CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY – PLANNING COMMITTEE
A meeting of the Conservancy’s Planning Committee will be held at 10.30am on Monday 07 June 2021 at Eames Farm, Thorney Island.
Richard Craven
Director & Harbour Master
For questions regarding this agenda please ask for Rosie Chase – email: [email protected]
AGENDA
1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members and officers are reminded to make declarations of pecuniary or personal interests they may have in relation to items on the agenda and to make any declarations at any stage during the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.
3. MINUTES
Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 April 2021 (page 1)
4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
4a. Paynes Boatyard Thornham Lane Southbourne PO10 8DD (page 9)
4b. Land at Apuldram House, Dell Quay Road, Dell Quay, Appledram, Chichester, West Sussex (page 16)
4c. Spinney Cottage Spinney Lane Itchenor PO20 7DJ (page 28)
5. PP19 HOUSEBOATS CONSULTATION
To consider the report of the AONB Manager (page 37)
6. BEAUTY STILL BETRAYED: THE STATE OF OUR AONBS IN 2021
To consider the report of the AONB Manager (page 41)
7. TERMS OF REFERENCE
To consider the report of the AONB Manager (page 60) Chichester Harbour Conservancy 01243 512301 The Harbour Office, Itchenor, Chichester, [email protected] West Sussex PO20 7AW www.conservancy.co.uk
8. CASE UPDATES
To provide any verbal updates for Members on any cases currently being considered by the Local Planning Authorities.
9. TABLE OF DELEGATED ACTIONS
To consider the report from the Principal Planning Officers (page 62)
10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Monday 12 July 2021 at Eames Farm from 10.30am
______
Planning Committee members: Heather Baker, Ann Briggs, John Goodspeed, Keith Martin, Pieter Montyn, Adrian Moss, Alison Wakelin. Two positions vacant.
Chichester Harbour Conservancy 01243 512301 The Harbour Office, Itchenor, Chichester, [email protected] West Sussex PO20 7AW www.conservancy.co.uk Agenda Item 3
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY
Planning Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 12 April from 10.30am held via Zoom.
Present Keith Martin (Chairman)
Ken Smith Heather Baker Adrian Moss Chris Emery
Alison Wakelin Pieter Montyn John Goodspeed
Officers
Richard Austin Steve Lawrence David Rothery Rosie Chase
In attendance
Rosy Raines Tim Wild Paul White
1.0 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Ann Briggs. Rosy Raines was introduced to the meeting as the potential successor to Ken Smith once he stands down from the Conservancy at the May local elections.
1.2 The Chairman and Committee thanked Councillor Smith for his service.
1.3 The development application for Burnes Shipyard was moved up the agenda to allow representations to be made more efficiently.
2.0 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2.1 Adrian Moss declared an interest in the Burnes Shipyard Application as he has been in discussion with the developers throughout the proposals. The interest was not considered prejudicial.
2.2 Pieter Montyn declared a personal interest (at the time the application was discussed) in respect of the proposals for Harbour View, Itchenor.
3.0 MINUTES
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 1 March 2021 were agreed as a true record of the meeting and were agreed by the Committee.
3.2 A member asked for additional information about local authorities and how they report the Conservancy’s feedback to their respective planning committees. The member for Chichester District Council said he had asked for an update but had not received any further information. This action is carried over to the next meeting as a matter arising.
4.0 BRIEFING NOTE
4.1 The Principal Planning Officer (David Rothery) presented his briefing note to members in respect of SB/21/00359/EIA - Former Gosden Green Nursery, 112 Main Road, Southbourne, West Sussex.
4.2 A member said that the date was missed due to an error made by the Local Planning Authority and that as the Conservancy did not consider an environmental impact
1 assessment was needed but the LPA did, this error was not as serious as it could have been.
4.3 A member observed that the initial timeline set meant that the Conservancy’s officers were highly unlikely to be able to have met this deadline anyway. They went on to say that it brought to the fore, how many applications and how much pressure the Principal Planning Officers were under at this time.
4.4 The Principal DR said that he was around 16-20 cases behind the scheduled response rate, most of which were small cases but still needed consideration. He went on to say that the majority of responses are in the system before they are considered. At the current time, 3 cases have been determined before the Conservancy’s feedback was submitted. SL said that there is an exceptional number of cases to consider and both officers have been working overtime.
4.5 It was agreed that the Planning Committee would make the Conservancy and Advisory Committees aware of the pressure that the Planning Officers are under, that working overtime is not sustainable and more resources are required. The AONB Manager said that it was important that the Conservancy had this discussion.
5.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Burnes Shipyard, Westbrook Field, Windward Road, Bosham, West Sussex
5.1 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) presented his report to members which was in respect of Burnes Shipyard. The proposal is for the redevelopment comprising the erection of 3x dwellings with access, parking, landscaping, and associated works following demolition of existing shipyard buildings and structures (Use Class B2).
5.2 He said that the properties were of a bespoke design and that flooding issues on the site had been considered. The PPO said he felt the proposed designs did not meet the Conservancy’s standard for sympathetic, traditional design. He recommended that the Planning Committee object.
5.3 Representations were made from Paul White and Tom Wild, speaking in support of the proposal. Paul White from Smith Simmons spoke to the issues around no boatwork since 1993, the loss of employment, and sewerage issues. Tom Wild spoke to the architectural issues outlined in the officer’s report.
5.4 Two members said they were sympathetic with the developers and preferred the proposed development rather than the existing disused shipyard.
5.5 Another member said he was satisfied that modern technology was required to keep the ridge height down and that was why it was being employed, and he had checked that the relevant stakeholders were satisfied and that there was head room for wastewater at Harts Farm.
5.6 Members agreed that the site would not be viable as a shipyard any longer. A member said that a change of use to residential was probably required but the Conservancy looks to conserve scenic beauty and the iconic view over the water
2 towards Bosham would be altered by this particular development. They went on to say that the bulk of the development would ideally be reduced.
5.7 A member asked what level of insulation and BREEAM was proposed and asked whether the latest in all renewable and energy conserving would be used. They made the point that if the development was not adding to the scenic beauty of the area, then they should be at least sustainable. The architect said that the design allows for high levels of insulation and air tightness.
5.8 A member said he felt there would be limited impact on any wildlife.
5.9 The AONB Manager said that he felt that the marketing requirements of PP02 had not been met and that the developers could have considered more carefully that the site was unviable for boat building and in his opinion, he felt that due to climate change the site would be unsuitable for houses.
5.10 Members voted upon the officer’s recommendation, 5 were in favour of supporting the recommendation, 3 were against.
Recommendation
The Planning Committee resolved to raise an objection to the proposed development. The refusal overview is as follows.
The proposal would fail to preserve and enhance the character and visual appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in this location by the imposition of buildings with a design and scale that are not reflective of the context of this edge of village location bordering the Conservation Area and with clear views from the parish church which forms a characteristic vista associated with the village of Bosham. The proposal is therefore not compliant with AONB Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area.
The proposal for this industrial site would remove the prospect for replacement marine engineering, associated marine enterprise, or new industrial employment uses from the site that benefits from a coastal shoreline boundary. This is contrary to AONB Planning Principle PP02: Safeguarding Marine Enterprise. The loss of this site from employment use to residential housing would harm the economic opportunity of the site and area in general.
The following planning issues impacting on the AONB are considered to justify an objection to the proposal (where non-compliant with a Planning Principle this is listed in brackets): -
1. Proposal fails to preserve and enhance the visual landscape character of the AONB (PP01) 2. Visual impact on a strategic landscape vista of Bosham Church and Conservation Area (PP01) 3. Loss of employment generating site to the economy of Bosham and surroundings (PP02)
3 4. Combination of buildings creating a street scene of excessive building bulk and profile (PP03) 5. Design, style, architectural appearance is not reflective of surroundings (PP03) 6. Building composition, scale, and bulk of the proposed three dwellings has undue prominence (PP04) 7. Lack of residential land use justification within the AONB countryside designation (PP04) 8. Wastewater sewerage systems capacity is not demonstrated or proven (PP04) 9. Potential resultant recreational wildlife disturbance within the AONB protected landscape (PP04) 10. Requirement to secure contributions towards Solent Bird Aware Protocol not achieved (PP04) 11. Lack of clear demonstration of reducing external light sources from open areas of the site (PP09)
Tom Wild and Paul White left the meeting.
Land north of Highgrove Farm Main Road Bosham
5.11 The Principal Planning Officer (SL) presented his report to members in respect of the proposed construction of 301 dwellings (including 90 affordable dwellings), community hall, public open space, associated works and 2 no. access from the A259 (one temporary for construction).
5.12 The land is a large agricultural field with highest levels of fertility of the soil.
5.13 It is an easy walk from the shoreline and in close proximity to the South Downs National Park. The Conservancy were not consulted in the pre application enquiries.
5.14 The Principal Planning Officer read out the feedback from the Ecologist who felt that the area supports breeding skylarks and yellowhammers, both declining species. In addition, there are slowworms and seven species of bats have been identified.
5.15 The Principal Planning Officer also informed members that there had been feedback from Southern Water who acknowledge this development would over burden the sewerage system of Bosham resulting in storm water discharges into Chichester Harbour and reinforcement of the sewerage system would be required and could take two years to implement.
5.16 A member asked if there had been an application at Ham Farm, to the east of this site. The Principal Planning Officer said he could not recall one to build houses on the fields.
5.17 It was agreed that the information from Southern Water and the Ecologist would be included in the recommendations.
4 Recommendation
5.18. The Planning Committee resolved the following.
(i) That sufficient headroom has not been demonstrated at a wastewater treatment works. Concern is therefore expressed that it could be possible that the number of stormwater discharges into Chichester Harbour would increase, adversely affecting the delicate ecology and protected European sites there. This view has been confirmed by the letter from Southern Water dated 1 April 2021, commenting on this planning application; (ii) Proposals would erode a valuable countryside gap, providing separation between the settlements of Broadbridge (Bosham) and Fishbourne, adversely affecting the setting of the Chichester Harbour AONB; and, (iii) The land is designated countryside where development will only be permitted where it requires a countryside location and meets an essential, small scale and local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement. The application is therefore considered to be prejudicial to the proper consideration of the soundness of Policy AL7 of the emerging local plan; (iv) That in terms of paragraph 15 of the NPPF for development to be sustainable it must address economic, social and environmental priorities. The Conservancy is of the opinion that environmental priorities would not be addressed if these proposals went forward. In particular regard to ecological matters, the area supports breeding skylarks and yellowhammers (both declining species of arable farmland) and a population of slow worms, and is important for foraging bats (7 species at least, including barbastelle - Bat Activity Report, WYG, Dec 2020). The area is part of a larger, undeveloped area and is a key link between the farmland of the Bosham peninsula to the south and South Downs National Park to the north. Development of this area will greatly reduce its value to farmland birds, and its value as link between Chichester Harbour AONB and SDNP, and further fragment the important habitats of both designated landscapes. (v) In respect of the IHP tests, The Conservancy considers tests 3 (erosion of countryside gap between settlements), 5 (impact to the setting of the AONB), 7 (infrastructure) and 10 (sustainable location of development) are not met.
Herons, Westlands Estate, Birdham, Chichester, West Sussex
5.19 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) presented his report to members which is respect of an application for a Proposed construction of single storey dwelling following demolition of existing bungalow.
5.20 The scale of the building indicates a greater silhouette than the earlier permission. However, the current proposal reduces the amount of glazing employed to the east and the south elevations from the earlier permission which will reduce the level of light spillage.
5.21 A member suggested that reference be made to external lighting to the recommendation. Another member said that because the LPA have approved to the previous application, that the Committee had objected to, the only reason the no
5 objection was being raised now was because the new design was less obtrusive than the last. If this design came to the committee on without any previous history, an objection would have been raised.
Recommendation
5.22. The Committee resolved to raise no objection. They suggested the following considerations to safeguard, protect and enhance the AONB are applied.
schedule/samples of materials to be agreed as indicated on forms prior to works. the main glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels. all main glazing should be fitted with working internal screen blinds. any and all roof lights / skylights should be fitted with working internal screen blinds. all external lighting to be subject to an electronic time-limited control. all external lighting to be downward only cowelled to prevent illumination above the horizontal removal of permitted development rights relating to additions or alterations. implementation of a landscape plan to assist in screening the residential areas.
A cautious, ‘on balance’ assessment not to object to the proposal was made by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Planning Committee based upon all relevant considerations. This outcome took into account the proposal being non-compliant with ‘AONB Planning Principle PP03: Replacement Dwellings’ but which offered a less harmful option to the fallback permission previously issued by the LPA.
Houseboat Mooring Berth 30, Houseboat Karibuni, Chichester Canal Southern Bank, Chichester Marina, Birdham, Chichester, West Sussex
5.23 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) presented his report to members in respect of a proposed installation of a replacement houseboat including installation of H- column cored and grouted anchoring system. He said that the current structure is 8.5metres long and the proposed structure is 13.5metres long – a 72% increase with a box like design. He said that his recommendation does go against the PP19 draft but in respect of other vessels on the canal it is not intrusive, is smaller, and single storey and the recommendation is made, on balance on these considerations.
5.24 A member said that there should be some internal guidelines in dealing with these houseboats as they cannot recall the Committee ever raising objection to an application because they are all so similar and this would enable Planning Officers to deal with them at a delegated level.
5.25 A member asked a question about the decking the houseboat would be placed on which has become part of the floating craft. The decking is larger than the structure. The Principal Planning Officer said you would not necessarily see the platform unless you were very close, and he made his recommendation on the overall visual impact on the AONB.
6 5.26 A member said that the increase in the silhouette and footprint should be acknowledged within the responses, to show that the Committee had noted it and allowed it based on mitigating factors.
Chris Emery left the meeting.
