a total of 153 pitches within the Horsham District as a whole. It is accepted therefore that there is an unfulfilled need for pitches in the District.

1.11 Since the application was considered at committee in November 2013 a further appeal decision has been received regarding a site at Deer Park Farm, Hampers Lane (DC/10/1974 – March 2014) where the Inspector noted with regards to the provision of sites that “there has been a consistent undersupply of traveller sites in Horsham District since at least 2007 and it cannot therefore, be assumed that this will necessarily change in the future, given that there is still no demonstrable 5 year supply” (paragraph 51). This also reflects an earlier gypsy appeal decision at Kingfisher Farm (December 2011), where the Inspector concluded that “The harm to the character of the area would not be great. On the other hand, the general need for sites in Horsham is significant and this is unlikely to be addressed in the near future. There is currently a lack of available alternatives and because progress in making planned provision for sites has been slow this is likely to remain the case for some time to come. Taken together these factors and the benefits arising from meeting a proportion of the unmet need for gypsy sites at Kingfisher farm outweigh the harm that would arise.”

1.12 The Council is required through the Planning policy for traveller sites to meet identified Gypsy and Traveller needs. The Council has not met the local need for pitches identified in the 2012 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Accommodation Needs Assessment. From a strategic perspective, ideally all sites would come forward through a plan led approach, and would accord with current adopted development plan policy and recent government guidance. With regards to the current policy position;

· The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. · The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. · The Proposed Submission document was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 for a 6 week consultation period. The document will then be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate followed by an Examination in Public, with intended adoption in Spring 2015. · Within the proposed submission document the appeal site has been included as an allocated site within Draft Policy 20. · The Council cannot currently meet the identified backlog of unmet gypsy and traveller accommodation need or future need in accordance with policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies or the emerging policies in the HDPF.

ITEM A6 - 4

Therefore as this is an existing site, although with a temporary personal permission it is considered that the principle of a Gypsy and Traveller site in this location is acceptable and would help to meet the identified needs of Gypsies and Travellers.

1.13 It is therefore clear that there is a need for sites within the District. The application previously considered by committee in November sought to remove condition 1 and 2 which limited occupation of the site to the applicant for a temporary period of 2 years. The purpose of conditions are to enhance the quality of development and enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects of the development.

Conditions

1.14 Paragraph 203 of the National Planning Policy Framework states “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions”, and Paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework states “Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are:

1. necessary; 2. relevant to planning and; 3. to the development to be permitted; 4. enforceable; 5. precise and; 6. reasonable in all other respects.”

1.15 This is referred to as the six tests. In March 2014 Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was published which superseded Circular 11/95 with regards to the use of planning conditions and provided further guidance with regards to the imposition of conditions. The Planning Practice Guidance states that; “Any proposed condition that fails to meet any of the six tests should not be used. This applies even if the applicant suggests it or agrees on its terms or it is suggested by the members of a planning committee or a third party. Every condition must always be justified by the local planning authority on its own planning merits on a case by case basis.”

1.16 With regards to the condition 1 and 2 the subject of this application, the conditions seek to ensure the occupation of the site is personal to the applicant and for a temporary period of 2 years only. With regards to temporary permissions, the Planning Practice Guidance is clear that a condition limiting use to a temporary period only, where the proposed development complies with the development plan, or where material considerations indicate otherwise that planning permission should be granted, will rarely pass the test of necessity. It also notes; “It will rarely be justifiable to grant a second temporary permission – further permissions should normally be granted permanently or refused if there is clear justification for doing so.”

ITEM A6 - 5

1.17 There is an established need for gypsy and traveller sites within the District as outlined above. Indeed the site has been included as an allocated site within Draft Policy 20 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposed Submission.

