South) Committee TUESDAY 19TH NOVEMBER 2013 at 2.00P.M

E-mail: CommitteeServices@horsham.gov.uk

Direct line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 19TH NOVEMBER 2013 AT 2.00p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

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

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15th October 2013 (attached)

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

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

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

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

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

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 Chantry DC/13/0752 Land North of South Wood, Melton Drive, Storrington

A2 Pulborough and DC/13/0577 Parsons Field Stables, Pickhurst Lane, Coldwaltham Pulborough

A3 Billingshurst and DC/13/1492 Pear Tree Farm, West Chiltington Lane, Shipley Billingshurst

A4 Billingshurst and DC/13/1346 Lamina Dielectrics, Station Works, Myrtle Shipley Lane, Billingshurst

6. Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances

DCS131015

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 15th October 2013

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

Apologies: Councillors: Adam Breacher, Jim Goddard, Liz Kitchen, Brian O’Connell

DCS/59 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17th September 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/60 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

There were no declarations of interest.

DCS/61 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCS/62 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/0546 Blue Cedar, Castlegate, Mr T Holloway West Chiltington,Pulborough DC/13/0723 Lion Heart, Fryern Road, Storrington Mr Lee Gorton

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/13/0443 Green Jade, Broomers Hill Mr P Little Dismissed Lane, Pulborough DC/13/0139 18 Downlands, Pulborough Mr and Mrs Allowed L Boorman DC/12/1496 Templemead House, Lower Mrs S Allowed Street, Pulborough Russell Flint DC/13/0681 Greenlees, London Road, Mrs Emma Dismissed Henfield Ratcliffe DC/12/1650 Land South of 6, 8 and 10 Mr Paul Kaluza Dismissed Brookfield Way, Billingshurst

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/62 Appeals (Cont.)

DC/12/0474 Storrington Club, 28 West Mr D Grinham Dismissed Street, Storrington DC/12/1581 Our Lady of England Roman Norbertine order Dismissed Catholic Church, Monastery in Storrington Lane, Storrington

DCS/63 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1265 – DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 75 DWELLINGS INCLUDING THE CREATION OF AN ACCESS POINT FROM WATER LANE. PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE INCLUDING CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA, LINEAR PARK, LANDSCAPING AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ON THE SITE (OUTLINE) SITE: LAND NORTH OF BROOK CLOSE AND ROTHER CLOSE STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR NEIL KELLY

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the erection of up to 75 residential dwellings with informal open space, play area and parking. Matters for consideration under this outline application were the principle of the development and access, with all other matters reserved for future determination.

The application had been deleted from the previous meeting of the Committee on 17th September in order to seek further clarification from Southern Water regarding capacity of the local infrastructure.

The applicant had indicated that the development would comprise eight 2-bedroom flats, ten 2-bedroom houses, 37 3-bedroom houses, 13 4-bedroom houses and seven 5-bedroom houses. It would provide 30 (40%) affordable units.

A new vehicular access off Water Lane would serve the majority of the development, with three dwellings using the existing driveway serving Snapes Cottage off the B2139.

The application site was located outside the built-up area to the north-east of Storrington on the northern side of Water Lane and covered an irregularly shaped area of 4.47 hectares comprising rough grassland bounded by field hedging and trees. A stream flowed along the southern boundary.

Water Lane Industrial Estate was adjacent to the south western boundary of the site. To the south and east there were residential properties in Brook Close, Rother Close, Concorde Close, Jubilee Way, Rainbow Way and Snapes Road. Snapes Cottage, a Grade II Listed Building, was to the north of the site, with open fields to the north and west. A residential development of eight dwellings was currently under construction to the east of the site (DC/11/0111). Planning permission had recently been granted for a warehouse building in the field immediately to the west of the site for Tesla, a local company on the Water Lane Estate.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/63 Planning Application: DC/13/1265 (Cont.)

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40; Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy; the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document (FAD SPD); and the Planning Obligations SPD were relevant to the determination of this application.

There was no relevant planning history in relation to this site.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. In particular it was noted that the Head of Public Health & Licensing had raised no objections and recommended the applicant submit a low carbon strategy to mitigate against increased traffic emissions. Southern Water had raised no objection, subject to additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, to provide sufficient capacity.

Since preparation of the report, the Housing Services Manager had raised no objection, and the Landscape Architect had considered further information supplied by the applicant and raised no objections, subject to appropriate conditions. Environmental Health had commented on the applicant’s Low Emissions Strategy and raised no objections, subject to the incorporation of some additional measures and a financial contribution to offset the cost of off-site mitigation measures.

Southern Water had acknowledged that there was a flooding problem in the area and requested the inclusion of a condition to ensure that occupation of the development should not take place until the local planning authority was satisfied that the infrastructure required to service the development was adequately implemented. Members noted that the proposed drainage ponds located on the site of a former landfill site would be lined to prevent the risk of contamination.