Recommendation
5.27 The Planning Committee resolved not to raise an objection and advised the LPA that the following suggested considerations to safeguard, protect and enhance the AONB are applied.
schedule of materials to be in muted colours, stained as necessary to be non- obtrusive in this rural location. installation taking place outside the bird breeding season. the provision and use of any outbuildings to remain ancillary to the domestic use of the houseboat. A cautious, ‘on balance’ assessment not to object to the proposal was made by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Planning Committee based upon all relevant considerations. This outcome took into account the proposal being non-compliant with ‘AONB Planning Principle PP19 : Houseboats’ which is at a consultation draft stage. The proposal incorporates a replacement structure that is in excess of the 25% silhouette size increase allowed for under PP19. However, given the current small scale of the existing houseboat at this mooring berth, the replacement vessel, which reflects a size and scale similar to other vessels along the canal, has been considered as an exception to the emerging guidance.
Harbour View Itchenor Road West Itchenor PO20 7DH
5.28 The Principal Planning Officer (SL) presented his report to members for an application in respect of a replacement dwelling. He said that the plot was large- and reminded members that there were questions over the northern curtilage of the site. He went on to express concern about the proposed removal of trees which formed the main basis of his proposed objection.
5.29. Pieter Montyn declared a personal interest as he knows the applicant.
Recommendation
5.30 The Planning Committee resolved to raise an objection -made in respect of the three following areas.
Recommendation 1 – Objection: unnecessary tree removal to accommodate double garage, which could easily be re-sited to avoid such loss and considered contrary to Policies 43, 48 and 49 of the adopted local plan. Affected trees considered to make a positive contribution to the setting of the Itchenor Conservation Area and as natural features in themselves making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Chichester Harbour AONB.
7 Unnecessary intrusion of built from into open parts of the site, which are recognised as being an important countryside gap in the Village Design statement.
Recommendation 2 – That the Council undertake a land registry search to establish if the northern part of the plot has ever been part of the recognised residential curtilage, or whether it used to be a separate piece of agricultural land that was purchased and put with the property.
Recommendation 3 – That the Council urgently considers the making of a Tree Preservation Order to protect trees at or overhanging the application site.”
6.0 TABLE OF DELEGATED DECISIONS
6.1 A member asked a question regarding land to the west of Church Road at West Wittering. He said that the proposed development has raised a huge amount of local concern as it is only 1.5km from the AONB, with the sewerage being supposedly pumped to Sidlesham with a wider impact on Pagham Harbour. He went on to say that the applicants are intermating that the Conservancy are in support of the application and a no objection as a delegated action has caused some upset as it was being interpreted as agreement. The AONB Manager said that that if criteria for responding to this type of comment was required, a paper should be considered at the next meeting. The Principal Planning Officer said he could only comment on the case’s effect on Chichester Harbour and the development was in the submission version of the West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan. He confirmed he withdrew the comments.
6.2 Members noted the report.
7.0 DATE OF NEXT MEETING
7.1 The date of the next meeting will take place on Monday 10 May 2021 from 10.30am via Zoom.
The meeting closed at 12.50.
8 Agenda Item 4a
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: SB/21/01060/OUT
Site: Paynes Boatyard Thornham Lane Southbourne PO10 8DD
Proposals: Outline application (with all matters reserved) 1 no. dwelling
Recommendation – Holding objection; insufficient information to assess impact to the AONB landscape within an overall detailed business plan for the boatyard, to justify an exception to Policies 42, 43 and 45 of the adopted Development Plan.
1.0 Site and its context
1.1 This 0.1ha, roughly rectangular site is indicated by the ‘red line’ within the Paynes Boatyard ‘blue’ line shown below, occupying the streetside-facing south-western corner of the site, whose north-east boundary is set back some 175m from the Harbour shoreline public right of way.
9
1.2 There are other buildings within the site but these are set much closer to the Harbour shoreline. The site is accessed via Thornham Lane - (a single width carriageway with few passing points). Thornham Marina adjoins to the south with a short run of dwellings immediately beyond. Gaff Rig is the first of those dwellings fronting Thornham Lane. The former fire damaged ‘Boaters’ café and other workshop and chandlery buildings of greater scale and massing line the wider south-east corner of Paynes Boatyard. Screening vegetation runs down the north- west, south-west and south-eastern site boundaries, as seen from the aerial photograph below.
10 1.3 In terms of the landscape character assessment commissioned by the Conservancy in 2006, the site is located within area C3 – Thorney Channel Head. Key defining characteristics of this area include –
Broad inlet with a largely undeveloped shoreline. Mudflats and saltmarsh are exposed at low tide, intersected by the main Thorney Channel and the narrower forking Prinsted and Nutbourne Channels. Intricate network of smaller winding channels and rithes. Isolated and undisturbed Nutbourne Marshes are a haven for wildfowl and waders. A few small groups of yachts moored along the line of the main channels. Peaceful, tranquil and undisturbed character. The sensitivity to development/change is high. Some views of the site can be seen below.
11 2.0 Relevant planning history
2.1 13/01463/FUL– Erect shower and toilet facility. Refurbish shed (Conditional approval) 20.8.2013;
2.2 14/00241/FUL – Construct new pontoons and scrap old ones (Condtional approval) 17.4.2014.
3.0 Proposed development
3.1 The application is made in outline with all matters reserved. No indication of the scale or footprint of the dwelling within the site is geven. Although a flood risk asssessment, surface water drainage strategy and nitrogen neutrality report is submitted, the only details about the dwelling within the design and access statement is that it it is to contain 4 bedrooms and provide habitable living accommodation for the operator of the boatyard, who is needed on site to provide for operations at unsocial hours to ensure security fo the boatyard and ensure its on-going viability. No business plan/strategy is submitted indicating the financial perfomance of the site in recent years, nor projected forwards. The preference is for foul drainage to go to a cess pool, which would be periodically emptied by tanker.
3.2 The dwelling would police the entry point to the boatyard and although layout is not submitted for consideration, the applicant asserts that adequate amenity/parking/on-site turning space could be provided.
3.3 The applicant’s reasoned justification for this new dwelling outside of the defined sttlement boundary of Southbourne and recent investment in the boatyard are reproduced as Appendix 1 to this report. No Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted with the application and it seems apparent that the principle of a dwelling is sought in the first instance. The flood risk accessment indicates an internal inished floor level 1.67 m above existing site level is contemplated.
Policy framework*
NPPF-1-3,6-21, 23, 28-30, 34, 38-43, 47-48, 54-56, 59-61, 65, 67-68, 70, 73, 77-81, 83-84, 91, 96-97, 102, 105-106, 109-110, 117, 124-128, 130-131, 148-150, 155, 157- 161, 163, 170, 172, 174-175, 177-180, 182-183, 199, 212-213, 215-216; NPPG – 3a, 6-8, 26, 34; CLP – Policies 1-5, 8-9, 26, 33, 37, 39-40, 42-45, 47-50, 54; POCLP – S1- S5, S8, S20-S28, S31, DM6, DM8-DM9, DM16, DM18-DM20, DM22-DM23, DM25-DM31, DM34; SNP – Policies 1, 4, 5, 7 / SB1, SB4, SB7, SB14, SB15, SB17, SB19, SB20, SB21 (B), SB22; CHMP – 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15; PP – 01, 02, 04, 05, 09; SPD
4.0 Key issues
4.1 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of countryside/biodiversity from inappropriate development –
4.1.1 With the application made in outline with all matters reserved it is not possible to
12 comment on the visual impact of the proposals with any certainty. Although the site is well-screened from Thornham Lane and unlikely to be visible from the shoreline footpath, the FRA says the new dwelling would be raised 1.67m above ground level. It is possible that a 4 bedroomed dwelling could be arranged on one level, given the site size and a planning condition could be imposed to restrict the scale of the new dwelling to a single storey height.
4.1.2 However, given the sensitivity of the site within the AONB, and outline application is not considered the best way of demonstrating the acceptability of its visual impact on the landscape.
4.1.3 The site is currently hard-surfaced and said to be surplus to requirements as a boat storage area. The aerial photograph indicates a line of trees between the remainder of the yard and the red line application site. With no footprint/layout shown though, it is not possible to understand if constructing the dwelling would cause those trees and indeed any between the site and Thornham Lane to be lost. Such loss, if it occurred, would increase the visibility of the new dwelling and also reduce biodiversity per se.
4.1.4 Whereas a scheme of ecological enhancement could be conditioned, it would have been far better for the applicant to have demonstrated a net gain to biodiversity through a full planning application.
4.2 Heritage –
4.2.1 There are no heritage assets close to the site.
4.2.2 There is potential for ground bearing archaeology to be disturbed by the construction of new foundations. The council will ultimately take a view on this if it is minded to grant outline permission. If that is the case, it is recommended that at the very least a watching brief is prepared and any finds recorded and appropriately archived in the council’s Historic Environment Record.
4.3 Flood risk –
4.3.1 According to the Environment Agency’s flood maps, the land lies within Flood Zone 3 (highest risk).
4.3.2 It will be for the Council to run the sequential test and it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The NPPF says that areas of least risk should be developed for new housing first.
4.3.3 Even then, what is then called the ‘exception test’ must then be applied, where the sustainability benefits to the community outweighing the flood risk and the development would be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible will reduce flood risk overall.
4.4 High quality, low carbon design–
4.4.1 The CHC guidance to the design of new buildings around the harbour recommends the use of low visual impact claddings to the elevations in the AONB, as they blend well into the natural landscape. It would be possible to condition the materials
13 palette, but it is again disappointing that the applicant has chosen to make the application in outline.
4.4.2 Sustainable features could be conditioned to achieve a certain level of water usage and thermal efficiency of the dwelling.
4.5 Promoting marine enterprise and allowing people to enjoy the AONB for formal recreation
4.5.1 The Conservancy supports marine enterprise and values a the function of Paynes Boatyard within Chichester Harbour allowing those on a budget to store and launch their boats/enjoying formal boating recreation. It is considered the overall economic success/viability of the boatyard could be a means of community benefit to pass the ‘exception test’ related to flood risk and it might also be possible to design a dwelling to not increase flood risk elsewhere.
4.5.2 However, this has to be where such development is fully compatible with conserving and enhancing the AONB and improving the favourable condition and features of the SSSI/SPA/SAC in the Harbour.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 Whilst being sympathetic to the business and wishing to see it survive, especially after the added hardship the Covid 19 an outline application is not considered the best means to promote a ‘tied’ dwelling at the site.
5.2 A holding objection is therefore made to the proposed development and the applicant is encouraged to withdraw the current application and investigate the various issues that need to be addressed before deciding whether to make a full and detailed re-submission.
SRL - For 7.6.21 CHC Planning Committee
Comments requested by: 28 May 2021: extension of time granted to comment.
*Abbreviations used
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (Revised Feb 2019)
NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014 onwards)
CLP – Chichester Local Plan (2015)
POCLP – Preferred option Chichester Local Plan (2018)
SNP – ‘Made’ version Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan (2015)/submission version for examination/referendum (2021)
CHMP – Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024)
PP – Planning Principles (adopted by The Conservancy 17.10.16 onwards)
SPG/SPD – Planning guidance published by Chichester District Council relating to:
14
• Parking standards (2007)
• Joint CHAONB SPD (2017)
LVIA – Landscape Visual Impact Assessment
15 Agenda Item 4b
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: AP/21/01162/DOM
Site: Land at Apuldram House, Dell Quay Road, Dell Quay, Appledram, Chichester, West Sussex
Proposals: Construction of two-storey garage/annex, replacement open air swimming pool with new pool house and privacy wall enclosure, provision of multi-use games area (no floodlighting) to replace outdoor tennis court
Application details on LPA webpage – https://publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QRLUU8ERGUY00
RECOMMENDATION
(a) That Chichester District Council, as local planning authority be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy raises objection to the proposed development.
That the following planning issues impacting on the AONB are considered to justify an objection to the proposal.
Refusal Overview: The proposal for the works consisting of a two-storey detached self- contained building (the annex) within the grounds of the host dwelling and physically separate from the main dwelling house, is out-of-place and out-of-keeping with this countryside location that lies within the visually important AONB protected national landscape.
Unnecessary erection of a residential building (the annex) in the rural countryside
16 Siting of annex building remote from and unrelated to the host dwelling Size and scale building assessment criteria in the AONB are significantly exceeded Light generation from new glazed areas of the annex building for residential use Wildlife disturbance contribution as mitigation measure not addressed (Solent Bird Aware Initiative) Waste water sewerage systems capacity is not demonstrated or proven
(b) An enlarged domestic swimming pool and new pool house, and the change of outdoor tennis courts to a multi-use games area (without lighting) would physically change the character of the site within the countryside area but due to positioning and scale are not considered to be significantly harmful to the AONB protected national landscape.
Procedural Guidance : Planning Approach to the AONB
Chichester Harbour Conservancy, administer and safeguard the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The aim of conserving and enhancing the areas natural beauty requires the Conservancy to consider the proposal on its landscape character aspects. The landscape covers both countryside and coastal areas as well as rural villages and market town urban environments.
The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty.
The LPA should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.
1.0 Chichester Harbour Policy Guidance
1.1 The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB. The guidance is based upon several planning related documents which the Chichester Harbour Conservancy will take into account in formulating its consultation response to the Local Planning Authority (LPA).
1.2 The AONB Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (update 2019) The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) The AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019)
These principles set a range of criteria to be addressed to warrant a favourable consideration in terms of likely impact within and on the AONB. Planning Principles’ applicable to this proposal include –
PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area PP03: Replacement Dwellings & Domestic Householder Extensions PP04: Creation of New Dwellings and Residential Institutions PP08: New Tourist Accommodation PP09: Dark Skies
17 The Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (2017)
Conservancy Officer’s comments and reasoned justification
2.0 Site Context and Existing Development
2.1 The planning unit / red-line application site is inside the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protected national landscape, where development is subject to more stringent planning guidance to ensure that development respects and enhances the inherent qualities of such a sensitive location.