1.18 With regards to sustainability in 2010 the Council took the view in relation to the Greenfield Farm site, Valewood Lane (DC/10/0721), that, although the main mode of transport would be vehicular, the site could be justified as sustainable in the wider sense. It was acknowledged at the time that this would set the tone for consideration of sites in the future under this policy. Similarly, the Inspector when considering the Kingfisher Farm appeal on a site adjacent to Greenfield Farm concluded that; “even if not ideal in terms of proximity to services the location of the appeal site is nevertheless a reasonable one” (para 30). The Inspector also specified that “issues of sustainability should not only be considered in terms of transport mode and distance from services. A settled base for gypsies would bring about general and wider benefits of easier access to GPs and other health services and allowing any children to attend school on a regular basis” (para 28). On consideration of the application site in 2009 it was noted that although the site is in a rural location the occupant’s son had been attending school in Pulborough and had access to other local facilities i.e. doctors and dental surgeries. It is accepted that walking is more likely to replace short car trips, if the distance is under 2 km, whilst cycling has the potential to substitute short car trips and to form part of a longer journey by public transport, particularly if under 5km. It is recognized that most local facilities are not within walking distance, with the school and railway station approximately 2.7 km and approximately 3.4 km away respectively. However, it should be recognized that many facilities e.g. the railway stations and the local school, appear to be within cycling distance. It is also understood that buses do run daily along the A29, and the bus stop is within walking distance of the site (approximately 1.8 km away).

1.19 Therefore it is considered in terms of development plan policy that the proposal would as detailed above and in the attached report comply with the development plan. Consequently if the proposal meets the requirements of the development plan it would be unreasonable, and unnecessary to apply a temporary permission.

1.20 In terms of personal conditions the Planning Practice Guidance states; “There may be exceptional occasions where granting planning permission for development that would not normally be permitted on the site could be justified on planning grounds because of who would benefit from the permission. For example, conditions limiting benefits to a particular class of people, such as new residential accommodation in the open countryside for agricultural or forestry workers, may be justified on the grounds that an applicant has successfully demonstrated an exceptional need.

A condition used to grant planning permission solely on grounds of an individual’s personal circumstances will scarcely ever be justified in the case of permission for the erection of a permanent building, but might, for example, result from enforcement action which would otherwise cause individual hardship.”

1.21 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Applications for traveller sites should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the application specific policies in the ITEM A6 - 6

NPPF and planning policy for traveller sites. It is considered that the removal of the conditions would be acceptable in terms of the development plan, and consequently the imposition of a personal permission would not be reasonable or necessary and would not meet the six tests set out in the NPPF.

1.22 It is therefore considered taking into consideration current national guidance, previous appeal decisions and the need for traveller sites within the District that the imposition of condition 1 and 2 would not meet the six tests as required in the NPPF and NPPG. Consequently it is considered that it is likely that the Local Planning Authority would be unable to sustain the appeal against the imposition of conditions, and for this reason it is considered that the original officer’s reports recommendation should be followed. If members are minded to accept this recommendation the Local Planning Authority would not contend the current appeal.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 It is recommended that the that the appeal is not contested

Background Papers: DC/09/2130, DC/13/0577 ITEM A? - 1 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 19th November 2013

Removal/variation of condition 1 and 2 (relating to timescale for permission and occupancy) pursuant to application DC/09/2130 DEVELOPMENT: (Change of use of land to caravan site for two caravans for occupation by single gypsy family with timber shed and hardstanding)

SITE: Parsons Field Stables Pickhurst Lane Pulborough West Sussex WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham APPLICATION: DC/13/0577 APPLICANT: Ms Sarah Barnes

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters contrary to Officer’s recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: To remove condition 1 and 2 of DC/09/2130 to allow permanent use of the site by Gypsy and Travellers.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks to remove condition 1 and condition 2 placed on DC/09/2130. Condition 1 requires that ; The mobile home and touring caravan hereby permitted shall be removed and the land shall be restored on or before the 19th April 2013 to a condition which has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Condition 2 states that; The mobile home hereby permitted shall be occupied by Sarah Barnes her partner and son only and if the mobile home ceases to be so occupied, the mobile home hereby permitted shall be removed along with the hardstanding and the land restored to a condition which has previously been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

1.2 The applicant has stated that the application has been submitted so that the site could be retained on a permanent basis for any gypsy /traveller. However it has been indicated that if such a situation was not acceptable the applicant would accept a further temporary

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 ITEM A? - 2 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

personal permission. Condition 3 of the approval restricts occupation of the site to Gypsy’s and Travellers only, with the number of caravans limited to 2 (with no more than one of which being a mobile home).

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The site is situated within a rural location to the south of Pickhurst Lane. Within the site is a static mobile home with a wooden clad outbuilding. Adjoining the site and within the same ownership are further outbuildings, stables and a paddock. At the entrance to the site is a brick wall with timber inserts and gate, on the boundary to the north of the site is panel fencing, which is continued on the south eastern boundary. On the inner side of the fence leylandii trees have been planted. There are public footpaths to the east and west of the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National planning policy aims are embodied in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. Paragraph 14 tells us that at its heart is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking’.

