Chichester District Council Planning Committee Wednesday 15th November 2017 Report of the Head of Planning Services Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters This report updates Planning Committee members on current appeals and other matters. It would be of assistance if specific questions on individual cases could be directed to officers in advance of the meeting. Note for public viewing via Chichester District Council web site To read each file in detail, including the full appeal decision when it is issued, click on the reference number (NB certain enforcement cases are not open for public inspection, but you will be able to see the key papers via the automatic link to the Planning Inspectorate). WR – Written Representation Appeal H – Hearing I – Inquiry FT - Fast Track (Householder/Commercial Appeals) ( ) – Case Officer Initials * – Committee level decision 1. NEW APPEALS Reference/Procedure Proposal BI/16/00933/OUT Koolbergen, Kelly's Nurseries And Bellfield Nurseries PI (J Bushell) Bell Lane, Birdham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 7HY - Erection of 77 houses B1 floorspace, retail and open space with retention of 1 dwelling. CC/17/00874/DOM 2 Beech Avenue, Chichester, PO19 3DR - Detached WR ( M Tomlinson) double garage and boundary wall and gates. EWB/16/00492/FUL Ashbury, Kimbridge Road, East Wittering, West Sussex, WR ( J Cross) PO20 8PE - Demolition of existing house and detached garage and construction of 5 no. flats and 1 no. single storey dwelling. SY/16/03696/DOM Portsoy, 16 Bonnar Road, Selsey, PO20 9AT - Retention WR (J Cross) of single storey front extension. WR/17/00934/FUL Old Helyers Farm, Kirdford Road, Wisborough Green, WR (M Tomlinson) RH14 0DD - Conversion of commercial equestrian indoor riding school barn to 3 no. dwellings. WW/ 17/00410/DOM Little Orchard, Summerfield Road, West Wittering, WR (R Ballam) Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 8LY - Retrospective erection of replacement front boundary fencing. 2.DECISIONS RECEIVED Reference/Decision SDNP/17/00030/APNB Padwicks Farm, Whites Lane, Bepton, GU29 0LY - Bepton WR (R Grosso Agricultural storage building. MacPherson) "... The existing barn and shed are listed and have received planning permission and listed consent into holiday accommodation. However the shed and barn have limited external openings with significant low internal height areas restricting the practical storage for machinery and storage. Based on the equipment and machinery detailed, necessary alterations to these listed buildings would be likely to harm their historical and architectural qualities and significance. ... However the sheep farming operation would be significantly changed on the holding and therefore it is not unreasonable for the Appellant to be able to use his own machinery and equipment. ... The building would provide storage for a sheep topping unit and even if the covered feed storage area is small, this would suggest that the size of the farm building would not be overly large for its intended purposes. ... the AJS provides a good justification for the new agricultural building, and how it would be used for the changed farming operation on the holding involving greater all year round sheep presence and 'in-house' use of machinery and equipment. For all these reasons, the building would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. ... The Appellant's agent has indicated that his normal business hours are up to 1730 hours during the working week. ... However, if was, it would still have been outside of the agent's normal business hours. The Authority has provided copies of email correspondence sent to the agent after 1730 hours but this only provides a snapshot of the working times of the Appellant's agent during the year and so cannot be representative. Moreover they could simply indicate the agent's presence on an ad hoc basis to catch up on a heavy workload. The Authority states that the agent's business hours are not published on the company website or other media. Nevertheless this merely emphasises the need to check them further if such an important notice was required to be sent within a prescribed deadline. For all these reasons, the decision notices should be treated as being received the next working day and therefore, the development could have proceeded given my previous comments on the reasonable necessity test. ... " COST DECISION "... The applicant claims no reference was made to the AJS. No specific reference was made to the document in either the officer's report or the decision notices. However the report has referred to the applicant's existing and future agricultural storage supporting the Authority's position that it considered the AJS. Furthermore the AJS has been referenced within its appeal statement to support its case. On this basis, the Authority's approach has not been flawed by omitting due consideration