2.2 Other contextual setting considerations –
The red-line application site indicates the residential planning unit (house and grounds) The proposed development area occupies three separate areas within the red line site The annex proposal occupies land adjacent to the existing garage/garden store The pool house and outdoor swimming pool lies to the south of the dwelling house The multi-use games area (MUGA) is located south-east of the dwelling house The site is not believed to lie within a LPA designated Conservation Area The site is not indicated to be on or close to a building on the scheduled list of buildings of historic or architectural importance The site is confirmed as being within Flood Zone 1: Low Probability of flooding (submitted DAS page 12).
2.3 The red-line site is south of Dell Quay Road and is accessed by a gravel drive to the house, culminating in a large shingle parking area. The property is setback from the road and from the Harbour coastline. The site is bordered by mature coniferous and deciduous trees to all but the shoreline The Edwardian detached house has been extended and within the extensive grounds there are site is an old stables building which is currently serving as a three bay garage with an office over (approx. 9m by 9m and 5m height), a large shed, a wood store an existing tennis court (approx. 35m by 18m) and swimming pool (approx. 10m by 5m). The land is relatively flat with a steep bank along the south-west border down to the harbour with a heavy sleeper retaining wall.
18
3.0 Relevant planning history
3.1 There is no recent or relevant planning history available for this site on the LPA public access website.
4.0 Proposed development and Supporting Documents
4.1 The current application is for full permission for a number of separate works. The main proposal is for the erection of a two-storey detached self-contained habitable ‘annex’ building. This L-shaped outbuilding is shown located in a small corner of the site that has been recently purchased from the neighbouring property. This location gives the opportunity to place the building out of the eyeline of the driveway and entrance.
4.2 The annex would provide two double bedrooms and a family bathroom upstairs. On the ground floor there would be living room (annotated as ‘the barn’), a kitchen, a study, a decontamination area (for use to allow for washing and changing from water- sport activities) with clothes washing/dryer equipment, a shower and toilet. The triple domestic garage is also provided to replace the garage outbuilding that is to be demolished / removed from this location.
19
4.3 The L-shaped building would have external dimensions of approx 17.2m by 12.8m and a ridge height of 6.2m. The total ground floor external gross area coverage would be approx. 153.76sqm. The materials are indicated with walls being brickwork with flint panels or vertical timber cladding, and red clay tiles to the main roof slopes and zinc cladding sheets (autumn red coloured) to the lower roof link sections.
4.4 Other proposals relate to the replacement and enlargement of the outdoor open air swimming pool and the construction of a pool house. The swimming pool would be orientated 90-degrees to the existing pool and enlarged to dimensions of 12m by 6m. The pool house would have changing room, shower, toilet, plant room, and garden /sunroom. The pool house would be approx. 8.2m by 5.2m with a ridge height of 4.5m. The materials are indicated as brick and flint walls with a natural clay tile roof. The design is traditional with a ridged roof.
4.4 Finally, the proposal seeks the replacement and re-siting of the outdoor tennis court with a multi-use games area (MUGA). The submitted plans and drawings do not show any floodlighting to the proposal. The MUGA dimensions are indicated as 35m by 17m with an enclosing mesh wire fence of 2.75m in height.
4.5 The submitted Design and Access Statement (page 13) considers that the proposals have a minimal affect upon the Chichester AONB due to the scale and layout of the scheme. The buildings are set back from the shoreline and obscured by the house and topography. Where visible, the traditional blend of materials and form respects the local vernacular. This view is considered below (Section 6).
4.6 Submitted in support of the application documents (forms, plans and drawings) and relevant to the AONB consideration are a Design and Access Statement (including a FRA).
5.0 Applicants Approach to the AONB protected landscape
5.1 The site lies inside the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
20 The submission has made no specific consideration of the application proposal within the context and setting of the AONB. The proposal has made no acknowledgement of the status of the AONB and Management Plan. There is no recognition made to the AONB planning policy documents relevant to the consideration of the proposal (see above in Planning Approach section). Furthermore, the applicant has failed to make any reference to the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty Joint Supplementary Planning Document. The proposal has therefore apparently been made with minimal knowledge of the status of the AONB or with a level of understanding that would be considered necessary and appropriate given the nationally recognised protected status of the AONB.
6.0 AONB Planning Considerations
6.1 The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty (see procedural guidance note above). The overarching principle, PP01 is applicable to the proposal. Any development in, or affecting the setting of, the AONB should be guided by the four principles as indciated in Section 2 of the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) in order to protect, conserve and enhance natural beauty and wildlife.
6.2 The principle of the development to the AONB protected landscape needs to be considered. The AONB Planning Principles are applicable to the AONB protected landscape and development that impacts upon the protected landscape. The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB protected landscape from or by this proposal.
6.3 The consideration would require a full and detailed assessment of the potential, possible, and probable impact to the character and appearance of the site and locality of the AONB protected landscape. The main AONB protected landscape Planning Principle policy assessment issues to be considered for this site relate to –
1. AONB Planning Principle policy considerations applicable to the proposal
6.4 The site inside the AONB protected landscape. The Chichester Harbour Management Plan Policy-1 Conserving and Enhancing the Landscape, Policy-2 Development Management, and Policy-3 Diversity of Habitats, are relevant. The relevant AONB Planning Principle guidance is PP01, PP03, PP04, and PP08. The proposal also seeks glazing details which fall within the scope of PP09 considerations.
6.5 The principle use needs to be considered. The erection of the separate, detached and remote ‘annex’ building would be considered under PP03 if secured as ancillary to the main dwelling; under PP04 if forming a separate occupied unit of residential accommodation; or PP08 if to be operated as a tourism accommodation let. All three options are easily applicable unless appropriate legal agreement limitations are applied by the LPA to secure only the use intended.
6.6 If considered as a “Domestic Householder Extension”, AONB PP03 considers the proposal against size increase criteria, in ground floor footprint and building mass silhouette and building bulk profile. There is also a requirement not in increase
21 waterside frontage to a level that detracts from the openness or rural character of the coastal landscape. Design, use of materials and the spatial pattern to surrounding areas should all be acceptable. In this submission, for the assessment findings below (paras. 6.13-6.14), the requirements of AONB PP03 are not considered to be met.
The ‘annex’ building increase in ground floor footprint to that of the garage outbuilding it replaces on/adjacent to the siting location is over the 50% guidance maximum limit. The building scale as measured by the elevation silhouette is over the 25% guidance maximum limit. The building is screened from the coastline by exisitng buildings and landscaping. The design is traditional and materials acceptable in the main. The development-grain spacing would be acceptable.
6.7 If considered as a “New Dwelling”, ANOB PP04 requires development to address key AONB criteria of settlement location (together with a local or economic need), wastewater capacity, recreational disturbance mitigation and that biodiversity net gains achieved. In this submission, for the assessment findings below (paras. 6.12; 6.18-6.28), the requirements of AONB PP04 are not considered to be met.
The proposal does not lie within an existing settlement boundary. The land has not been allocated for residential development through the statutory Local Plan process. The proposals make no local or economic need justification to be sited here. The surface water and foul water drainage is not clear and fails to identify that there is enough headroom capacity exists in wastewater sewage treatment works infrastructure to serve the development. There is no contribution made towards recreational disturbance mitigation. The biodiversity situation makes no reference to any net improvement.
6.8 If considered as “Toursit Accommodation”, AONB PP08 requires the consideration of visual intrusion, noise, increased recreational activity and any erosion of rural character. In this submission, for the assessment findings below (paras. 6.25; 6.28), the requirments of AONB PP08 are not considered to be met.
The ‘annex’ building visual intrusion is limited due to the positioning on site. The likely noise generation for the building is hard to quantify. The PP08 use would generate increased recreational activity in the locality. The visual rural character is unlikley to be significantly impacted upon.
6.9 AONB PP09:Dark Skies is applicable to proposals within a countryside, coastal or semi-rural location where light illumination would have a wider impact and influence than only to the site and immediate surrounds, and could create a visual impact to the AONB protected landscape setting. In this submission, for the assessment findings below (paras. 6.18), the requirements of AONB PP09 are not considered to be met.
2. Relevant planning history implications for the proposal
22 6.10 There are no recent or relevant planning history records that have a significant bearing on the consideration of the current proposal.
3. The principle of the use and activity of the development to the AONB landscape
6.11 The proposed use (dependent on AONB PP03; ANOB PP04; or AONB PP08) would involve the occupation of two-storey building as a self-contained ‘annex’. The building has an independent access to that of the main dwelling, cooking and food preparation areas, and bathing and toilet areas. There is no clear requirement for occupation to be ancillary to the main dwelling on the site.
4. The positioning, layout design, and visual character and impact to the AONB
6.12 The principle of the proposed use and activity has to be considered alongside its relationship to the land which surrounds it. The site does not lie within a defined settlement. The proposed two-storey ‘annex’ has a visual impact to the character and appearance of the locality, however due to its positioning and screening by exisitng buildings, landscaping and by distance from vantage points, the visual impact is limited.
5. The proposed physical works, scale, massing and bulk on the AONB landscape
6.13 The principle of the proposed physical works, scale and massing / bulk would be a recognisable change from the exisitng situation in this rural countryside location. The size, scale, mass and bulk of the ‘annex’ proposal would require detailed examination if to be considered within the surrounding environment.
6.14 The ‘annex’ proposal when compared against the existing triple domestic garage shows a ground floor area footprint increase of 89.82%, clearly in excess of the PP03 building increase guidance. In terms of silhouette, the front/rear elevation has a substantial 115.38% increase on building profile, the side elevations have a 63.06% increase in silhouette profile. Both are in excess of the guidance allowances. The current proposal ‘annex’ building is also 1.2m higher to ridge line than the garage building.
Annex location Existing Proposed Difference PP03 garage annex Ground Floor Area 81.0 sqm 153.76 sqm 72.76 sqm / over Footprint 89.82% 50% Front (W)/ Rear (E) 39.0 sqm 84.0 sqm 45 sqm / 115.38% over Silhouette 25% Sides (N-S) Elevation 37.8 sqm 61.64 sqm 23.84 sqm / over Silhouette 63.06% 25% Building height to ridge 5.0m 6.2m 1.2m / 24% n/a approx. figures only throughout figures from public access page measuring tool
6.15 The impact of the new enlarged and reorientated domestic ground inset swimming pool has little visual impact, although the screen wall enclousre to the pool side
23 surrounds would have some visible prescence. The proposed new pool building is a new structure, but due to its positioning and size, would have a limited impact. The replacement MUGA to the tennis court area, enlarges the area of domestic outddor court recreational activity, but the greater expance of enlosure fencing would be unlikley to have a visual imapct outside of the site, due to positioning and exisitng building and landscape boundary treatment.
6.16 The scale, massing, bulk, must also be assessed alongside the impact in building design and character.
6. The building design, visual character, appearance and finished treatment
6.17 The design and finished treatment of the proposed outbuildings (the annex and the pool house) are considered to be sympathetic and reflect the main dwelling. The design to both structures is traditional with ridged roof areas and generally acceptable in a countryside location.
7. The impact on the tranquility and natural environment (wildlife & biodiversity)
6.18 The additional accommodation within the ‘annex’ structure would be likely to generate additional lighting from the use and activity of the dwelling and from visits to and from the building, which would add to the light pollution within this rural area. This would be contrary to PP09 unless suitable and reliable glazing blinds could be secured. There are no proposals to limit unnecessary light generation from the site, contrary to the requirements of the Dark Skies protocol (Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD Section 30, and AONB PP09). Without external light limitation measures the effects on the scenic quality of dark night skies within the surrounds would be further harmed. The proposal fails to make any concessions to this AONB PP09 Planning Principle.
6.19 The use and activity associated with the proposal on the rural character and tranquility of the nearby AONB protected landscape would be difficult to measure, other than to agree that as a proposal under AONB PP04 and AONB PP08 the additional household activity would generate additional traffic and human activity in the immediate locality over and above that of the exisitng dwelling house on the site. The tranquillity of the locality would be eroded through this additional activity.
24 6.20 The potential noise impact resulting from the proposed development and activity would be difficult to assess without further submitted details. The usual noise profile of a residential development is unlikley to be a significant issue in terms of any likely noise implications to the AONB protected landscape.
6.21 It is understood from case law that a local planning authority must not determine an application until the absence of protected species from the site or a method statement where presence is established has been undertaken.
6.22 The development will result in an increased level of human activity within the site and areas surrounding the site. This is likely to result in increased disturbance of wildlife. The likley direct effects of the proposal on the wildlife, biodiversity and general environmental quality of the AONB protected landscape environment is however considered to be limited.
8. Associated environmental effects and possible mitigation measures
6.23 Although the exisitng domestic garden has generally relatively little wildlife ecological value, the scale of the development, with an enlarged swimming pool and enlarged outdoor recreational court area, will significantly erode the open space available for local wildlife. This could be mitigated to some extent by the provision of on site ecological enhancements, such as the provision of bat and bird boxes, hedgehog houses, etc. None have been indicated in the submission. Existing trees and hedges and any other green infrastructure should be retained, particularly where providing screening from surrounding external areas.
6.24 P.U.S.H. which includes Chichester District Council, have formed a partnership and commissioned studies into recreational impact and an interim mitigation strategy - the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Definitive Strategy – which has been adopted by partners, including the Conservancy, and has the support of Natural England. Under the European Habitats Regulations, such mitigation must be secured before affected development can be supported.
6.25 The proposal if approved, creates the obvious potential beyond that for ancillary accommodation (AONB PP03 consideration) for a new residential unit on the land (AONB PP04 consideration), or a lettable unit for tourist accommodation (AONB PP08 consideration). These uses would need to address the recreational disturbance mitigation for such development. There is no acknowledgement or acceptance of this in the submission or acceptance of the need to make a contribution towards the Solent Bird Aware Initiative.
6.26 The proposal has made no reference to surface water and a foul water drainage (AONB PP04 concerns). The advice of the NPPF in respect of surface water run-off is that flow rates after the development should be no greater than the existing circumstance. The submission has not established this would be the result.