Paragraphs 17 and 109 advocate the recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and the need to protect and enhance valued landscapes.

The Government also published ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ in March 2012 alongside the NPPF. Policy H advises on the determination of planning applications for traveller sites. Of particular relevance to this application are:

· Paragraph 21 which states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. · Paragraph 23 which states that ‘Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan’. · Paragraph 24 which states that weight should be given to the effective use of previously developed land and sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as ‘to positively enhance the environment’.

Paragraph 25 states that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission.

However, Policy I: Implementation, paragraph 28, makes it clear that this only applies to applications for temporary planning permission for traveller sites made 12 months after this policy came into force.

ITEM A? - 3 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Relevant policies within the Core Strategy 2007 include CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15, CP16 and CP19.

2.4 Relevant policies within the General Development Control Policies 2007 include DC1, DC2, DC9, DC32 & DC40.

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

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 PL/34/97 – In June 1997 an application for the erection of stables was approved.

2.7 EN/22/2007 – In May 2007 a complaint was received by the Local Planning Authority relating to the change of use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes, laying of a hard surfaced area, a concrete base for a mobile home, a brick wall and a fence and erection of double gates in the wall. An Enforcement Notice was served on the site in September 2007. In April 2008 an appeal against the Enforcement Notice was dismissed.

2.8 DC/09/0513 – In April 2009 an application for the stationing of a mobile home for settled gypsy accommodation was refused.

2.9 DC/09/2130 – In April 2011 an application for the change of use of land to caravan site for two caravans for occupation by single gypsy family with timber shed and hard standing was permitted for a temporary period of two years.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Strategic and Community Planning (summarised); No objection

· It is accepted that there is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the District · Existing Gypsy and Traveller sites subject to temporary permissions, such as Parsons Field Stables that expire before 2017 are considered to form part of the 39 pitches required by 2017 to meet the existing and future accommodation needs identified in the Needs Assessment. · The permanent use of this pitch would be considered to address the accommodation need identified by the Needs Assessment through the expiry of the existing temporary permission on this site. ITEM A? - 4 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

· From a strategic perspective, ideally all sites would come forward through a plan led approach, and would accord with current adopted development plan policy and recent government guidance.

3.3 Housing Department – No comment received at the time of writing the report. However, any comments received will be reported verbally to the committee.

3.4 Safeguarding Officer – No comment received at the time of writing the report. However, any comments received will be reported verbally to the committee.

3.5 Equalities Officer - No comment received at the time of writing the report. However, any comments received will be reported verbally to the committee.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.6 Pulborough Parish Council – objection however, Members would support the continuation of the existing conditions for a single caravan, by the applicant and her child only, until such time as the child completes their secondary education or ceases to be educated locally, whichever occurs first. It is particularly important that the site be fully restored to its original condition on the cessation of any permitted occupancy.

3.7 Eighteen letters of objection has been received objecting to the application on the following grounds; · Site adjacent to South Downs National Park and is not scheduled for development. · No evidence that the occupants are of gypsy origin. · Applications have previously been refused on the site, and nothing has changed · Proposal would not protect or enhance the character and distinctiveness of the district · Proposal would not protect the natural, built and historic environment of the District · Proposal would not complement the character and heritage of the District nor contribute to the sense of place. · Proposal is contrary to planning policy. · Concern with highway safety issues · Application considered premature as there is no District Stategy for Gypsies and Travellers · Several businesses are run from the site · Temporary permission was only granted on the site because of the welfare considerations of the applicants child, the site was identified in the Baker Associates Study only as it had a temporary permission, the applicant is now citing the Baker Associates Study to support the application although there is no planning justification for the site.

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

The following sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application;

4.1 Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial), Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life), Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and Articles 1 and 2 of the First Protocol (protection of property and right to education) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights is an integral part of the planning assessment below.

ITEM A? - 5 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial)

4.2 Regarding Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the Human Rights Act 1998, the applicant has submitted this application for planning permission, and the case has been referred to the Development Management South Committee for their consideration, at which the applicant can speak. Thus, the applicant has been given the opportunity for a fair and public hearing.