It was reported at the meeting that Southern Water had requested that residents record and report details of any flooding event to them in order to raise the profile of the problem with Southern Water and help them to address it.

Thakeham Parish Council and Storrington & Sullington Parish Council both objected to the application. 165 letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and one member of the public spoke in support. A representative from Storrington Parish Council and a representative of Thakeham Parish Council both spoke in objection to the application.

The proposal had been submitted under the terms of the FAD SPD, which sought to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term, during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy, and to maintain the Council’s

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/63 Planning Application: DC/13/1265 (Cont.)

rolling five year housing land supply. The document set out the requirements against which such applications, on greenfield and brownfield sites adjoining defined settlement boundaries in the District, would be considered.

Members considered the proposal in the context of criteria within the FAD SPD and were concerned that the site had previously been classified as ‘not currently developable’. The site was outside the built-up area and Members were concerned that the proposal would encroach on the green gap between Storrington and Thakeham without bringing community benefit. The site’s distance from the centre of Storrington was noted and Members were concerned that residents would be dependent on the car for local services, leading to unsustainable travel patterns. An increase in traffic movements within Storrington, an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) would be counter to the objectives of the air quality action plan for Storrington. Members therefore considered that the proposal was contrary to FAD criteria 4, 11 and 13.

Whilst Members acknowledged the need for a five year housing land supply and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, Members considered that the proposal would not meet a local need. They were concerned that the local infrastructure, including schools and NHS services, could not adequately meet the needs of 75 additional households.

Members were concerned that Neighbourhood Plans for the area had not been completed and noted the strong local opposition to the proposal, and considered whether local residents’ concerns would carry sufficient weight to warrant refusal.

Whilst the Highway Authority had not objected to the proposal and had considered that the local network had sufficient capacity in terms of traffic movements, Members considered that traffic generated by the proposal would have a detrimental impact on air quality.

With regards to vehicle emissions, Members considered the mitigating measures that had been proposed by the applicant in the context of the AQMA and considered that even a small increase in pollutants would be of concern. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations within the AQMA were significantly in excess of the UK air quality objective and the cumulative impact of even small additional increases in pollution would be counter to the objective of bringing pollution levels in Storrington to within the UK air quality objective limits. The potential harm to the health of residents within the AQMA was of grave concern to Members who considered the accumulative harm would outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Members considered the proposal in the context of national policy and local considerations, in particular air quality and the sustainability of the site. After careful consideration of all the material considerations, Members agreed that the benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the potential harm and therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/63 Planning Application: DC/13/1265 (Cont.)

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/1265 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services to seek legal advice with regard to the framing of reasons for refusal. The view of the Committee was that the application should be refused.

DCS/64 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1601 – CONSTRUCTION OF STABLE BLOCK AND RETENTION OF MANEGE AND ACCESS WITH MODIFICATIONS PLUS CHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO AGRICULTURAL AND EQUESTRIAN SITE: PULBOROUGH FARM EQUESTRIAN CENTRE STORRINGTON ROAD THAKEHAM PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: MISS JO JONES

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a stable block measuring 21 metres by 7.3 metres and 10.3 metres with a ridge height of 3.4 metres. It would include ten stables, feed and tack room and wash down area and replace the existing mobile home and temporary stables. The sand school would be retained and the current access would be modified and there would be a change of use from agricultural to agricultural and equestrian use. Native planting of hedgerows and some tree planting were also proposed.

The 15 metre wide access, access track, sandschool, lunging ring, hardstanding, mobile home and 12 temporary stables had been erected without the benefit of planning permission.

The proposal sought to reduce the length of the access track from 220 metres to 165 metres and install a 1.5 metre strip of reinforced grass down its centre to soften its visual impact. The width of the access would also be reduced. The hardstanding at the entrance gate would be reduced and that adjacent to the sandschool would be removed.

The application site was located in a countryside location north of Storrington and south of Thakeham. It consisted of two fields to the east of Storrington Road. The southern boundary included a native hedgerow with scattered oak trees and there was fencing along the eastern and western boundaries.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2 and CP15; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC25, DC27 and DC29; and Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/64 Planning Application: DC/13/1601 (Cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

DC/09/1247 Private stables and exercise school Withdrawn facilities for 4 horses DC/10/0220 Private stables and exercise school Granted facilities for 4 horses DC/11/1392 The erection of an agricultural farm Prior Notification building (Prior Notification) not required DC/11/1862 Temporary siting of a caravan for use Refused during construction works and for overnight Dismissed on site security Appeal DC/11/1971 Erection of an agricultural farm building Withdrawn