6.27 The submssion does not clearly identify that there is enough headroom capacity existing in wastewater sewage treatment works infrastructure to serve the development of the housing estate (AONB PP04 criteria). The Conservancy needs to
25 be persuaded by Southern Water that adequate headroom capacity exists at the Thornham waste-water treatment works and that water quality in and the delicate ecology of Chichester Harbour SPA will not be compromised.
6.28 Due to the uncertainty that the proposal can be accommodated by exisitng waste- water treatment infrastructure without causing harm to coastal designated sites, Natural England guidance is that all new development proposals (AONB PP04 and AONB PP08 considerations) should achieve nitrogen neutrality. The submission makes not nutrient balancing assessment or Total Nitrate (TN) discharge information. The development (under AONB PP04 and PP08 considerations) has the potential to result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the Solent coastal sites. Mitigation measures could be needed, but this information is lacking.
Conclusion
1. The site lies within the AONB protected landscape and its the supporting wider environment. The development area of the red-line site lies outside of a settlement policy area and therefore within the countryside.
2. The proposal would introduce in the ‘annes’ a self-contained unit of residential occupation. This is inferred as a ancillary building for accommodation to the main/host dwelling, however, the nature of the self-containment raises planning use qustions which have to be addressed to avoiud a change of use by stealth or opportunity, now or over time.
3 The proposal within the AONB should be considered against published AONB Policies, including the AONB Planning Principles. In this case, the Planning Principles are PP01, PP03, PP04, PP08 and PP09. Against these criteria (some being mutually inclusive, some being separate or exclusive), the proposal is found to fail the policy guidance.
4. The proposal can be seen to compromise the aspects of the Chichester Harbour AONB protected landscape designation planning approach, and therefore is seen as being harmful to a UK National Landscape area.
CHC Planning Committee Process
DR - prepared for 07.06.2021 CHC Planning Committee (meeting to be held in public) Assessment 26-05-2021 LPA request reply 15-06-2021 Chichester Harbour AONB Case Assessor: David Rothery LPA Planning Case Officer: Maria Thompson
This recommendation is made having regard to the Policy framework: - Chichester Harbour Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024) - Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document SPD (2017) - National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) - National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) - Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015)
26
Visit our webpage – www.conservancy.co.uk/page/planning Chichester Harbour Conservancy manage and advise on the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty One of the UK’s National Landscapes
SELF-CONTAINED ANNEX BUILDING WITH GARAGING
POOL HOUSE BUILDING
27 Agenda Item 4c
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: WI/21/01105/FUL
Site: Spinney Cottage Spinney Lane Itchenor PO20 7DJ
Proposals: Demolition of existing dwelling, 3 no. sheds and 2 no. outbuildings, replaced with 1 no. dwelling, 1 no. detached garage/outbuilding with PV solar panels, swimming pool and associated works
Recommendation – Objection: bulk and mass considered excessive across the width of the plot. Garage considered too tall and prominent forward of the replacement house.
Conservancy Officers’ reasoned justification
1.0 Site and its context
1.1 The 0.46 ha site falls outside with the West Itchenor Conservation Area boundary, within the AONB. Spinney Lane is a private road but serves as a public right of way linking Itchenor Road with Westlands Lane. The site location is shown below edged red. This large plot contains one detached dwelling (323 sq.m footprint including several outbuildings, including a barn style garage building in the south east corner of the property, standing between the dwelling and the treed harbour shoreline.
1.2 The street sits within character Area 7 of the West Itchenor Village Design Statement (2nd edition, 2012), where the street is characterised by substantial detached properties set in very large, verdant plots. Many have been redeveloped or extended. The existing house is built of red brick and clad with clay plain tiles.
1.3 The existing house is the amalgamation of 2no. historic brick cottages, built in brick with a complicated hipped, plain clay tile roof. The existing dwelling sits forward
28 of its neighbours and extends across the majority of the site width. Mature oak trees by the shoreline screen provide a significant amount of screening meaning this property is far less visible from the Harbour than its neighbours.
29 1.4 The diagram below shows the existing dwelling’s context to its neighbours east and west. I could not find any record of a TPO affecting the site on the Council’s webpages.
2.0 Relevant planning history
2.1 The existing dwelling appears to pre-date the introduction of planning control, possibly 1930’s vintage.
2.2 The Council website details a number of applications over the years including the refusal of a 2 storey rear extension in 1993, albeit an amended design secured permission on re-application the same year.
2.3 The applicant engaged with The Conservancy prior to making this planning application, where a number of criticisms were made to the initial design, particularly increasing the width of the footprint/massing to the east, lack of varied roofline, loss of a mature tree and disproportionate amount of glazing to the north (Harbour) elevation. The design of the scheme has been adjusted somewhat as a result of comments made.
3.0 Proposed development
3.1 All would be demolished apart from one outbuilding occupying the south-east corner of the site. The agent sets out that although well maintained, the dwelling is a collection of small rooms with a poor flow not suited to family living, not well insulated and whose electrical and plumbing systems need upgrading. It is therefore proposed to replace the dwelling, with a new, 5 bed, two-storeyed house.
3.2 It is proposed to site the replacement dwelling further back from the street. It has been designed within a ‘New England’ aesthetic - (something discouraged in CHAONB Supplementary Planning Document) – in a palette of materials that
30 includes red and white cedar shingles, cedar boarding and stone. Extensive glazed areas are still proposed facing the Harbour , offering connection to the landscape and proposed open swimming pool (seen below) with smaller glazed areas facing the street to reduce solar gain.
3.3 The Silhouette would increase by 22% by my calculation (not 15% set out in the agent’s statement) to the street/the Harbour. The footprint would increase by just over 46%. The amount of glazing is now said to be 16% of the north elevation.
31 3.4 The applicant states that the roofline is now more varied than at the pre-application stage, dropping in height as one moves from the centre to the edges, with the highest ridge line only 300mm above the existing 12.434 AOD. (The pre- application north elevation is illustrated above, compared to that now proposed).
3.5 The number of rooflights have been reduced (some replaced by sunpipes), albeit the glazing to the central ridge line continues to feature (poorly related to the dormer window width below it), giving light to a central stairwell, even though that is lit front and back by elevations windows.
3.6 The new detached, triple bay garage has been given a setback gablet style roof and lower apron roof to reduce the bulk of the building and pulled back in line with the outbuilding at ‘Tide Mark’ to the west. Its roof ridge is still scaling at 5.4m high, with no apparent first floor within the building space. Its south and east elevation is shown below, the former in the context of the proposed street north elevation and ground floor site layout of the replacement dwelling.
3.7 In terms of sustainable construction the agent says this will be achieved through a ‘whole building design approach’ integrating environmental performance, accessibility, cost effectiveness, function, preservation, security and aesthetic in ‘fabric first’ decisions, including :
• High levels of thermal insulation in the walls, floors and roof to reduced heating demand
• High levels of air tightness to reduce heat loss
• Specification of glazing to improve daylight levels / reduce solar gain
32 • Sustainable resourcing of materials
• Solar panels are shown to both roof slopes of the garage block (within which electric vehicle charging is being considered by the applicant).
3.8 In terms of materials, walls are to be clad with western red cedar cladding and stone work, including Portland Stone window cills/lintels. The roof is to be clad with western red cedar shingles.
3.9 Phase I & II ecological surveys have been carried out. These concluded bats were present in the area and roosting within existing buildings. and recommend a licence would be required from Natural England to move the bats, with new bat boxes to be provided at the site and external lighting strictly limited/carefully designed. Nesting birds were noted at the site: any vegetation/building clearance to be carried out outside of the bird breeding/nesting season. Survey diagram shown below.
3.10 5 trees are shown for removal, but these are graded ‘C’ and main higher graded trees between the Harbour and replacement house are shown being retained.
Policy framework*
* NPPF – 1-3, 6-12, 28, 38-42, 47-48, 54-55, 91, 102, 105-106, 109-110, 124-128, 130-131, 148-150, 155, 163-164, 170-172, 174-175, 180, Chapter 16, 212-213; NPPG – ID’s 6-8, 18a, 21a, 23a, 26, 31; CLP - 1, 22, 33, 39, 43- 45, 47-49; POCLP – S1, S18, S20, S22, S25-S27, DM16, DM18-DM19, DM23, DM27-DM29, DM31; CHMP – 1-2, 15; PP – 01, 03, 09; SPG/SPD.
33 4.0 Key issues
4.1 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of the Chichester Harbour AONB/rural area/biodiversity from inappropriate development
4.1.1 This is a very large plot, but notwithstanding welcome amendments made to the roof design, elevational composition, reduction in glazing proportions, I remain concerned about increased bulk across the width of the plot, which only seems to be justified by a desire that all bedrooms should enjoy an aspect to the Harbour.
4.1.2 Small features still also jar, including the glazing to the central ridge line. The garage block is still far too tall/bulky, sat in a very prominent position to the street
4.1.3 If the Council is minded to grant permission it will note the ecological and arboricultural impact assessments/survey conclusions and recommendations and reflect these in a decision notice.
4.2 Heritage –
4.2.1 There are no built heritage assets close to the site. The nearest is the St.Nicholas’ church some distance to the south-west and there is no intervisibility with that building and the application site.
4.2.2 There is potential for ground bearing archaeology to be disturbed by the construction of new foundations. The council will ultimately take a view on this, but it is recommended that at the very least a watching brief is prepared and any finds recorded and appropriately archived in the council’s Historic Environment Record, if the council is ultimately minded to grant planning permission.
34 4.3 Flood risk –
4.3.1 The site of the proposed dwelling footprint is in Environment Agency flood zone 1 (least risk), although more northern parts of the site are within zones 2 and 3, spaced some distance away from the replacement house. It is not proposed to have a finished internal floor level higher than the existing dwelling, albeit resilience measures are set out in the design and access statement. If the council is minded to grant permission, it should be satisfied that an adequate surface water drainage solution is agreed – preferably through the use of SUDS which could offer some biodiversity enhancement.
4.4 High quality, low carbon design –
4.4.1 The applicant has clearly considered such matters, even if final decisions on some actual measures to be included has not been determined yet.
4.4.2 Sustainable construction could ultimately be delivered through a planning condition, to deliver those matters recommended in the applicant’s sustainability measures listed in the DAS.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 The principle of a replacement dwelling is accepted, but the overall massing of the proposals and width across the plot still needs further modification to secure a consent and ensure that the AONB is conserved and enhanced.
5.2 The applicant is encouraged to withdraw the current application and prepare a more sensitive design solution, which ought to be entirely possible.
Buildings to be demolished
35 *Abbreviations used:
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework (Revised February 2019)
NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance (2014)
CLP – Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015)
POCLP – Preferred option Chichester Local Plan (2018)
CHMP – Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024
PP – CHC Planning Principles (adopted by CHC 17.10.16)
SPG/SPD –
Joint CH AONB SPD (2017)
West Itchenor Village Design Statement (2nd edition 2012)
Parking standards
DAS – Design and access statement
SUDS – Sustainable urban drainage systems
SRL - For 7.6.21 CHC Planning Committee
Comments requested by: 7 June 2021.
36 Agenda item 5
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY
PLANNING COMMITTEE
07 JUNE 2021
PP19 HOUSEBOATS CONSULTATION
REPORT BY THE AONB MANAGER
1.0 Introduction
1.1 In recent years there has been a surge of demand for houseboats. This has contributed to a growing sense of unrest about the presence of new houseboats at Birdham Pool, Chichester Marina, and Thornham Marina. In addition, the box-like structures of new houseboats along the Chichester Canal have also been scrutinised.
1.2 In response to that, the Conservancy developed a new Planning Principle to help guide the response of the Planning Committee and the Principal Planning Officers when considering new applications for houseboats.
1.3 The draft Planning Principle was sense-checked by a legal expert and the Clerk to the Conservancy. It then was subject to a public consultation between 12 March and 30 April 2021.
1.4 The Conservancy received 24 responses to the consultation, constituting 37 pages. The full response was shared with Members on 17 May 2021. A summary report of the finding was published on the Conservancy’s website thereafter.
2.0 Headline Recommendations
2.1 Although many respondents flagged-up dissatisfaction with the definition of a houseboat under the 1971 Act, there was little agreement as to how a houseboat should be defined.
Recommendation 1
That the Conservancy do not attempt to revise the definition as stated in the 1971 Act. Despite being in place for 50 years, it remains clear and fit for purpose. Any attempt to revise the legislation is likely to be highly controversial.
2.2 There was a general lack of clarity as to the powers of the Conservancy and the Local Planning Authorities. This affects houseboats within the Limits of the Harbour and whether a houseboat in a marina requires Change of Use permission.
Recommendation 2
That the Conservancy work with the Local Planning Authorities to establish the regulatory framework for houseboats. This must then be communicated to marinas, parish councils, etc.
2.3 It was felt that the modern box-like design of some houseboats is out of the keeping with the area. However, it is noted that although some may view a marina as like a ‘Conservation Area,’ this is misleading. Marinas are businesses that must evolve and adapt as society changes.
37 Recommendation 3
That the Conservancy asks the Local Planning Authorities to either adapt the existing Joint Supplementary Planning Document to include houseboats or develops a new SPD to guide the design of houseboats.
2.4 Respondents welcomed the chance to have their say about houseboats thereby validating the consultation. However, it has raised more questions than answers.
Recommendation 4
Planning Principle 19 should be put on-hold until such time as Recommendations 2 and 3 are resolved.
3.0 For Discussion
3.1 Members are advised to discuss the houseboats consultation, the outcome, and the four recommendations outlined in Section 2.
3.2 Its advised that houseboats continue to be an item for the Planning Committee to consider for the foreseeable future.
Richard Austin
AONB Manager
38 VECTOR MASTER ARTWORK CMYK FOR PRINT. AND PANTONE SWATCH for screen print Planning Principle 19: Houseboats
Consultation Report PANTONE SWATCH FOR SCREEN PRINT
CMYK. FOR PRINT
PANTONE 281C C100. M 0. Y 0. K 0.
Pantone CYAN 100% C 100. M83. Y 0. K 42.