4.3 In addition, neighbouring landowners and third parties have been given the opportunity to lodge representations with the Council and to speak at the Development Management Committee meeting at which this application is to be considered.

Article 8 (Right to Respect of a Private and Family Life)

4.4 In respect of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life), this has become the centre of the vast majority of challenges by Gypsies to planning decisions. The Act states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence, and that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well- being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In this regard, recent case law on the subject has concluded that this Article is relevant in respect of mobile homes, as they are the homes of the applicants. The Human Rights Act requires public authorities to consider carefully the proportionality of their actions when making decisions which interfere with Article 8 rights. Thus public authorities are required to undertake a systematic analysis of the relevant issues and to ensure that they have taken into account the answers to a properly articulated framework of questions before reaching such decisions to ensure that the interference serves a legitimate aim.

4.5 It is clear that enforcement action against unauthorised development which is also someone’s home constitutes an interference with their Article 8 (1) rights, which requires justification. The main issues that have arisen from recent case law on this subject is whether general or personal need for Gypsy accommodation and the personal circumstances and rights of the family as Gypsies, amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the degree of harm to the environment. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the interference with the Gypsies Article 8 (1) rights is proportionate. In cases where there has been no alternative site for the Gypsies to move to, they have been able to demonstrate that the harm that would be caused as a result of their removal in terms of their right to a private and family life, that they have no alternative site to move to, that they have access to health care and other facilities, education, and other services, would not be proportionate to the harm that would be caused if they stayed on the unauthorised site.

4.6 It is considered that the neighbouring land uses in Pickhurst Lane have been considered in the context of Article 8, and from the consultations and assessment in respect of the application it is not considered that the retention of the use at the site would adversely impact on neighbouring land uses under this article. Indeed in this regard the use of the site commenced in 2007.

Article 2 of the First Protocol (Right to Education)

4.7 Following on from this, Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act (1998) sets out the right to a proper education, and again this legal requirement is especially applicable ITEM A? - 6 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

to Gypsies particularly since many Gypsy children are assessed as having special educational needs.

4.8 In the context of the above as there is a family on the site, due consideration must be given in this instance to the children of school age that reside on the site. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that 1 child lives on the site who since moving onto the site has attended St Marys Primary School, Pulborough, and now attends The Weald Community School, Billingshurst, the secondary school within the catchment area of Pulborough.

4.9 Traditionally, the approach to Planning Law looked narrowly at considerations other than those that considered land-use. Because of this, the ‘personal circumstances’ of Gypsies and Travellers, and in particular the educational interests of Gypsy and Traveller children were rarely, if ever, given due weight in the consideration of applications. The enhanced status now given to the right to education means that this is a prime consideration in the case of Gypsy and Traveller sites. One case of note is that of Basildon DC v Secretary of State of the Environment, where the court upheld the decision of the Secretary of State in which the environmental harm caused by Gypsy caravan sites in the Green Belt was considered to be outweighed by the need for stable educational facilities for the younger children of the families concerned.

Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property)

4.10 With regards Article 1 of the First Protocol, this states that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. It is your officers view that the public interest test is not met in this case as the family have become integrated in the time they have been on site

Article 14 (Prohibition on Discrimination)

4.11 Article 14 of the Act states that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Thus, it requires that no-one shall be discriminated against in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on any ground, including matters such as race, sex, national origin, or any other status.

4.12 Article 14 in this case refers to the choice of the family to reside in mobile accommodation.

4.13 With respect to case law, in Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Tunbridge Wells BC, a planning inspector had found that conventional housing had been offered to the Gypsy family in question, and that they found the prospect distressing, having never lived in a conventional house. Nevertheless, the inspector went on to state that the offer of that accommodation detracted somewhat from the contention that the only alternative to the appeal site was an illegal roadside pitch. The High Court held that:

“…in certain appropriate circumstances it can amount to a breach of articles 8 and 14 to weigh in the balance and hold against a Gypsy applying for planning permission, or indeed resisting eviction from Council or private land, that he or she has refused conventional housing accommodation as being contrary to his or her culture.”

ITEM A? - 7 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

4.14 To treat such refusal as a relevant consideration in reaching a decision was just as impermissible as penalising a religious or strictly observant Christian, Jew or Muslim because they will not work on certain days, or to penalise a strictly observant Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or Sikh because they will not eat certain foods or wear certain clothing.