DC/11/1992 Erection of a stable block and hay barn to Refused replace existing four stables, tack and feed Appeal room granted under DC/10/0220. Withdrawn Relocation and enlargement of sand school permitted under DC/10/0220 from 20 x 40 metres to 25 x 60 metres. New rolled stone track and hard standing area. EN/3/2012 “Without planning permission, the change Appeal of use of the land from agriculture to mixed Dismissed use for the stationing of a mobile home for residential use in the approximate position shown edged green on the Plan and for equestrian use, and the erection of a close boarded wooden boundary fence in the approximate position marked blue and shown on the photograph attached to this notice, which is an integral part of the unauthorised equestrian use” EN/2/2012 “Without planning permission, the Appeal construction of a track, hardstanding and Dismissed sandschool in the area marked blue on the plan.” DC/12/0119 Erect an agricultural farm building Refused (Agricultural Prior Notification) DC/12/0321 Erect a framed and sheeted agricultural Withdrawn farm building (Agricultural Prior Notification) DC/12/0320 Track (Agricultural Prior Notification) Withdrawn DC/12/1590 Construction of stable barn and retention Refused of access track and menage, mobile home Appeal (Public and change of use from agricultural to Inquiry) agricultural and equestrian use Withdrawn

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/64 Planning Application: DC/13/1601 (Cont.)

Since the refusal of DC/12/1590 the applicant had withdrawn the appeal and entered into pre-application discussions with Officers to discuss what type and size of equestrian development would be considered acceptable in this location.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Since preparation of the report, the agent and the applicant’s solicitor had requested that: Condition 5 regarding landscape management and maintenance be amended so that planting be maintained for five years, instead of in perpetuity, to be consistent with the period specified in Condition 4 regarding landscape strategy; and that the business name be deleted from Condition 6.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. Two letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in support of the application and a statement was read on behalf of the applicant’s agent.

Members noted the complex planning and enforcement history of the site. The differences between the proposal and previously refused applications included: a reduction in the size of the stable block; re-siting the stable block to the west; removal of mobile home; reduction and access track; removal of some hardstanding; hedge planting to the south; and the deletion of the riding school element of the proposal.

Members considered that the proposal was of an appropriate scale and level of activity for this rural area. The stable block and sandschool were structures that would be in keeping with the surrounding countryside and would not have an adverse impact on the character of the rural landscape. The extent of hedge and tree planting were also considered acceptable.

Members considered that the amendments to previous applications had addressed the concerns of neighbouring occupiers. In particular the siting of the stable building further to the west had removed the potential for noise and disturbance to the occupiers of Meadow Farmhouse and addressed concerns regarding sporadic development in the countryside.

Members noted that the applicant no longer lived in the mobile home and that it was shortly to be removed from the site. The business would no longer include a riding school and the number of horses kept on site would be reduced from 25 to a maximum of ten kept for rearing and training prior to sale. The amount of activity generated by the site was therefore considered acceptable.

Members considered that the proposal would lead to an acceptable level of activity that was appropriate in the countryside location and therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable. It was noted that Condition 5 and Condition 6 as printed in the report would be amended.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/64 Planning Application: DC/13/1601 (Cont.)

RESOLVED

(i) That planning application DC/13/1601 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission

02 M6 Prescribed Materials

03 D10 Floodlighting

04 Within three months of this permission and notwithstanding the submitted Landscape scheme/strategy plan full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and subsequently approved in writing by the LPA. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

 A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice  Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details  A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Existing and proposed levels for all external soft and hard landscape areas  Surfacing materials for hard standing, access road and sand school  Fencing: location, type, heights and materials

The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting shall be carried out according to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/64 Planning Application: DC/13/1601 (Cont.)

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

05 Within 3 months of this permission a detailed long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and subsequently approved in writing by the LPA.

The plan shall include:

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

The plan shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of planting shall be retained and maintained for a 5 year period in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan.

06 The stable building and sandschool hereby permitted shall be used for the breeding, training and keeping of horses only.

07 The stables and sandschool shall be used in association with the breeding, rearing and training of horses for sale and export and shall not be used as a commercial riding school establishment.

08 J7(b) Stables

09 The development hereby permitted shall not be undertaken until precise details of the proposed method for the storage and disposal of used bedding and manure has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the storage

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/64 Planning Application: DC/13/1601 (Cont.)

and disposal of used bedding and manure shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details unless the prior written agreement of the local planning authority is obtained for any variation.

10 The mobile home, temporary stables, lung pen and hardsurfacing shall be removed from site within 6 months of the date of this decision.

11 Within 6 months of the date of this decision, the access shall be reduced to the permitted 6 metres in width, the hardsurfacing removed and native hedge plants planted in accordance with a plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

12 D11 Sandschools

(ii) That, subject to the expediency of taking such action, enforcement action be taken to secure the removal of the mobile home, hardstanding, lung pen and temporary stables from the site with a compliance period of six months.