Chris Mitchell trading as Epic Icons Date: Sent: 29th Jan2019 Job Title: Brand Identity www.epicicons.com Job no: 2336 Job Description: Dark on light version [email protected] Client: Chichester Harbour Useage: PRINT T: +44 (0) 1243 572 099 Conservancy Between 12 March and 30 April 2021, Chichester Client Contact: Richard Craven Harbour Conservancy held a public consultation on a draft new Planning Principle 19: Houseboats.
The 4-page consultation document is available to read at: https://www.conservancy.co.uk/page/planning
This consultation report summarises some of the headline findings and next steps.
The Conservancy received 24 responses, collectively comprising 37 pages.
We received responses from:
• Marinas (3)
• Statutory Authorities (Chichester District Council, the Ministry of Defence) (2)
• Parish Councils / Residents’ Associations (Birdham, West Wittering, Chidham & Hambrook, Emsworth) (4)
• A Berth Holders Association (1)
• Private Berth Holders (4)
• Local Residents (4)
• Other General Comments (6)
continues >
39 www.conservancy.co.uk VECTOR MASTER ARTWORK CMYK FOR PRINT. AND PANTONE SWATCH for screen print
Planning Principle 19: Houseboats Consultation Report
PANTONE SWATCH FOR SCREEN PRINT
CMYK. FOR PRINT
PANTONE 281C Indicative Findings C100. M 0. Y 0. K 0. Pantone CYAN 100% C 100. M83. Y 0. K 42.
Some of the general themes that arose out of consultation are as follows. Chris Mitchell trading as Epic Icons Date: Sent: 29th Jan2019 Job Title: Brand Identity www.epicicons.com Job no: 2336 Job Description: Dark on light version [email protected] Client: Chichester Harbour Useage: PRINT T: +44 (0) 1243 572 099 Conservancy Client Contact: Richard Craven • Most respondents welcomed the new planning matter and its • It was unclear to some respondents how a houseboat could ever be a consultation and offered to provide further assistance to the hazard to navigation. This needs to be better explained. Conservancy later if it would be helpful. All respondents felt that new • Several respondents said that the proposed need for marinas to regulation of houseboats was needed; however, there were mixed views evidence that the introduction of houseboats was essential for the as to what that should entail. continued economic viability of the business was superfluous and should • It was felt by many that the definition of a houseboat, as defined in the therefore be removed. Chichester Harbour Conservancy Act of 1971, needs to be updated, • The economic benefits of marina businesses diversifying, in terms of although feedback varied from a requesting a more flexible definition, to attracting tourism, were not considered as part of the Planning Principle. those looking for a stronger definition. • Some respondents thought that provision of houseboats must be • The jurisdiction of the Conservancy and the Local Planning Authority compliant with the adopted Neighbourhood Plan for the area, and needs to be clearer. Some respondents did not fully understand the they should not be introduced unless it is included in an adopted scope of the Conservancy’s powers under the 1971 Act of Parliament. Neighbourhood Plan. With respect to houseboats, there was a call for the Conservancy’s powers to be extended beyond the Limits of the Harbour (the main • An influx of visitors may add extra pressure to the infrastructure of the body of water) to also cover marinas impounded by a sea wall and the marinas, in terms of visitor pressure, wastewater provision, access to Chichester Canal. services, parking, light pollution, noise pollution, etc. Some respondents felt these potential issues have not yet been properly considered by • Some respondents would like to see houseboats (or equivalent) require the marinas. Most respondents agreed that wastewater provision is an planning permission for Change of Use if they are permanently moored important factor so as not to pollute the Harbour. in a marina. It was pointed out that new ancillary buildings may also require planning permission and should not be overlooked. • Anecdotally, the domestication of the land adjacent to Chichester Canal has resulted in a gradual loss of wildlife and character. • Some respondents thought that the box-like design of some modern houseboats is not in keeping with the character of the area, explaining that the high elevation detracted from the natural beauty of the Harbour Next Steps and the traditional setting of a marina. It was also noted that these structures can block the views of others and compromise the privacy • The Conservancy will continue to consider the draft wording Planning of neighbouring users. Principle 19: Houseboats in the context of all the feedback received to the consultation. • The existing Joint Supplementary Planning Document for Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty either needs to be updated • The Local Planning Authorities will continue to be engaged. to specifically include a section on houseboats, or a new SPD should be considered altogether. As well as design, this should encourage
excellence in terms of the use of renewable energies. 40 www.conservancy.co.uk Agenda item 6
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY
PLANNING COMMITTEE
07 JUNE 2021
BEAUTY STILL BETRAYED: THE STATE OF OUR AONBS IN 2021 –
FOR DISCUSSION
REPORT BY THE AONB MANAGER
1.0 Introduction
1.1 On 22 April 2021, a new report titled ‘Beauty Still Betrayed: The State of our AONBs in 2021’ was published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). The countryside charity is calling on the Government to halt what it called “reckless development” in and adjacent to protected landscapes, and to prevent high levels of housing pressure in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in its upcoming Planning Bill.
1.2 The Report found that:
Pressure for housing development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Sussex is particularly high. Since 2012, the amount of greenfield land in England’s Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty that will be built on has more than doubled (129% increase). Such development is ‘land hungry’ and is not solving the affordable housing crisis. In the last four years alone, planning permissions to build over 900 homes in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been granted. There is high housing pressure on land around AONBs, with the number of homes built in the setting (within 500 meters of the boundary) increasing by 135% since 2012. England badly needs a better land use planning strategy that accounts for climate change, maximises the use of brownfield land, provides badly needed affordable housing, ensures our food supply, and connects nature rather than fragmenting it.
1.3 The CPRE press release said, “Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are some of our most precious landscapes, which many people would expect to mean that they are safe from being built on. But even though these areas have the strongest protections available in planning law, they are falling foul to an increasing amount of rapid and reckless housing development, according to new analysis from CPRE, the countryside charity.”
“Threats to England’s 34 AONBs from development is increasing at an alarming rate – ‘Beauty still betrayed: The state of our AONBs 2021’ report reveals a 129% increase in the amount of greenfield land planned to be built over. The research, conducted by Glenigan Consultancy for CPRE, has found that high housing pressure on land around AONBs, with the number of homes built in the setting (within 500 meters of the boundary) increasing by 135% since 2012.”
“There is a different kind of north/south divide when it comes to threats to our AONBs, with particular pressure on AONB land in the south west and south east of England. Only four AONB areas - High Weald, Cotswolds, Dorset and Chilterns - have accounted for over half (52%) of all greenfield development in AONBs, with
41 the High Weald AONB seeing the highest development pressure with 932 housing units on greenfield land approved since 2017.”
“It is clear this kind of sprawling development is bad for people, nature and the countryside. The research found that the developments on AONBs use up twice as much land compared to the national average for developments. Yet only 16% of the homes built in AONBs are considered affordable even by the government's own definition. Clear evidence shows that the real affordability of housing in many rural areas is much worse than the government estimates. Tragically, the kind of housing currently being provided will do little to tackle the affordable housing crisis, while concreting over precious countryside and setting back action to tackle the climate and nature emergencies.”
1.4 The Report includes two case studies, one at the High Weald AONB, and the other at Chichester Harbour AONB.
2.0 Comment
2.1 The update report, ‘Beauty Still Betrayed’ indicates that the warning presented in the previous CPRE publication of 2017, called ‘Beauty Betrayed,’ have not been heeded. AONBs continue to be far more exposed to major developments in and around their boundary than National Park are (note: National Park Authorities are Local Planning Authorities, whereas AONB Partnerships are not).
2.2 The case study of Chichester Harbour refers to the land constraints, with countryside squeezed between the AONB and the National Park, the delay to the Chichester Local Plan resulting in speculative development applications, and the downgrading of the status of the SSSI in February 2021.
2.3 It is huge cause of concern that Chichester Harbour AONB has been highlighted as an example of policy failures directly harming the landscape and SSSI.
2.4 The AONB Manager has sent the Report to Defra to strengthen the case for Statutory Consultee status. Copies have also been sent to the two Local Planning Authorities.
3.0 For Discussion
3.1 Members are advised to note and discuss the new CPRE Report and recommend any further actions if required.
Richard Austin
AONB Manager
42
Beauty still betrayed The state of our AONBs 2021 April 2021
43
Beauty still betrayed: State of our AONBs 2021
Executive summary Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), are some of the UK's most distinctive and cherished landscapes. Despite this, for several years there have been concerns about an ambiguity in the policy wording that underpins the planning protection for AONBs. This is leading to local authorities finding difficulty in applying weight to the AONB designation under the pressure placed on them to find land for housing to meet ‘objectively assessed need’. This report from CPRE, the countryside charity, highlights the extent of the threat facing England’s 34 AONBs as a result of unsuitable housing developments. The main findings are: The threat to AONBs from development is increasing with pressure targeted on the south east and south west of England. Since 2017/18, an average of 1,670 housing units have been approved on an average of 119 hectares (ha) of greenfield land within AONBs each year. This is an average increase of 27% and 129% from the five years leading to 2017, respectively. Housing pressure in the south east and south west is most intense, with 85% of greenfield housing units being granted in AONBs in these regions. The majority of planning applications on greenfield AONB land are allowed, and are being built at low densities; they are also not providing the affordable homes that rural communities need. On average, 80% of planning applications on greenfield AONB land are given permission. The density of housing on greenfield AONB land is on average just 16 dwellings per hectare, the focus of which is largely on building ‘executive’ houses with only 16% of all homes built being considered as affordable by the government’s definition. High housing pressure is also being translated to land around AONBs, with houses built in the setting of AONBs increasing by 135% since 2012/13.
To ensure that these special landscapes are safeguarded and are receiving the highest level of protection against development, CPRE recommends: A new requirement for the government and local planning authorities to maintain and publish annual information on the number of housing units that are permitted or refused in AONBs, and the amount of land developed for housing. Prioritising small scale affordable and social homes for local people, held by the community in perpetuity, on sustainable AONB sites. The public interest in conserving and enhancing AONBs should be prioritised over meeting and delivering on local plan housing targets. AONB partnerships should be treated as statutory consultees on major developments within or in the setting of AONBs, with a requirement for local authorities to give weight to their advice. The NPPF should be strengthened to prevent high levels of development in the setting of AONBs, all of which should be of a sensitive scale, location and design and only be permitted if it results in no adverse impacts on the AONB.
44
1. Introduction Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), are some of the UK's most distinctive and cherished landscapes. With England having 34 of the UK’s 46 AONBs, they are one of our countryside’s ‘jewels in the crown’, and with millions of people visiting these areas each year, they are clearly regarded as such. While their beauty is a recognised as a treasured national resource, AONBs are also home to vibrant rural communities and businesses, the success of which are interdependent on the conservation and enhancement of these landscapes. Designated for their natural beauty, wildlife, cultural heritage and recreational opportunities, AONBs are safeguarded in the national interest, which means that – alongside National Parks – they are offered the highest level of protection from development. However, for several years there have been concerns as to an ambiguity in the policy wording that underpins the planning protection for AONBs. AONBs, especially those in the south east and south west of England, are under considerable and growing pressure from large scale housing development. Local planning authorities (LPAs) often find difficulty in interpreting and applying weight to the AONB designation under the pressure placed on them by the government to find land for housing to meet ‘objectively assessed need’ as set out in national planning policy. This has, in CPRE’s view, resulted in a shift in planning priorities from landscape protection to addressing the housing shortage and boosting supply. While we recognise that homes need to be built to meet the needs of communities, we have seen repeatedly that this is not the case when the numbers of houses built is the focus. Needless development in AONBs is a direct threat to the statutory-purpose of AONBs which is to ‘conserve and enhance natural beauty’. Any development should happen with the upmost sensitivity to the needs of agriculture, forestry and other rural industries, as well as the economic and social needs of the local communities. As well as the statutory purposes of AONBs, we gain several kinds of benefits from protecting these areas and these benefits should not be overlooked. The conservation and enhancement of England’s countryside is crucial in terms of mitigating the effects and extent of climate change through carbon sequestration. More natural environments also provide a space for nature, and a high bar in terms of environment quality in which environmental enhancement can begin. There is also a clear public appreciation of green space and countryside for the health and wellbeing of people, as demonstrated by recent research by CPRE. This showed that 59% of people reported they are more aware of the importance of green spaces for our mental health and wellbeing since the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, over two-thirds (67%) of adults think protecting and enhancing these areas should be a higher priority after the pandemic.1 This report from CPRE, the countryside charity, examines the extent of housing development taking place in and around England’s AONBs between 2017 and 2021. We also look into how AONB housing developments have provided for local communities in terms of affordable housing provision, as well as highlighting which regions are most under threat.
2. Development in AONBs The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the rules under which planning is carried out, says that: ‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.’ But despite having the highest level of
1 CPRE (2021): https://www.cpre.org.uk/about-us/cpre-media/pressure-on-green-belt-quadruples-since-2013-says-cpre/. Accessed 22/03/21
45
planning protection, AONBs have long been seen as under significant pressure as government policy forces local authorities to prioritise housing numbers over landscape protection. Our analysis shows that AONB land has been the target of high and sustained development pressure since 2017/18, with the average number of units granted each year being higher than reported in the previous report period. 2 This development pressure has largely been focused on greenfield land, a trend that has remained constant since 2017/18 (section 2.1). However, brownfield land within AONBs is seeing a reduced pressure, with application submissions declining, while the proportion of applications approved (section 2.2) demonstrate a preference for greenfield development in AONBs. Despite the argument that development is needed in AONBs to meet high and increasing housing targets, particularly in the south east and south west (section 2.3), we also show that the houses that are being built do not use the land efficiently, nor are they providing for the needs of the area’s local communities (section 2.4).