4.15 The onus was on the individual concerned to satisfy the Planning Inspector that they or their family do indeed have a genuine aversion to conventional housing, but once that has been established:

“…it would be contrary to articles 8 and 14 to expect such a person to accept conventional housing and to hold it against him or her that he has not accepted it, or is not prepared to accept it, even as a last resort factor.”

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 aim of the National Planning Policy Framework is to achieve sustainable development. The document sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. It seeks to create a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well being and contributes to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. The document makes a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking.

Principle

6.2 The application site has a detailed planning history. The applicant first moved onto the site in May 2007, and an Enforcement Notice was served in September 2007. The applicant then appealed against the Enforcement Notice and the appeal was dismissed in April 2008. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the family did not satisfy the definition of gypsies and travellers as set out in Circular 01/2006, and the rural character of the locality would be harmed by the mobile home, brick wall, piers and gates. Following the dismissal of the enforcement appeal a further planning application was submitted in April 2009, which was refused. A second application was then submitted for the stationing of a mobile home which resulted in the granting of temporary planning permission in April 2011. Permission at that time was approved on a personal basis for the benefit of the applicant and her family, who have resided on the site since May 2007. The applicant is seeking to vary the conditions to remove the personal element of the previous approval and to retain the site as a permanent gypsy site.

6.3 The West Sussex Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTAA) 2007 established a requirement for 39 pitches in the District between 2006 and 2011. The GTAA was to feed into policies made at regional level to set District targets and then policies would be made at local level to follow targets and identify sites. A report in 2011 by Baker Associates was published but this has been superseded by the report published in January 2013 by WS Planning. The background document Horsham District Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Study, Final Report, October 2011 by Baker Associates, which ITEM A? - 8 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

forms part of the evidence base for the consultation document, identified the application site as a potentially suitable site for 1 pitch subject to suitable landscape mitigation and alterations to the site entrance.

6.4 The up-dated needs survey undertaken by WS Planning was published in January 2013. It has shown that 75 pitches were provided at December 2012 within the District. On the basis of current need, it is predicted that over the next 5 years (between 2012 and 2017), there is a need for a further 39 pitches to be provided. As part of this requirement there is a need for 29 pitches to address the current accommodation need arising from sites which may be unauthorised or subject to temporary permissions or through overcrowding. This site due to its temporary permission is considered as a pitch in accommodation need, and the permanent use of this pitch would be considered to address the accommodation need identified by the Needs Assessment through the expiry of the existing temporary permission on this site.

6.5 The Needs Assessment revealed that there is an additional accommodation need for a further 10 pitches due to expected new family formations over the next five year period (2012-2017). How and where these pitches are to be provided is currently being evaluated and progressed through the development of the proposed planning framework for the District. In the following five year period, between 2017 and 2022, based on population growth calculations, it has been estimated that a further 18 pitches will be required and then an additional 21 pitches between 2022 and 2027. In total, therefore, an additional 78 pitches will be needed over the full 15 year period, thereby increasing current provision from 75 up to a total of 153 pitches within the Horsham District as a whole.

6.6 In the most recent Gypsy appeal decision at Kingfisher Farm (December 2011), the Inspector concluded that “The harm to the character of the area would not be great. On the other hand, the general need for sites in Horsham is significant and this is unlikely to be addressed in the near future. There is currently a lack of available alternatives and because progress in making planned provision for sites has been slow this is likely to remain the case for some time to come. Taken together these factors and the benefits arising from meeting a proportion of the unmet need for gypsy sites at Kingfisher Farm outweigh the harm that would arise.” The overall position in the District is largely unchanged since this appeal decision and it must therefore be considered that there is a need for gypsy sites within the District as a whole.

6.7 Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 states that:

“Proposals for sites for caravans for Gypsies and Travellers will be granted planning permission provided that:

a) the Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting the established need; b) the identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.

If the need cannot be met at any alternative suitable sites as set out above, the following criteria will apply:

1) the site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities; 2) a satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site; and ITEM A? - 9 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

3) the proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles.”