DCS/65 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1521 APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING OUTLINE PERMISSION DC/13/0197 (REFURBISHMENT OF ONE EXISTING BUILDING (BLOCK A), REDEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING BUILDING (BLOCK B), DEMOLITION OF REMAINING FORMER POULTRY REARING BUILDINGS AND THE ERECTION OF 5 NEW BUILDINGS ALL FOR B1 (BUSINESS) AND/OR B8 (STORAGE OR DISTRIBUTION) USES (BLOCKS C TO G) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING) TO INCLUDE THE RE-ALIGNMENT OF BLOCK D AND ASSOCIATED PARKING/FORECOURT AREAS) RELATING TO THE SCALE AND APPEARANCE OF BLOCKS A AND D AND LANDSCAPING SITE: ROCK BUSINESS PARK THE HOLLOW WASHINGTON APPLICANT: MR JAMES BELBIN

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this reserved matters application sought permission for the refurbishment of Block A, the construction of Block D and landscaping for the whole site. Outline consent for access, layout and redevelopment of the site for business, storage and distribution uses had previously been granted. The redevelopment of Block B and erection of the remaining four new buildings would be considered under future applications. No development could take place until reserved matters for the whole site were approved.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/65 Planning Application: DC/13/1521 (Cont.)

The steel frame of the Block A building would be retained, with re-cladding to the sides and roof. There would be glazing and entrance doors on the south elevation, the east and north elevations would have an overhead door, and there would be glazing and windows across the side elevations.

Block D would be erected to the south of the site and would comprise five units with roller shutter doors. It would have a shallow pitched roof and measure approximately 49.2 metres by 24.8 metres with a ridge height between 6.8 and 6.4 metres.

The application site was in a countryside location close to the South Downs National Park with open views to the north and east. It was located to the east of the A24 and to the north-east of The Hollow. Much of the site was in a natural dip, reducing its visual impact from mid to long distance views. There were trees along the western boundary and hedgerow along some of the southern boundary, beyond which was a market garden adjacent to the site. There were a number of residential properties along The Hollow and Castle Farm Cottage was the closest residential dwelling directly to the south-west of the site.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP11, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC20, DC26 and DC40; and Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/2460 Refurbishment of one existing building Withdrawn (Block A), redevelopment of an existing building (Block B), demolition of remaining former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of 5 new buildings all for B1 (Business) and/or B8 (Storage or Distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping (Outline Planning)

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/65 Planning Application: DC/13/1521 (Cont.)

DC/12/0988 Re-submission of planning application Granted (DC/11/2460) following Appeal submitted to the Planning Inspectorate relating to the non-determination of the application. Proposed development relates to: Refurbishment of one existing building (Block A), redevelopment of an existing building (Block B), demolition of remaining former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of 5 new buildings all for B1 (Business) and/or B8 (Storage or Distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping (Outline Planning) DC/13/0197 Minor material amendment to Outline Granted application DC/12/0988 (Refurbishment of one existing building (Block A), redevelopment of an existing building (Block B), demolition of remaining former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of 5 new buildings all for B1 (Business) and/or B8 (Storage or Distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping) to include the re- alignment of Block D and associated parking/forecourt areas (Outline)

Application DC/11/2460 had been deferred by the Committee in April 2012 owing to concerns regarding traffic issues (Minute No. DCS/174 (17.04.12 refers). The Committee had resolved not to contest the appeal relating to non-determination of the application (Minute No. DCS/10 (19.06.12) refers).

The responses from statutory external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was reported at the meeting that the County Ecologist raised no objection and the Environment Agency raised no objection. Whilst Officers considered the landscape proposals submitted since preparation of the report to be acceptable, the response from the Landscape Architect had not yet been received.

The Parish Council had objected to the application, but had still to comment on the revised appearance of the buildings. Two letters of objection to the proposal had been received.

The principle of the development had been established when outline permission had been granted and therefore the key considerations in the determination of the proposal were the design of the buildings and the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring occupants and on the character of the surrounding landscape.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/65 Planning Application: DC/13/1521 (Cont.)

In response to concerns that the colour of materials used on the buildings were too light, the applicant had submitted revised details; the roof would be olive green, and the sides would be grey. The revised design was considered acceptable, subject to the approval of materials.

Members noted the extent of the proposed landscaping and boundary planting and considered the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and surrounding landscape to be acceptable.

Members considered that the scale of Blocks A and D were acceptable and the amended design would not have a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Members therefore agreed that the proposal was acceptable. It was noted that the conditions attached to outline planning permission DC/13/0197 were also applicable to this development.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/1521 be granted, subject to the approval of the Landscape Architect, the approval of materials, and the following conditions and the conditions attached to DC/13/0197:

01 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be formed in west elevation of Building A (as shown on drawing 103 Rev A, Date Stamped 9 September 2013) of the development without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

02 Landscape conditions

03 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority by way of a planning application. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

04 No raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials or waste shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority by way of a planning application.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/65 Planning Application: DC/13/1521 (Cont.)

05 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, the buildings shall not be extended or altered in any way unless planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on application in that respect.