of the AJS. ..." CC/16/03892/ADV Crew Clothing Company, 57 - 58 South Street, Chichester WR (R Ballam) West Sussex, PO19 1DS - Non-illuminated 2 no. fascia Part Allowed, Part signs and 1 no. hanging sign. Linked to 16/03895/LBC Dismissed “Appeal A: The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent. I allow the appeal insofar as it relates to works to the shopfront, glazing and signage, and I dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to the striped painting, and hanging sign. I grant listed building consent for the repair and redecoration of the shopfront and fascia signage … subject to the following condition: 1) The floor mosaic located within the entrance alcove of the property shall be preserved in its entirety and shall remain uncovered and unaltered thereafter. Appeal B: The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 against a refusal to grant express consent. I dismiss that part of the appeal that relates to the hanging sign. I allow that part of the appeal that relates to the fascia signage (sign 1 and sign 2) ... The consent is for five years from the date of this decision. The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the significance of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Chichester Conservation Area. The hanging sign. The Guidance states that within the historic city of Chichester hanging or projecting signs are not normally allowed, and within the four main shopping streets where street widths are generous and shop frontages wide, fascia signs provide sufficient advertising potential. The shopfront is within a listed building and is within one of the wider parts of one of the four main shopping streets. … the sign in place here causes visual clutter and disrupts the layout of the upper windows with the attractive detailing of their surrounds. The lettering and fascia logo. There is little or no perceptible difference between the appeal lettering and other examples of stand-off lettering nearby… The view taken in these Decisions is that bearing in mind the narrow font and the small depth, no visual harm occurs. The painted striped treatment of the central pilaster. As explained in the Guidance, pilasters, along with the items that make up the entablature are a historic, and highly attractive, reference to the ancient ‘orders’ and provide a frame for the shop’s openings and a visual support for the masonry above. The appeal shopfront is a good example of this principle, containing as it does three consoles supported on pilasters with the fascias spanning between. The central one displays to good effect the three elements referred to in the Guidance; a plinth, a trunk and a capital. The trunk has fluting as a further attractive, classical reference. The striped treatment fails to relate well to panelling within the reveal, and fails to relate attractively or appropriately to the classical features of the pilaster, and this causes visual harm to the listed building and its setting within the conservation area. Replacement of glazing and fascia timberwork. The glazing is described by the appellant as having been a hazard to the public. In addition, like-for-like repairs would be permissible, and with the exception of the items specifically found against in this Decision, the resulting arrangement appears attractive and well-executed. On that basis, consent should be granted. The level of harm is ‘less than substantial’. It is clear from the photographs provided that there has been some improvement over the previous presentation of the shopfront and the economic benefits of the use of the shop are public ones. Those considerations do not however outweigh the harm identified, as the benefits could be delivered without the necessity for the hanging sign and striped paint.” CC/16/03895/LBC Crew Clothing Company, 57 - 58 South Street, Chichester WR (R Ballam) West Sussex, PO19 1DS - Repair and redecorate shopfront, Part Allowed, Part proposed signage and interal refit. Linked to 16/03892/ADV Dismissed As above CC/17/00002/FUL 46 South Street, Chichester, PO19 1DS - Attic storey WR (P Hunt) extension to create an additional apartment. Dismissed Conservation Area and listed buildings “…Although a more modern building than most along South Street, the proportions of the front elevation of no. 46 reflect those of the surrounding Georgian buildings, such that it is in keeping with the surrounding area…The proposal would provide an extra storey above the building, with a pitched roof to the front with side gables. The eaves of the resulting building would be above those of both Richmond House and no. 45, although the ridge would be below that of no. 45. The additional height of the building at both eaves and ridge, combined with the gabled roof and dormer windows, would result in a building that would be prominent in views along the street and dominate those listed buildings to either side.