6.8 Policy DC32 requires the Local Planning Authority to consider if there is a need for Gypsy sites, and that any proposal must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services. The site is outside of the built-up area and as such is classified as being in a countryside location. The nearest settlement is Pulborough, defined in the Local Development Framework as a Category 1 settlement and therefore having a good range of services and facilities. Guidance within the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites document paragraph 21, states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. As such, given the countryside location of this site at some distance away from these services it could be considered that the proposal is contrary to the Government guidance and to Policy DC32. However, the Council took the view in 2010 in relation to the Greenfield Farm site, Valewood Lane (DC/10/0721), that, although the main mode of transport would be vehicular, the site could be justified as sustainable in the wider sense. It was acknowledged at the time that this would set the tone for consideration of sites in the future under this policy. Similarly, the Inspector when considering the Kingfisher Farm appeal on a site adjacent to Greenfield Farm reached the same conclusion in respect of sustainability. On consideration of the application site in 2009 it was noted that although the site is in a rural location the occupant’s son had been attending school in Pulborough and had access to other local facilities i.e. doctors and dental surgeries. It is accepted that walking is more likely to replace short car trips, if the distance is under 2 km, whilst cycling has the potential to substitute short car trips and to form part of a longer journey by public transport, particularly if under 5km. It is recognized that most local facilities are not within walking distance, with the school and railway station approximately 2.7 km and approximately 3.4 km away respectively. However, it should be recognized that many facilities e.g. the railway stations and the local school, appear to be within cycling distance, which suggests this location is not wholly unsustainable. It is also understood that buses do run daily along the A29, and the bus stop is within walking distance of the site (approximately 1.8 km away).

6.9 With regards to the location of the site an appeal decision relating to a similar application in Somerset (APP/Q3305/A/09/2103649) was allowed on appeal for the change of use of land to site one residential mobile home for occupation by Gypsies where the Inspector held that “the view expressed in the Tiverton appeal decision (Ref.APP/Y1138/A/08/2064935) that Circular 01/2006 brought about significant changes to the manner in which gypsy and traveller sites are to be assessed. Not only does the circular take a broader approach to sustainability issues than just transport mode and distance to services, but also it clearly states that rural settings (unless subject to special planning constraints) are acceptable in principle. This has implications for patterns of travel. It also stresses that LPA’s should be realistic about the availability or likely availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local services.” The Inspector found that a distance of 4.3 km to the nearest school and some 10-16 km to other facilities such as supermarkets were within a reasonable distance and that “the proposed use of the appeal site would generate some 8 -10 vehicle movements per day, which I am in no doubt would constitute, in the words of Circular 01/2006, “modest additional daily vehicle movements,” even before discounting any trips which could have previously been made for agricultural or horticultural purposes.” As previously stated the site at Pickhurst Lane is located approximately 2.7 km and approximately 3.4 km away respectively from the school and railway station. The site is also within some 300m of another family Gypsy site which was approved by the Local Planning Authority in 2002 at Oakdene, Blackgate Lane. It is therefore your officer’s view that it would be difficult when looking at comparable appeal decisions and the location of the site to object to the current application on the grounds of being “unreasonably” located. ITEM A? - 10 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

6.10 In respect of Criteria 2 of DC32, relating to the access and highways requirements, it is considered that the use of the site for a single family would generate a similar number of trips to the site as would occur with the approved use of the 3 stables on the site to which the County Surveyor raised no highway objection.

6.11 In addition, it is considered that criterion 3 is fulfilled as access on the site is of a sufficient width and area for service and emergency vehicles to enter the site and turn safely.

Landscape Impacts

6.12 With regards to the landscape considerations it is considered that the site is well screened from the road due to the low height of the mobile home and the existing boundary treatment. The South Downs National Park Authority noted with regards to the previous application on the site that; “The site is visible from the public right of way, but does not have a great impact on the amenity of the National Park or its setting as it is tucked into a dip in the landscape with trees behind.” The application site is set in a rural countryside location outside of the South Downs National Park. The nearest properties on the northern side of Pickhurst Lane are both listed buildings. With regards to the location of the application site an appeal decision relating to the change of use of land to a residential caravan site for two gypsy families with two static caravans, storage of two touring caravans and extension of hardstanding in Maidstone (APP/U2235/A/08/2063378) was allowed despite the Local Planning Authorities concerns relating to the character of the rural area and the setting of a Grade II* Listed Building. The Inspectors reasons noted that whilst; “the site can be seen from the road and the public footpath, the Circular does not seek for gypsy sites to be hidden, and not visible from roads and footpaths. Too much hard landscaping, high walls or fences can give the impression of deliberately isolating the site and its occupants from the rest of the community, and should be avoided. The area has sporadic housing in it already, and the gypsy caravans are on the whole less visible as they are rather smaller than the other residential buildings…. Whilst the gypsy caravans might be different to the others as they are plainly caravans and not buildings, they equally have a similarly striking domestic appearance to the nearby dwellings, and it is not right to single them out as striking because they are gypsy caravans, not least because the dwellings and other buildings are substantially larger and far more visible, and generally have little fencing or planting to screen them in the wider rural landscape. For that reason I do not consider the appeal site to be harmful, and planting will help to screen some of the domestic nature of the site.”