DCS/66 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1634 – USE OF THE SITE AS NURSERY AND FARM SHOP (RENEWAL OF PERMISSION DC/09/2188) SITE: FORMER ASHURST VILLAGE NURSERY BINES GREEN PARTRIDGE GREEN APPLICANT: MR ROBERT HOLLAND

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the use of the site as a nursery and farm shop. The nursery would sell a variety of plants, including trees, and related products including potting compost, pesticides, plant pots, ornamental stone and aggregates for garden use. The farm shop would sell meat, dairy products, eggs, jam, honey, fresh fruit, vegetables and cut flowers. There would be parking provision for 18 customers and an outdoor plant sales area.

The previously approved application DC/09/2188, which had been considered by the Committee in August 2010, had been subject to a legal agreement which stipulated that at least 50% of the combined monetary turnover would be from bedding plants, pot plants and trees grown on the site (Minute No. DCS/53 (17.08.10) refers). A new legal agreement regarding the range of products sold would need to be completed in the event of the approval of the current application.

The application site was located within a countryside location to the east of the B2135 approximately one kilometre north of Ashurst and two and a half kilometres south of Partridge Green.

The site had been vacant for approximately five years. There was a small farm shop and a large greenhouse with an area of hard standing used for parking. There were open fields to the south and east, and a Grade II residential property (Doves Cottage) to the north.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP10 and CP15; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC9, DC38 and DC40; and Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/66 Planning Application: DC/13/1634 (Cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

DC/05/0316 Use of farm shop for associated landscape Granted gardening business DC/07/2741 Continued use of site as garden centre and Withdrawn farm shop with provision of parking for 27 vehicles DC/08/1228 Continued use of site as retail nursery and Withdrawn farm shop DC/09/2188 Continued use of site as nursery and farm Granted shop

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council had not commented on the application. No letters of representation had been received.

It was reported at the meeting that the Highway Authority had raised no objection, and requested that conditions attached to the previous application be applied to any extension of time permission.

Members considered the principle of the development and its effect on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers to be key considerations in the determination of the proposal. There had been no material changes since the previous application had been granted and Members considered that the scale of the proposal was appropriate to its rural location and would not have an overbearing impact on the surrounding area. Members considered that the proposal would have no detrimental impact upon neighbouring residential amenity, subject to appropriate conditions.

Members considered that the proposal would promote and encourage the rural economy and agreed that the proposal was acceptable.

It was noted that a legal agreement regarding the use of the site and range of products sold was required.

RESOLVED

(i) That a legal agreement be entered into to: limit the range of goods sold at the nursery to bedding plants, pot plants, trees, peat, potting compost, baskets, pesticides, plant pots, tubs, ornamental stone and aggregates commonly used in the landscaping of gardens; limit the goods sold in the farm shop to meat, dairy products, eggs, jam, honey, fresh fruit, vegetables and cut flowers; and require that the nursery and farm shop should generate at least 50% of their combined monetary turnover from bedding plants, pot plants and trees grown on the site.

Development Control (South) Committee 15th October 2013

DCS/66 Planning Application: DC/13/1634 (Cont.)

(ii) That, subject to the completion of (i) above, application DC/13/1634 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The meeting closed at 4.14pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 19TH NOVEMBER 2013 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS

1. Appeals Lodged

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

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/13/0808 The change of use of Lannards Annexe from ancillary accommodation to a separate self contained dwelling. Lannards Annexe, Okehurst Lane, Billingshurst, RH14 9HR. For: Mr and Mrs C and J Buck

DC/13/0658 Change of use from garage and workshop to holiday let accommodation. 1 Cootham Brow, New Town Road, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4JP. For: Mrs S Partington

DC/13/1152 Removal of existing pole barn and attached storage buildings and replacement with smaller storage building. The Barn, Stable Cottage, Wheatsheaf Road, Henfield, BN5 9AU. For: Mr Stern

EN/10/0518 Without planning permission, the change of use of the Barn from the use permitted under reference DC/09/1924 shown on the plan attached and marked 'Plan 2' for storage and maintenance of agricultural equipment and machinery in the area marked 'B' and the use for storage of personal property and chattels of the owner/occupier of the Barn in the part of the barn shown marked 'C' (which was amended by DC/10/0792 to allow the use to be carried out by the owner/occupier of either Stable Cottage or Stable Cottage Barn), to use of the parts marked 'B' and 'C' on 'Plan 2' for residential use. Oak Tree Barn, Wheatsheaf Road, Henfield, West Sussex, BN5 9AU. For: Mr Brian Stern

EN/10/0674 Without planning permission, the erection of a loading gantry and fire escape, the insertion of rooflights, and the insertion of doors and windows in excess of those deemed lawful by virtue of Lawful Development Certificate DC/11/0947, the lawful doors and windows being shown coloured red on the Plan attached and marked 'Plan 2'. Oak Tree Barn, Wheatsheaf Road, Henfield, West Sussex, BN5 9AU. For: Mr Brian Stern