2.1 Development on greenfield land
In planning policy, AONBs are offered the highest level of protection. However, our analysis shows that 5,681 housing units have been approved on 403 ha of greenfield land within AONBs from 2017/18 to August 2020 (Table 1). This result equates to an increase in the number of housing units being approved on greenfield AONB land since our previous report 2 to an average of 354 units each year. In addition to this, there has also a noticeable increase in the hectarage being used for these developments since the previous report period. Between 2012 and 2017, an average of 52ha of AONB land was used for housing developments every year, whereas that average has now increased to 119ha2. It is also worth noting that the estimates of units and hectares used per year are likely to be conservative due to the analyses only picking up developments that were of 10 units or more. While the yearly average number of homes has risen with the increase in the average hectares, the density of homes being built on AONB land remains pitifully low at just 16 dwellings per hectare in comparison to the national average density of 31.3 The number of planning applications on greenfield AONB land since 2017/18 also remained at a sustained level with 2,315 submitted in 2017/18, only reducing slightly in 2019/20 to 2,286. However, with only the first 5 months of 2020/21 reported, but with 967 submissions, this year is on track to have the highest number since 2017/18, suggesting a gradual rise in the number of planning proposals being submitted on AONB land by developers. This is in contrast to the reducing trend we observe in brownfield land planning proposals which have decreased by 62% since 2017/18 (Table 2). Despite national planning policy provisions for the protection of AONB land, we can see here that developers continue to submit planning applications on AONB land. One reason for this may be due to the fact that
2 CPRE (2017), Beauty Betrayed: https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Beauty-betrayed.pdf. Accessed 08/04/21 3 MHCLG (2019), Table P330 - Live tables on Land Use Change Statistics: 2017-2018 residential address change: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-land-use-change-statistics. Accessed 08/04/21
46
since 2017/18, an average of 80% of all greenfield AONB housing development applications have been granted planning permission (Table 1).
Table 1. The number of housing units proposed in planning applications submitted and subsequently granted between the financial years 2017/18 up to August 2020, the total hectares of land granted permission and the average density per hectare of dwellings. Data obtained from projects over 10 units. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis
Financial year Submitted Granted Granted Proportion units Average density Area (ha) Granted (%) (dph)
2017/18 2,315 1,866 92 81 23 2018/19 1,519 1,228 85 81 14
2019/20 2,286 1,856 184 81 10 2020/21* 967 731 42 76 17
Total 7,087 5,681 403 - - Yearly average (to 2,084 1,670 119 80 16 August 2020) *Financial year data from April to August 2020.
2.2 Development on brownfield land Brownfield land is land that has been built on previously. CPRE has shown that there is space for over one million homes on brownfield land across England, and that it’s a perpetually regenerating resource. Most brownfield sites are in urban areas. By building homes on brownfield land and, more specifically, brownfield sites within urban areas, we can build the homes we need in places that already have existing infrastructure and amenities. As a result, this report focuses on greenfield development and has removed brownfield development where possible. However, while CPRE strongly campaigns for the use of brownfield land for housing developments, our analysis shows that the developments granted in AONBs on brownfield land do not use land efficiently. Between the financial years 2017/18 and 2019/20, there was 63% reduction in the average number of dwellings per hectare (Table 2). The reduction in density seen over this period as well as the lower approval rating than on greenfield AONB land, could suggest the unsuitability of AONB brownfield land for housing development, as well as a preference for greenfield development (Figure 1). Also, far fewer brownfield sites have come forward in the planning process since 2017. As the vast majority of land in AONBs is rural, and in districts with comparatively small populations, there is far less scope for a steady stream of urban redevelopment sites to come forward than in other areas.
47
Table 2. The number of housing units proposed on brownfield land in planning applications submitted and subsequently granted between the financial years 2017/18 up to August 2020, the total hectares of land granted permission and the average density per hectare of dwellings. Data obtained from projects over 10 units. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis
Financial year Submitted Granted Granted Proportion units Average density Area (ha) Granted (%) (dph)
2017/18 1,255 1,114 22 89 51 2018/19 804 571 18 71 32
2019/20 772 444 23 58 19 2020/21* 396 285 16 72 18
Total 3,227 2,414 79 - - Yearly average (to 949 710 23 73 30 August 2020) *Financial year data from April to August 2020.
a) b)
Figure 1. The number of housing units proposed in planning applications which are submitted and subsequently granted on greenfield (a) and brownfield land (b) between the financial year 2017/18 to August 2020. Data obtained from projects over 10 units. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis
2.3 Which areas are seeing the most development threat?
Large-scale housing development is not uniformly distributed across the 34 English AONBs. Housing pressure within AONB areas – defined here by the number of yearly housing units being given planning permission – is most intense in the south east and south west, which have seen 85% of all housing units being granted in these regions between 2017/18 and August 2020 (Table 3 and Figure 2). Further investigation in Table 1 shows that only four AONB areas - High Weald, Cotswolds, Dorset and Chilterns - have accounted for over half (52%) of all greenfield development in AONBs, with High Weald
48
AONB seeing the highest development pressure of 16.4%, and pressure that has been sustained between 2017/18 and August 2020. However, many AONBs have seen increases in pressure over this time period (see Annex 2, Table A1). The Cotswolds AONB for example, has experienced a 230% increase in housing units being built between 2017/18 and 2019/20 and the Kent Downs experienced a tenfold (1,094%) increase in the same period. While mostly concentrated within the south east and south west, there are examples of this trend outside of these areas with the Wye Valley also seeing a 20-fold (2,166%) increase in development pressure between 2017/18 and 2019/20 (Annex 2, Table A1).
Table 3. The number of housing units granted planning permission on greenfield land in each region of England between financial year 2017/18 to August 2020. Data obtained from projects over 10 units. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis.
Financial East East North North South South West York and year Midlands east west east west Midlands Humber
2017/18 65 - - 63 875 782 15 66 2018/19 75 - - - 448 692 - 13 2019/20 49 - - 37 544 901 325 - 2020/21* 43 - 45 48 345 250 - -
Total 232 - 45 148 2,212 2,625 340 79 Yearly 68 - 13 44 651 772 100 23 average (to August 2020) *Financial year data from April to August 2020.
Figure 2. The total proportion of housing units given planning permission on greenfield land in each region of England between financial year 2017/18 to August 2020. Data obtained from projects over 10 units. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis.
49
Case Study – High Weald AONB
A 600-dwelling allocation at Pease Pottage in the High Weald was highly contested by local communities but was approved by Mid-Sussex District Council on the grounds that it would help meet the housing targets in the area, despite arguments that the development did not meet local need. This is a concerning precedent, and suggests that the meeting of housing targets is of higher precedent than the protection of the AONB or needs of the local community. There is evidence that this attitude to development in AONBs is beginning to be shown by other local authorities in the area. Wealden District Council has stated its intention to allocate housing in the AONB in their new local plan stating ‘where we are unable to meet our housing growth targets outside the AONB, we may need to consider meeting our growth requirements within the AONB’.4 *4 2.4 How much of this housing is affordable?
The definition of ‘affordable homes’
This report refers to the number of homes defined as affordable under national planning policy at the time. This includes social, affordable and intermediate housing to rent or buy, with the government’s assumption that 80% of market rate is affordable.
As AONBs are special environments, we should expect that any development within them should be truly exceptional. As well as meeting the highest environmental standards and complementing the landscape, they should also deliver affordable homes, which meet the needs of local communities. In many protected landscapes, use is made of ‘rural exception sites’ – small sites of often fewer than 10 homes, not allocated for development in a local plan. Given their size, most rural exception sites will have fallen outside the parameters of this study. However, overall national figures up to 2018 suggested that across England, approximately 1,300 houses are built on rural exception sites every year on average. Most of these will be on land outside AONBs, although Cornwall (27% of which is an AONB) sees a particularly high concentration of rural exception site development, with as much as a quarter (or approximately 300 units per year) of all national exception site completions.5 Most of the new build that takes place in AONBs is therefore likely to be housing for the open market. Our analysis shows that large-scale AONB developments are providing executive housing, and not homes that are affordable for the people who need them. Of the 5,681 homes that have been built since 2017/18 up to August 2020, only 908 (16%) have been considered affordable by the national planning policy definition. This is far below the required 37% national average stated in local plans. This suggests that the pursuit of
4 Wealdon District Council (2020), ‘Wealden Local Plan Direction of Travel Consultation’: https://www.wealden.gov.uk/UploadedFiles/Wealden-Local-Plan-Direction-of-Travel-1.pdf. Accessed 09/04/21 5 Shelter (2018), ‘Exception sites are a lifeline for communities in need of affordable homes’: https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2018/04/exception-sites/. Accessed 12/04/21
50
unobtainable housing targets has resulted in local authorities granting inappropriate developments in these sensitive locations which, for the most part, do not actually meet genuine local need (Table 4).
Table 4. The number of housing units and the proportion of units that were classified as affordable built on greenfield AONB land between financial year 2017/18 up to August 2020. Data obtained from development projects over 10 units. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis
Financial year All units Affordable units Proportion Affordable (%)
2017/18 1866 307 16 2018/19 1228 150 12
2019/20 1856 331 18 2020/21* 731 120 16
Total 5,681 908 - Yearly average (to August 1,670 267 16 2020) *Financial year data from April to August 2020.
3. AONB development in local plans Local plans are created by local authorities, with opportunity for community input to set the vision for development in a local area. Councils are encouraged to review local plans every five years and, within them, are required to set an annual housebuilding target for the 15-year plan period and show that they have enough land to meet their housing targets for at least the next five years. While great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, the requirement for local authorities to show that they have enough land in their local plan for this five-year target often results in local authorities having to allocate land within AONB areas for housing developments. When a council cannot demonstrate a ‘five-year land supply’ for housing, or doesn’t have a local plan in place, the NPPF’s presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’ in effect encourages developers to submit speculative housing applications – even in AONBs, where the presumption does not apply. The situation is made worse by a system for determining housing numbers that creates unnecessarily high targets. This result is seen most strongly in the south of England due to market forces resulting in higher housing targets than those in other regions (see section 2.4).6 In principle, ‘major development’ on AONB land should only happen under exceptional circumstances, and only when it can be demonstrated that it is in the public’s interests. However, from the results presented in this and previous reports,2 it appears that local authorities continue to plan major developments, often to
6 Lichfields (2020), ‘How many homes? The new Standard Method’: https://lichfields.uk/grow-renew-protect-planning-for- the-future/how-many-homes-the-new-standard-method/. Accessed 13/04/21
51
the dismay of the local communities (see High Weald case study) in AONBs, raising the question of whether AONBs are sufficiently protected in planning policy.
3.1 How much housing is planned for in current and future local plans? For this analysis, we examined local plans that had reached a late stage of the plan-making process for major developments on AONBs (pre-submission publication under Regulation 19 or later – for more details, please see Annex 1). We excluded proposals in local plans that had not reached that stage as well as proposals below 100 units. We found that there are currently 6,490 housing units (equal to 430 houses per year for 15 years) planned for AONB land across nine local authorities’ local plans (Table 5). In addition, the pressure from these projects is highly concentrated, with all these local authorities being in the south east or south west, and the High Weald, Kent Downs and Dorset AONBs sharing the majority of this pressure. A total of 5,510 units are designated for these areas alone. This is also likely to be a significant underestimation of the number of houses planned for AONBs as this analysis only considered projects of over 100 units. It is therefore the case that there will continue to be a steady rate of building, mostly of market housing, in AONBs, for the foreseeable future.
Table 5. The number of housing units proposed on AONB land in local planning documents. Data obtained from projects of over 100 units. Data source: National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NAAONB) research March 2021
Status of local plan Number of housing units (yearly delivery over 15 years)
Adopted plans 3,300 (or 245 houses per year) Emerging plans* 3,190 (or 212 houses per year)
Total 6,490 (or 432 houses per year) * This includes plans that are pre-submission publication, have been submitted and have been found sound by the planning inspectorate.
3.2 Development in the setting of AONBs AONBs are also impacted by development immediately outside their boundary in the area (up to 500m outside the boundary) known as the ‘setting’. Housing development in these areas can have a significant impact on the character of the AONB. Decisions to build within the setting of AONBs can change the way in which they are experienced, affecting the ability of local communities and visitors to appreciate the area. Our analysis in Table 6 shows that between 2017/18 and October 2020, there has been 27,857 housing units granted within the setting of AONBs. This is in comparison to the previously reported 11,879 units granted in the five years up to 2017, an increase of 135%. The number of applications for development projects in the
52
setting has more than tripled since 2012, which saw 45 applications in 2012/13 rise to 166 in 2017/18 and 2019/20, with on average, half of applications being for greenfield land. The area being granted has also increased greatly from 12ha since 2012/13 to an average of 244ha per year between 2017/18 and 2020/21, 54% of which was on greenfield land. However, the density of housing developments has increased since last reported from an average of below 20dph to 29dph, but this still remains below the national average of 31dph. 2 The Government appears to recognise development within the setting of AONBs is a growing issue. The draft new National Planning Policy Framework, published in January 2021, states (at paragraph 175) that ‘any development within their (AONBs and National Parks) settings should be sensitively located and designed to avoid adverse impacts on the designated landscapes.’ Based on the evidence we present here, CPRE believes that a stronger approach to setting will be needed than that proposed. In particular we believe that developments within the setting should only take place if it can clearly be shown that there will be no adverse impacts on the neighbouring AONB.
Table 6. The number of projects submitted, the subsequent number of housing units and hectares granted and the resulting average dwellings per hectare on land within the setting of AONBs between financial years 2017/18 up to October 2020. Data obtained from projects over 10 units. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis
Financial year Projects Units Granted / Granted Area Average density Submitted / (greenfield) (ha) / (dph) (greenfield) (greenfield) 2017/18 166 (72) 7,157 (3,601) 203 (128) 35 2018/19 163 (66) 7,550 (3,514) 313 (111) 24
2019/20 166 (87) 10,068 (6,390) 294 (200) 34 2020/21* 78 (37) 3,082 (1,420) 116 (66) 27
Total 573 (262) 27,857 (14,925) 926 (504) - Yearly average (to 151 7,330 244 29 October 2020) *Financial year data from April to October 2020.
In adopted and emerging local plans, we have identified site allocations for 34,000 homes within the setting of AONBs. Regulation 19 or submitted plans reveal that the pressure on the setting of AONBs is likely to increase. This result points towards the great pressure that local authorities with AONB within their locality have in meeting their land supply targets, while avoiding site allocations in AONB land (Table 7).