6.13 It is your officers view that due to the location and screening of the mobile home that it would be difficult to object to the application on the grounds of it harming the character of the locality. It is therefore considered that the use of the site for a single gypsy family would not cause on balance unacceptable harm to the overall character of the area.

6.14 Therefore due to the current policy position with regards to the need for small family gypsy sites within the District and the sites location with regards to local facilities, it is considered that a variation of condition 1 and 2 of application DC/09/2130 could be justified. However, Policy DC32 does state that sites may be limited to a temporary period and/or for the benefit of named occupiers whilst the Councils Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options document is considered.

Named Occupiers

6.15 The site has been occupied by the applicant since 2007, and was the subject of enforcement action, an appeal and a refused planning application. The enforcement appeal related to the stationing of a mobile home (EN/22/2007) which was dismissed by ITEM A? - 11 Appendix to A6 - 15th July 2014

the appeal Inspector. The Inspector in his consideration of the application determined that “Overall, I conclude that the family’s membership either individually or collectively, does not satisfy the definition of gypsies and travellers set out in Circular 01/2006. Consequently, there is, on this occasion, no need to examine any requirements for special residential accommodation for travellers in any depth or to assess whether there is any overall shortage of gypsy and traveller accommodation in this part of West Sussex that could be met by this site.” However the Inspector did agree that the applicant is ethnically a Romany Gypsy.

6.16 Following the dismissal of the enforcement appeal a planning application was received in April 2009 for permission for the stationing of a mobile home for settled gypsy accommodation. This application was refused on the grounds that the situation on the site had not changed since the previous Inspectors decision and that insufficient information has been provided to overcome the Inspectors previous reasons for dismissing the appeal.

6.17 A further application was then submitted in November 2009 and permission was granted for a temporary permission personal to the applicant. At this time the status of the applicant was considered; “It is your Officers view that the applicant was not fully aware or did not wish to make public information with regards to her ethnic group and that information which may have influenced any application on gypsy status was not fully considered. Since the enforcement appeal a more detailed family background of travelling has emerged and it would now appear that the reason for the family settling on the site was due only to her son’s educational needs. The applicant also did not submit the standard information sought by the Planning Inspectorate to assess Gypsy status for either the enforcement appeal or the more recent planning application. The family on the site have local connections within West Sussex with her parents living at Partridge Green, her Aunt and Cousins at a gypsy site in Honeybridge Lane, Dial Post, her brother at a site in Fontwell, her sister and grandmother at Easthampnett gypsy site and further cousins at Adversane and Cousins Copse gypsy sites.”

6.18 The circumstances of the applicant remains similar to that considered in 2009 although the applicants son is now in secondary education at the secondary school in closest proximity to the application site. The occupiers of the site have remained unchanged, and it is considered that the use of this pitch could address the accommodation need identified in the most recent Needs Survey.

Conclusion

6.19 The application site has a detailed planning history and has been occupied by the applicant since 2007. It is therefore your officer’s view having regard to the current policy position and the need for small family Gypsy sites within the District, that the approval of the above site for a further temporary period, for the personal use of the applicant could be considered due to the nature of the emerging policy framework. However, taking into account that there is an established need for Gypsy sites within the District it is considered that there is limited justification to retain both condition 1 and 2 of DC/09/2130 and therefore it is your officer’s view that the conditions should be removed so as to allow the site to provide permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That condition 1 and 2 of DC/09/2130 are removed.

Background Papers: DC/09/2130, DC/13/0577 DC/13/0577

Parsons Field Stables

Scale : 1:1250

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Not Set Date 04 July 2014

SLA Number 100018563