3. Informal Hearings

DC/12/2345 Stationing of one residential mobile home for occupation by gypsy family. Land North of Oldfield Cottage, Fryern Road, Storrington, West Sussex For: Mr J Light

4. Public Inquiry

DC/13/0787 Development of 160 residential dwellings (comprising 10 x 5-bed, 49 x 4-bed, 24 x 3-bed, 67 x 2-bed and 10 x 1-bed) together with associated landscaping, open space and access. Land at Junction of Stonepit Lane and West End Lane Henfield West Sussex For: Barratts Southern Counties

5. Appeal Decisions

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

DC/13/0586 Insertion of door to allow access to existing extension roof terrace, balcony railings to surround with access gate and courtesy/privacy panel. 10 Hawthorn Way, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4NL. For: Mr David Wright Appeal: DISMISSED (Committee)

DC/13/0546 Proposed alterations and extension to provide additional first floor accommodation. Blue Cedar, Castlegate, West Chiltington, Pulborough, RH20 2NJ. For: Mr T Holloway Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/12/1298 New dwelling as replacement for existing sub standard dwelling. Nettlecombe, West End Lane, Henfield, BN5 9RE. For: Ms J Irving Appeal: ALLOWED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

DC/13/0723 Alteration and extension of existing dwelling to include new front entrance hall and porch, first floor extension including new dormer windows to front elevation, roof lights and dormer windows to side elevation and raising the eaves level to the rear to introduce bedroom and bathroom accommodation. Lion Heart, Fryern Road, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4BJ. For: Mr Lee Gorton Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/13/0208 Demolition of existing buildings, surrender of all lawful uses and extant approvals for new commercial buildings and construction of 3 detached dwellings and garages. Adams Yard, West End Lane, Henfield, BN5 9RF. For: Mr and Mrs C Jones Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 19th November 2013 Erection of up to 102 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing, with DEVELOPMENT: associated access (Outline) SITE: Land North of South Wood Melton Drive Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/13/0752 APPLICANT: Wates Developments

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA:

RECOMMENDATION:

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application DC/13/0752 sought outline planning permission for the residential development of land north of Melton Drive. The application sought outline permission for a development of 102 dwellings, of which it was proposed that 40% would be affordable. All matters were reserved with the exception of the means of access, which was dealt with by vehicular access on the southern end of the western boundary onto Fryern Road, and by a pedestrian/cycle/emergency access in the south-eastern corner of the site onto Melton Drive.

1.2 The application was brought before Planning Committee on 16th July 2013 with a recommendation from Officers to refuse planning permission and a copy of the original Committee report is attached at Appendix A. The application was subsequently refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of the defined built up area boundary and is unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry, the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste. It therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Contact Officer: James Hutchison Tel: 01403 215162 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

2. On the basis of the illustrative material submitted it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would protect, conserve or enhance the townscape character of the area due to the excessive number of dwellings and the density proposed, which is out of keeping with the development pattern of adjoining residential development. The proposal therefore fails to integrate with the locally distinctive surroundings and as such it is contrary to policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). The proposal would also not accord with criteria 6 and 7 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

3. On the basis of the illustrative material submitted it is considered that the proposed development, due to its extent and the intended scale, form and character of the built form is likely to result in cumulative adverse impacts on the landscape character of the site and its immediate predominantly rural surroundings. It is also considered the proposal would have some significant adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). The proposal would also not accord with Criteria 6 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

4. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would provide a safe and adequate highway solution to serve the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). The proposal would also not accord with Criteria 11 and 12 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

5. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would not exacerbate existing air quality problems within the Storrington Air Quality Management Area. The proposed development is not sustainable since it is contrary to Paragraphs 14 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework and is contrary to policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Criteria 13 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

6. The proposed development has not made provision for contributions towards relevant infrastructure improvements and affordable housing and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) as it is not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

1.3 The Applicant then appealed the refusal of permission on 21 August 2013, and this is now subject to a Public Inquiry that is due to open on 7th January 2014. During the course of the preparatory work on the appeal, and after a full assessment of the original proposal by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, it was determined that the appealed scheme would have a harmful effect on the setting of the Grade II* listed building of West Wantley Farm, which is positioned approximately 110m due north of the centre of the appeal site.