53
Table 7. The number of housing units proposed to be built within the setting of AONBs. Data obtained from projects of over 100 units. Data source: National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NAAONB) research March 2021
Status of local plan Number of housing units
Adopted plans 6,595 Emerging plans* 27,810
Total 34,405 *This included plans that are pre-submission publication and those that have been submitted.
Case Study – Chichester Harbour
Chichester Harbour is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as well as a Site of Scientific Special Interest (SSSI) and provides an important wetland habitat for migratory birds. Like many southern local authorities, Chichester District Council is faced with the pressure of finding land to accommodate a high housing target, despite much of the land in the area being constrained for development by the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB. Leaving little land remaining for site allocations. Further, a delay to the district’s local plan is making the area vulnerable to ad hoc, speculative development proposals in the setting of the AONB boundary. The quality of Chichester Harbour has suffered as a result with Natural England describing the AONB as in ‘unfavourable and declining’ condition, because of increasing development and rising sea levels.
3.3 Cumulative impact While our analysis here only focused on developments over 100 houses, there are smaller developments in current and late stage local plans which have a cumulative impact over the locality. For example, the Sevenoaks emerging local plan outlines site allocations for a total of 3,149 housing units in the Kent Downs AONB. This is half of the total district’s housing allocations, with a further 3,265 proposed for outside the AONB. While many of the issues in terms of AONB protection are failings of national policy, particularly in relation to housing targets, the development of local development policies can cause further complications. The Purbeck partial review, for example, which covers 50% of the Dorset AONB contains a policy which allows for new sites of up to 30 units to be joined to existing settlements. As the policy currently stands, these dwelling extensions could be added uniformly to existing settlements from towns through to villages, with no consideration given to their current size. Cumulative impacts from this policy could result in further negative impacts on the AONB.
54
4. Conclusions and recommendations The case is clear: our Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are facing needless and increasing pressure from housing developments. This pressure is being seen predominantly in the south east and south west of England where local authorities struggle to balance to meet the required housing targets imposed on them by central government, and the protection of AONBs under their care. However, it is evident from this report that reaching numerical housing targets is prioritised over protecting these precious landscapes. Developers are also applying sustained pressure on local authorities through an increasing number of planning applications being submitted on greenfield AONB land and local authorities continue to grant a high proportion of these applications in pursuit of housing numbers. However, the developments are land hungry, and are not helpful in reducing the impact of the affordable housing crisis. These results are a far cry from the ‘highest planning protections’ that AONBs are meant to enjoy To ensure better protection of these special landscapes, we recommend: A new requirement for the government and local planning authorities to maintain and publish annual information on the number of housing units that are permitted or refused in AONBs, and the amount of land developed for housing. Prioritising small scale affordable and social homes for local people, held by the community in perpetuity, on sustainable AONB sites. The public interest in conserving and enhancing AONBs should be prioritised over meeting and delivering on local plan housing targets. AONB partnerships should be treated as statutory consultees on major developments within or in the setting of AONBs, with a requirement for local authorities to give weight to their advice. The NPPF should be strengthened to prevent high levels of development in the setting of AONBs, all of which should be of a sensitive scale, location and design and only be permitted if it results in no adverse impacts on the AONB.
55
Annex 1: Method This report investigated the threat to AONBs through two methods: 1. The allocation of sites within AONBs under ‘exceptional circumstances’ through the local plan process. 2. The number of planning applications submitted by developers and approved by local planning authorities for housing developments on AONB land.
Details on the data sources used:
Planning application data: a dataset and report detailing the planning applications for over 10 units was provided by Glenigan, a construction industry research consultancy. Further details of their approach are within their reports. Additional analysis of planning application documentation provided the affordable homes figures for each application. Local plans: The data includes proposals over 100 units identified in plans that have reached a late stage in their development, from ‘pre-submission’ (regulation 19) publication to adopted plans. Government publications: are used and referenced where relevant, in particular the Land Use Change Statistics.
56
Annex 2: Tables and figures Table A1. The number of housing units granted on greenfield land in AONBs since 2017/18 and August 2020 by AONB. Only AONBs which has this type of development included. Data obtained from projects over 10 dwellings. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis AONB Region Units granted Total (%) 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Arnside & Silverdale N.west - - 21 - 21 0.4
Chilterns S.east 360 71 161 - 592 10.4
Cornwall S.west 78 44 59 99 280 4.9
Cotswolds S.east/ S.west 126 232 290 36 684 12.0
Cranborne Chase & West - 10 170 - 180 3.2 Wiltshire Downs S.west Dorset S.west 509 205 38 19 771 13.6
Forest Of Bowland N.west 63 - 16 48 127 2.2
High Weald S.east 293 304 41 294 932 16.4
Isle Of Wight S.east 51 - - - 51 0.9
Kent Downs S.east 16 - 175 10 201 3.5
Mendip Hills S.west - 10 300 - 310 5.5
Nidderdale York.Humber 66 13 - - 79 1.4
Norfolk Coast East 12 28 12 18 70 1.2
North Devon S.west 44 - - - 44 0.8
North Wessex Downs S.east/ S.west 156 105 185 102 548 9.6
Northumberland Coast N.east - - - 45 45 0.8
South Devon S.west 24 112 26 13 175 3.1
Suffolk Coast & Heaths East 53 37 37 25 152 2.7
Surrey Hills S.east - 57 - - 57 1.0
Tamar Valley S.west - - - 22 22 0.9
Wye Valley W.midlands 15 - 325 - 340 6.0
Total 1,866 1,228 1,856 731 5,681 100
57
Table A2. The number of housing units granted on greenfield and brownfield land in AONBs since 2017/18 and August 2020 by AONB. Only AONBs which has this type of development included. Data obtained from projects over 10 dwellings. Data source: Glenigan / CPRE analysis AONB Region Units granted Total (%) 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Arnside & Silverdale N.west - - 21 - 21 0.3
Blackdown Hills S.west 22 - - - 22 0.3
Chichester Harbour S.east - 10 - - 10 0.1
Chilterns S.east 411 126 171 34 742 9.2
Cornwall S.west 109 77 59 128 373 4.6
Cotswolds S.east/ S.west 560 367 383 72 1382 17.1
Cranborne Chase & West - 20 170 - 190 2.4 Wiltshire Downs S.west Dorset S.west 580 268 52 61 961 11.9
East Devon S.west - 50 - - 50 0.6
Forest Of Bowland N.west 80 30 16 48 174 2.2
High Weald S.east 442 304 138 328 1212 15
Isle Of Wight S.east 51 12 - - 63 0.8
Kent Downs S.east 16 14 233 33 296 3.7
Malvern Hills W.midlands - 28 - - 28 0.3
Mendip Hills S.west - 10 300 - 310 3.8
Nidderdale York.Humber 66 13 - - 79 1
Norfolk Coast East 12 28 12 18 70 0.9
North Devon S.west 60 - - - 60 0.7
North Wessex Downs S.east/ S.west 323 136 310 112 881 10.9
Northumberland Coast N.east 30 - - 45 75 0.9
Shropshire Hills W.midlands 52 - - - 52 0.6
Solway Coast N.west 15 - - - 15 0.2
58
South Devon S.west 52 126 41 36 255 3.2
Suffolk Coast & Heaths East 84 37 37 69 227 2.8
Surrey Hills S.east - 110 - - 110 1.4
Tamar Valley S.west - 33 - 22 55 0.7
Wye Valley W.midlands 15 - 342 10 367 4.5
Total 2,980 1,799 2,285 1,016 8,080 100
59 Agenda item 7
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY
PLANNING COMMITTEE
07 JUNE 2021
TERMS OF REFERENCE – FOR DISCUSSION
REPORT BY THE AONB MANAGER
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Terms of Reference for the Planning Committee was last updated on 28 January 2019. It is best practice to review the Terms of Reference at regular intervals to ensure they are fit for purpose.
1.2 Two areas of interest have arisen for consideration in recent months. a) The current Terms of Reference state that the Planning Committee is appointed by the Conservancy to act on its behalf with respect to planning matters affecting Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Members are also to have regard for the function of the Conservancy. b) There is no guidance as to the parameters from which the Conservancy should be responding to applications outside of the AONB.
1.3 This paper will discuss these areas of interest.
2.0 Purpose
2.1 The question that arose is whether the function of the Conservancy should have greater weight than a “regard” on the Terms of Reference. If so, this means that the purpose would extend beyond the AONB to include Section 21 of the 1971 Act, thus:
…the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of:
a) The harbour, for the use of pleasure craft and such other vessels as may seek to use the same;
b) The amenity area, for the occupation of leisure and recreation and the conservation of nature:
and the facilities (including, in relation to the harbour, navigational facilities) afforded respectively therein or in connection therewith.
2.2 It is felt that when the Local Planning Authorities consult with the Conservancy, they are seeking a view on all matters that affect Chichester Harbour, and not just the AONB. Therefore, it would seem to make sense that the Terms of Reference are revised to reflect that. Consequently, the Principal Planning Officers would need to amend their template responses to reflect the wider scope in which they will have formed their opinions.
2.3 Members are advised that there may be occasional instances where the functions may come into conflict, for example works below MHWS (e.g. the essential expansion of a jetty needed for recreation, but would have a detrimental impact on conservation). In these circumstances, the precautionary principle will come into effect, i.e. the Conservancy should not rush to support something without understanding the full implications and any mitigation measures. Unlike the
60 Broads Authority, the Conservancy recognises the Sandford Principle, that if recreation and conservation ever come into conflict, conservation takes priority.
2.4 However, it is very rare that this happens, and even rarer than an application below MHWS springs may divide opinion to the extent that Members would need to cite the Sandford Principle. The Sandford Principle is supposed to be a last resort.
3.0 Casework outside the AONB
3.1 The Conservancy has always placed great weight on the character and setting of the AONB. The Landscapes Review recognised the area directly outside the protected landscapes needs to be better safeguarded from development.
3.2 Until now, the Principal Planning Officers have used their own judgement as to whether to comment on cases outside the boundary.
3.3 In recent times, the Conservancy has been asked by lobby groups to comment on cases further afield to support their cause. However, the Conservancy could not credibly respond to something that does not affect Chichester Harbour, therefore we have resisted responding these cases in recent months.
3.4 It is felt that some basic written criteria could help to clarify the remit of the Conservancy. For example, a) whether the planning application needs to be viewable from the AONB, and/or b) whether the wastewater would be directed to a treatment works in Chichester Harbour.
3.5 Where it gets a little more ambiguous is when an application is submitted initially further afield from the AONB but with the potential to expand towards the AONB in subsequent applications.
4.0 For Discussion
4.1 It is recommended that Members have a broad discussion about these two matters. Any changes to the Terms of Reference will need to be discussed with the Clerk to the Conservancy, and then subsequently adopted by the Conservancy.
4.2 A steer from the Members of the Planning Committee at this stage would be useful. If it is felt changes are required, a paper will be brought to the November meeting of the Conservancy.
Richard Austin
AONB Manager
61
Plannin Address Description of Date Reference Planning Officer Conditions/Reas Other g Development Received Recommendatio ons Condition/Reas Officer n on
David Victoria Removal of 44293 APP/21/00030 No Objection Matching Materials, - provision of Rothery Cottage, existing Other screen blinds to Woodgasto conservatory the rooflight and n Lane, and addition of bifold doors Hayling single storey when internal Island, front porch, two lighting is used PO11 0RL storey front - no lighting extension and provision to be single storey installed to the rear extension. detached and Erection of car remote car port port. to the front of the site
David St Thomas Installation of a 44298 APP/21/00033 No Objection Matching Materials Rothery A Beckets new septic tank Church, to serve the Church church; drainage Lane, to the tank; a Havant, new path; and a PO9 2TU timber shed.
62 David 34A South The installation 44298 APP/21/00146 No Objection Matching Materials Rothery Street, of a window into Emsworth, the side PO10 7EH elevation of the house to allow for natural light into the hall for the front door.
David 35 High Loft conversion 44300 APP/21/00145 No Objection Rothery Street, with front and Emsworth, rear dormers. PO10 7AL 15/04/2021 RECONSULTATIO N REQUEST for revised plans and/or documents received
David Little Creed Erection of 44300 BO/21/00526/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Cottage , 3 glazed covered OM Tinted Glazing, Green link Cowled Lighting Lane, canopy/veranda Bosham, to rear. PO18 8NT
63 David 50 Thorney Loft Conversion 44300 SB/21/00206/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Road, With Rear M Tinted Glazing, Southbourn Dormer And Internal Blinds e, PO10 Front Velux 8BL Windows.
David Trippets , Replacement 2 44300 BO/21/00384/FU No Objection Matching Materials, No external
Rothery Harbour storey house L Tree Protection, lighting on Road, with detached Other, Landscaping Harbour Road Bosham, garage/boat plan, Outbuildings and shore Road PO18 8JE shed and new for ancillary use, elevations outdoor Approval of swimming pool. enclosure, (Variation of Ancillary use for condition 2 of storage permission BO/19/02200/FU L - detached garage moved away from the boundary, roof hip on the north west side is changed to a gable
64 David 24 South Single storey 44302 APP/21/00136 No Objection Matching Materials, Rothery Street, rear extension, Tinted Glazing, Emsworth, internal Cowled Lighting, PO10 7EH alterations Internal Blinds within existing listed dwelling and re-build of existing outbuilding. Also APP/21/00137 LBC
David Creek End, Replacement 44305 BO/21/00413/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Smugglers garage and OM Ancillary Use Lane, carport. Bosham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8QP
David 2 Harbour Proposed 44305 BO/21/00443/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Villas , garage. OM Ancillary Use Shore Road, Bosham, PO18 8HZ
65 David Merstone Small domestic 44305 WW/21/00281/D No Objection Matching Materials, No external
Rothery Cottage , swimming pool OM Other lighting to the Chichester and surrounding pool or poolside Road, West paving. circulation area Wittering, or footpath PO20 8QF leading to the pool. Suggest the proposed swimming pool be repositioned within the residential site curtilage
David The Manor, Single storey 44305 FB/20/03268/DO No Objection
Rothery 4 side extension. M Appledram Lane South, Fishbourne, PO20 7PE
Steve 1 Dolphin 2No. Macrocarpa 44305 APP/21/00334 No Objection Lawrenc Quay, crown reduce in e Queen height by 5m Street, and laterals by Emsworth, 3m to leave PO10 7BU overall size of joint crowns of 15m in height and 10m on spread, removal of fractured north west limb
66 subject to TPO 2075 G1.
Steve 11D 1No.Oak (T1 on 44305 APP/21/00350 No Objection Subject to the Lawrenc Salterns plan) - fell and Council’s Tree e Lane, grind stump, Officer agreeing Hayling subject to TPO with the agent’s Island, 1380 within G1. assessment of PO11 9PH the tree’s general condition and amenity value as a tree subject of a Tree Preservation Order.
David Black Boy Construction of a 44307 FB/21/00472/FU No Objection
Rothery Court , 2 bay carport L Main Road, and the creation Fishbourne, of car parking PO18 8XX area for 4 no. cars to the North of the site.
67 David Wheatfields Single storey 44307 CH/21/00644/D No Objection
Rothery , Cot Lane, rear extension. OM Chidham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8SP
David Elmstead , To install a 44307 BI/21/00334/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Birdham wooden garden M Cowled Lighting Road, room. Birdham, PO20 7BX
David 19 Slipper Replacement of 44307 SB/21/00350/DO No Objection Matching Materials
Rothery Road, existing flat M Southbourn roofs with e, shallow sloping Emsworth, roof on both Hampshire, bungalow and PO10 8BS detached garage.
David Shipton Erection of a 44307 WI/21/00447/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Mead , detached double M Cowled Lighting Shipton garage Green Lane, West Itchenor, PO20 7BZ
68 Steve Fowley Reconsultation - 44308 APP/20/00376 No Objection Lawrenc Cottage, Nine new e 46 dwellings on the Warblingto site surrounding n Road, the retained Emsworth, Fowley Cottage, PO10 7HH 2 on the Warblington Road frontage and 7 in the rear garden area.
Steve Land On A screening 44312 SB/21/00596/EI No Objection
Lawrenc The North opinion request - A e Side Of, Environmental Main Road, impact Southbourn assessment e development.
Steve Westerly, Revised 44313 SB/21/00297/DO No Objection
Lawrenc Salterns fenestration and M e Reach, internal Prinsted, alterations. Southbourn e, PO10 8FQ
69 Steve Windsong , Single storey 44313 WI/21/00253/DO No Objection
Lawrenc Itchenor rear extension to M e Road, West existing garage Itchenor, and existing PO20 7DA outbuilding to be replaced with new boat store.
Steve 1 Marsh Loft conversion, 44313 SB/21/00292/DO Objection Other No objection to
Lawrenc Bungalow , including M the hip to gable e Prinsted changing hipped change but Lane, roof to gable suggest Prinsted, end, rear dormer negotiating Southbourn window and reduction in size e, PO10 rooflights. of dormer 8HS window width.
Steve 9 Towers Hardstanding for 44313 APP/21/00059 Objection Precedent would Lawrenc Garden, car parking. be set, Detrimental e Havant, to the visual PO9 1RZ amenities of the area
David 5 Leander Demolition of 44314 BO/21/00364/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Road, existing single OM Tinted Glazing, Bosham, storey side Internal Blinds PO18 8QS extension and erection of a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
70 David Kirk House Installation of 44315 BO/21/00609/D No Objection Matching Materials
Rothery , Green access gate OM Lane, Bosham, PO18 8NT
David Wheatfields Roof extensions 44315 CH/21/00739/FU Objection Over dominant
Rothery And to both L visual and physical Canigou, Wheatfields and impact Cot Lane, Canigou. Chidham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8SP
David Creek End , Replacement 2 44315 CH/20/03234/D No Objection Matching Materials, Enhancements
Rothery Harbour storey extension OM Tinted Glazing, for bats Way, and 2 small Cowled Lighting, Chidham, single storey Internal Blinds, PO18 8TG extensions. Other, Swift tiles/boxes
David The Bulls Retrospective 44315 FB/20/03152/FU No Objection Matching Materials
Rothery Head , 99 installation of L Fishbourne kitchen air- Road West, supply and air- Fishbourne, extract plant and PO19 3JP ducting, with associated works
71 David Itchenor Replacement 44316 WI/21/00363/FU Holding Objection Other Absence of
Rothery Sailing pontoon Jetty L clarification in Club , Pier respect of the Point Road, water Itchenor, environment and PO20 7AG wildlife / biodiversity implications of the proposed works
David 18 King Listed Building 44326 APP/21/00124 No Objection Matching Materials, Rothery Street, Consent for Cowled Lighting Emsworth, replacement PO10 7AZ front door.
David Willow Erection of 44326 BO/21/00770/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Brook , detached garage OM Cowled Lighting, Delling and new Internal Blinds, Close, vehicular access. Ancillary Use Bosham, PO18 8NP
David Chichester Demolition of 44326 BI/21/00833/FUL Objection Other Loss, or potential Rothery Marina, three loss, of marine Birdham, workshops/shed based Chichester, s for the employment use West comprehensive of buildings Sussex, redevelopment located and PO20 7EJ of the South- provided West area of the primarily
72 marina to serve the comprising four marine and purpose built coastal users. buildings including marine related workshops, offices, storage, reprovision and extension of the retail (chandler
David Frenchams Erection of 44326 BO/21/00688/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery , Walton detached garden OM Cowled Lighting, Lane, room. Internal Blinds, Bosham, Ancillary Use PO18 8QB
David La Traite , Erection of single 44326 CH/21/00773/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Chidham storey extension OM Cowled Lighting, Lane, to rear elevation Internal Blinds Chidham, plus alterations PO18 8TH to rear and side elevations.
73 David Greenlea , First-floor side 44326 SB/21/00627/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Prinsted extension and M Cowled Lighting, Lane, extension of Internal Blinds Prinsted, existing garage. Southbourn Re-cladding and e, PO10 low-energy deep 8HS retrofit of dwelling.
David Critchfield Erection of 44326 BO/21/00857/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Cottage, integral garage OM Cowled Lighting, Viking with first floor Internal Blinds, Way, storage. Ancillary Use Bosham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8HN
David Burwood, Replace existing 44326 BO/21/01022/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Bosham rear shed for a OM Cowled Lighting, Hoe, new one. Internal Blinds, Bosham, Ancillary Use Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8EU
74 David Chas Wood Outline 44326 CH/20/01854/OU No Objection Other, Landscaping - restricting
Rothery Nurseries, permission for T plan, Ecological development Main Road, 26 no. dwellings mitigation height to 2- Bosham, with access, payment, Approval storey PO18 8PN public open of Reserved - detail of space, Matters, lighting in community Homeowners pack accordance with orchard and - re SPA etc CH AONB Joint other associated SPD Dark Skies works (with Policy some matters reserved except for access).
Plot A, Change of use of 44326 BI/21/00977/FUL Objection Adverse impact on Land North land to a character / visual West Of travellers amenity of the Premier caravan site AONB Business consisting of 1 Park, no. pitch and Birdham associated Road, development.
David Meadow Single storey 44328 WI/21/00990/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Cross , The rear extension. M Cowled Lighting, Street, Internal Blinds Itchenor, PO20 7AE
75 Steve 23 Demolition of 44329 APP/21/00157 No Objection Matching Materials, Lawrenc Langstone existing No trade use e High detached garage Street, and single storey Havant, entrance/cloakro PO9 1RY om to annexe. Erection of detached garage/garden store, one and a half storey extension and replacement windows and doors to annexe. Replacement vehicle entrance gates and timber fen
Steve 17 High Variation of 44329 APP/21/00169 No Objection Lawrenc Street, conditions 2 and e Emsworth, 3 of Planning PO10 7AQ Permission APP/20/00029 relating to change to roof slope, materials, and new roof light.
76 Steve The 2 no. non- 44329 FB/21/00575/AD Objection Adverse impact on
Lawrenc Bosham illuminated V character / visual e Clinic , hoarding signs. amenity of the Main Road, AONB Fishbourne, PO18 8AN
David Hayling Installation of a 44329 APP/21/00298 No Objection Matching Materials Rothery Island small storage Sailing shed. Club, Sandy Point, Hayling Island, PO11 9SL
Steve 25 South Extension of 44329 APP/20/01207 No Objection Lawrenc Street , existing first e Emsworth, floor terrace and PO10 7EG addition of external stair to rear of building
Steve Downings, Discharge of 44333 SB/21/00214/DO No Objection
Lawrenc Prinsted conditions 2 and C e Lane, 4 of planning Prinsted, permission Emsworth, SB/20/01462/FU Hampshire, L. PO10 8HS
77 Steve The Old Replacement 44333 SB/21/00599/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Lawrenc Rope Walk garage. M Ancillary Use, Bird e , 11 Slipper Nesting, Bat Road, Roosts Southbourn e, PO10 8BS
Steve Brooklyn Demolition of 44333 BO/21/00179/D No Objection Matching Materials, Hedgehog
Lawrenc Cottage , existing garden OM Tree Protection, nesting site to be e Moreton room, linking Bird Nesting, Bat installed Road, pergola and Roosts, Other, Bird Bosham, outbuilding and Boxes PO18 8LL construction of a replacement single storey linked extension. Re-roof over the utility area.
David 3 Wayte Replace existing 44334 CH/21/00712/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Cottages , garden room and OM Cowled Lighting, Chidham shed with 1 no. Internal Blinds, Lane, garden building. Ancillary Use Chidham, PO18 8TQ
78 David Brae Loft conversion 44334 WI/21/00414/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Cottage , with rooflights at M Internal Blinds The Street, rear. Itchenor, PO20 7AH
David Loretto , Alterations and 44334 BI/21/00564/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Crooked extensions to M Cowled Lighting, Lane, existing Internal Blinds Birdham, dwelling. PO20 7HB
David Loretto , Alterations and 44334 BI/21/00564/DO No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Crooked extensions to M Cowled Lighting, Lane, existing Internal Blinds Birdham, dwelling. PO20 7HB
David Wight Demolition of 44335 CH/21/00233/D No Objection Matching Materials, Bat tiling in roof
Rothery Cottage , lean-to and OM Tinted Glazing, to be installed. Main Road, erection of single Cowled Lighting, Written approval Nutbourne, storey side/rear Internal Blinds, of the LPA PO18 8RT extension and Ancillary Use, needed for replacement Planting & internal staircase conservatory, Maintenance, or means of two storey SDMP/Bird Aware passage between annex to far east Solent the ground and of the site, with contributions the upper floor ground floor
79 garage and pilates studio and first floor bedroom with ensuite. 27/04/2021 - additional documents
David Creek Extension to 44335 WI/21/00988/DO Objection Light Siting of annex
Rothery House , existing garage. M spillage/pollution, building remote The Street, Change use of Wildlife from and Itchenor, garage to disturbance, unrelated to the PO20 7AE habitable Unnecessary host dwelling. accommodation residential building Light generation to create annex in a rural location from glazed areas of the annex building. Wildlife disturbance mitigation measures not addressed (though identified in ecology report)
David Broad Construction of 44335 BO/21/01180/D No Objection Matching Materials
Rothery Reach, Victorian classic OM Bosham planthouse Lane, comprising of a Bosham, concrete slab Chichester, with brick dwarf West walled base topped with
80 Sussex, the planthouse PO18 8HG frame.
Steve Plot B, Change of use of 44335 BI/21/00923/FUL Objection Adverse impact on Lawrenc Land North land to a character / visual e West Of travellers amenity of the Premier caravan site AONB Business consisting of 1 Park, no. pitch and Birdham associated Road, development. Appledram, West Sussex,
Steve Plot C, Change of use of 44335 BI/21/00924/FUL Objection Adverse impact on Lawrenc Land North land to a character / visual e West Of travellers amenity of the Premier caravan site AONB Business consisting of 1 Park, no. pitch and Birdham associated Road, development. Appledram, West Sussex
81 Steve Tide End , Proposed two 44336 FB/21/00393/DO Holding Objection If the existing
Lawrenc Mill Lane, storey front and M eaves height are e Fishbourne, rear and loft maintained PO19 3JN extensions. (some lowering of the overall roof ridge height too), an amendment is suggested. Modest increase in roof ridge height would also be seen in the context of higher roof ridge height of ‘Harpeg’ to the south
Steve 4 Slipper Discharge of 44340 SB/21/00757/DO No Objection
Lawrenc Mill, Slipper condition 3 from C e Road, planning Southbourn permission e, PO10 SB/20/00812/D 8XD OM.
David 52 Bath Conversion of 44340 APP/21/00221 No Objection Matching Materials, Rothery Road, garage to Cowled Lighting, Emsworth, habitable Internal Blinds PO10 7ES accommodation, single storey rear extension with balcony at
82 first floor level and render.
Steve Grey Raise existing 44343 CH/21/00782/FU No Objection Other Work to be done
Lawrenc Thatch, sea defences to L from landward e Harbour achieve flood shoreline (except Way, protection. re-pointing Chidham, Ragstone sea- PO18 8TG wall) as per method statement - all works April to Sept; enhancements in Section 7/Phase 1 ecological impact report to be implemented; raised grass berms re-seeded with suitable grass
83 David Wealdens, Alterations and 44348 BO/21/00742/D No Objection Matching Materials,
Rothery Bosham single storey OM Internal Blinds Hoe, rear extension - Bosham, conversion and PO18 8ET extension of existing garage and link extension to existing house, 1 no. new garage/boathous e and home office building.
David Marine Conversion of 44348 APP/21/00383 No Objection Matching Materials, Rothery View, existing garage. Internal Blinds Marine Walk, Hayling Island, PO11 9PQ
84