1.4 By reason of the fact that the proposal would affect the setting of the listed building, and as there was no appropriate consultation and consideration of this issue under the requisite requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990, the Planning Inspector remains statutorily obliged to make a determination on this matter, and for this reason the Local Planning Authority would also be required to give evidence on the same.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

1.5 This report therefore seeks a resolution from members that they are satisfied that were the matter to have been addressed at the time that the Local Planning Authority determined the application, that the following reason for refusal would have been attached:

The proposed development, by reason of its close proximity, scale, elevated height and by bringing the settlement edge closer to the grade II* listed building of West Wantley Farm, would cause unacceptable harm to this heritage asset, and that this harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits resulting from the proposal, contrary to policy DC 13 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), policies CP 1 and CP 3 of the Core Strategy (2007), and criterion 8 of the Council’s Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The application site (the site) lies to the north of Storrington on the east side of Fryern Road adjoining the rear of properties fronting Melton Drive. The site is 4.7 hectares in area and is generally rectangular in shape. It has a frontage of approximately 152m to Fryern Road and depth of approximately 296m (south boundary) and 352m (north boundary). At the south-east corner, the site extends to the south via an approximately 10m wide section that establishes a connection with Melton Drive.

1.7 The site currently comprises of a large open agricultural field with landscape buffers along its northern, eastern and southern sides. A single large Oak tree is located to the western boundary with Fryern Road, also defined by a post and wire fence and overgrown weeds. There is a cluster of trees at the north-east corner of the site.

1.8 The south of the site provides the only physical connection with the edge of the built up area of Storrington. The site borders 8 properties fronting Melton Drive. All but one of the plots are in excess of 2,000sqm and each contains a detached dwelling, which are mostly single storey but also contain some double storey forms. The dwellings are set within large gardens and are consistently set back from the front boundary by at least 30m.

1.9 To the east of the site are open agricultural fields and a single storey dwelling at 16 Melton Drive. To the north of the site, there are further fields and associated farmhouses and buildings. To the west of the site beyond the avenue of Oak trees on the western side of Fryern Road are more agricultural/equestrian fields with hedgerows and windbreaks.

1.10 Approximately 110m to the north and 200m to the north-east of the site, and on the northern side of the public footpath that traverses from east to west, is the grade II* listed building of West Wantley Farm and the grade II listed building of East Wantley Farmhouse (respectively).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012):- Section 7 (Requiring Good Design). Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment). APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP 1 and CP 3 of the Core Strategy (2007)

2.4 Policy DC 13 of the General Development Control Policies (2007)

2.5 Guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD is also relevant:

Criterion 8: Archaeological sites, ancient monuments and listed buildings and their settings are protected, in accordance with national guidelines and policies DC 10 and DC 13 (of the General Development Control Policies – 2007).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 Of relevance to this appeal is the following planning history of the site:

Reference: Description: Decision and Date: DC/13/0752 Erection of up to 102 dwellings, including Refused 40% affordable housing, with associated permission on access 31/07/2013 (outline planning) APP/Z3825/A/13/2202943 Appeal against the refusal of application: Pending 13/0752

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Design and Conservation Officer has made an assessment of whether the appealed scheme would affect the setting of the listed buildings of both West Wantley Farm and East Wantley Farmhouse, and if so, whether the impact of this would be significant.

Effect on the Setting of the Heritage Assets:

3.2 From the appeal site, the listed building of West Wantley Farm would be distinctly visible by reason of its roof and large chimneys that are clearly viewed over the existing curtilage hedgerow to the south of the building. The listed building is not only clearly visible from the appeal site, but both the appeal site and West Wantley Farm are visible together in wider views across the countryside to the north of the settlement.

3.3 Contrary to the assessment within the appellant’s Heritage Statement that was submitted with the planning application, cartographic evidence contained within the appellant’s Archaeological Assessment shows that there was no hedge or tree belt which afforded screening of the listed building from the appeal site in the tithe map of 1840, and therefore the views of the listed building are historic, or at least have been open since the mid 19th century.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5

3.4 It is the opinion of the Design and Conservation Officer therefore, that the appealed scheme would have an affect on the setting of the grade II* listed building of West Wantley Farm.

3.5 East Wantley Farmhouse is a grade II listed building positioned approximately 200m to the north-east of the appeal site. Whilst there is a change in levels between the listed building and the appeal site, the existing tree and scrub belt in-between the two is sufficient to screen the development from this listed building. The affect of the appealed scheme on this listed building is therefore considered to be negligible.

Significance of the Impact on West Wantley Farm:

3.6 The harm to West Wantley Farm would arise from the erosion of the historic countryside setting of the heritage asset, and the bringing closer of the suburban edge of Storrington to the listed building and its countryside setting.

3.7 The historic views of the listed building would be harmed by the appealed scheme, however as the immediate setting of West Wantley Farm would remain untouched, and the listed building would only be viewed by 50% of the development site, the impact on the setting of this heritage asset is considered to be ‘less than substantial’ in terms of the guidance in paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

3.8 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where the development would lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

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

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

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

Impact on the Setting of West Wantley Farm:

6.1 The grade II* listed building of West Wantley Farm, by reason of its close proximity and its lower level, would be clearly visible from the appealed scheme. There is historic evidence that clearly establishes that the listed building had historic views across the appeal site, and that there was no significant tree or hedgerow belt since at least 1840 that precluded views of the listed building and appeal site. The proposed development would clearly affect the countryside setting of the listed building, and by bringing the settlement edge of Storrington closer to the listed building, harm would be caused on the setting of West Wantley Farm.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6

6.2 In considering the extent of this impact on the setting of the listed building, of consideration is the fact that only 50% of the appeal site would be visible within the same context as West Wantley Farm, and that the field that exists between the listed building and the appeal site means that the proposal does not affect the immediate setting of the heritage asset. Consequently, the appealed scheme would have a ‘less than substantial’ harmful impact on the setting of West Wantley Farm.

6.3 In considering the public benefits of the appealed scheme, it is clear from the other reasons for refusal on DC/13/0752 that there are significant and demonstrable harmful effects resulting from the development, which outweigh the positive benefits of the provision of housing on the site and therefore the application as a whole. The significance of the impact on the setting of the listed building, when considered as a whole, is considered to outweigh the positive benefits of the appealed scheme.

6.4 Consequently the appealed scheme is also contrary to policy DC 13 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), policies CP 1 and CP 3 of the Core Strategy (2007), criterion 8 of the Council’s Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD, and sections 7 and 12 of the NPPF.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that members resolve that had the matter of the impact on heritage assets been taken into account in the determination of application ref: DC/13/0752 that permission would also have been refused for the following reason:

Background Papers: DC/13/0752; & APP/Z3825/A/13/2202943

DC/13/0752

Land North of South Wood

Scale : 1:2500

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 08 November 2013

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

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

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

1.2 The applicant has stated that the application has been submitted so that the site could be retained on a permanent basis for any gypsy /traveller. However it has been indicated that if such a situation was not acceptable the applicant would accept a further temporary personal permission. Condition 3 of the approval restricts occupation of the site to Gypsy’s

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

and Travellers only, with the number of caravans limited to 2 (with no more than one of which being a mobile home).

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

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

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

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

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

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

PLANNING HISTORY

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

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

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

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

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Strategic and Community Planning (summarised); No objection

 It is accepted that there is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the District  Existing Gypsy and Traveller sites subject to temporary permissions, such as Parsons Field Stables that expire before 2017 are considered to form part of the 39 pitches required by 2017 to meet the existing and future accommodation needs identified in the Needs Assessment.  The permanent use of this pitch would be considered to address the accommodation need identified by the Needs Assessment through the expiry of the existing temporary permission on this site.  From a strategic perspective, ideally all sites would come forward through a plan led approach, and would accord with current adopted development plan policy and recent government guidance.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

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

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

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

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial)

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

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5

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

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

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

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

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

Article 2 of the First Protocol (Right to Education)

4.7 Following on from this, Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act (1998) sets out the right to a proper education, and again this legal requirement is especially applicable to Gypsies particularly since many Gypsy children are assessed as having special educational needs.

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

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

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

Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property)

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

Article 14 (Prohibition on Discrimination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7

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

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

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

Principle

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

6.3 The West Sussex Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTAA) 2007 established a requirement for 39 pitches in the District between 2006 and 2011. The GTAA was to feed into policies made at regional level to set District targets and then policies would be made at local level to follow targets and identify sites. A report in 2011 by Baker Associates was published but this has been superseded by the report published in January 2013 by WS Planning. The background document Horsham District Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Study, Final Report, October 2011 by Baker Associates, which forms part of the evidence base for the consultation document, identified the application site as a potentially suitable site for 1 pitch subject to suitable landscape mitigation and alterations to the site entrance.

6.4 The up-dated needs survey undertaken by WS Planning was published in January 2013. It has shown that 75 pitches were provided at December 2012 within the District. On the basis of current need, it is predicted that over the next 5 years (between 2012 and 2017), there is a need for a further 39 pitches to be provided. As part of this requirement there is a need for 29 pitches to address the current accommodation need arising from sites which may be unauthorised or subject to temporary permissions or through overcrowding. This APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8

site due to its temporary permission is considered as a pitch in accommodation need, and the permanent use of this pitch would be considered to address the accommodation need identified by the Needs Assessment through the expiry of the existing temporary permission on this site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.8 Policy DC32 requires the Local Planning Authority to consider if there is a need for Gypsy sites, and that any proposal must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services. The site is outside of the built-up area and as such is classified as being in a countryside location. The nearest settlement is Pulborough, defined in the Local Development Framework as a Category 1 settlement and therefore having a good range of services and facilities. Guidance within the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites document paragraph 21, states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. As such, given the countryside location of this site at some distance away from these services it could be considered that APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9

the proposal is contrary to the Government guidance and to Policy DC32. However, the Council took the view in 2010 in relation to the Greenfield Farm site, Valewood Lane (DC/10/0721), that, although the main mode of transport would be vehicular, the site could be justified as sustainable in the wider sense. It was acknowledged at the time that this would set the tone for consideration of sites in the future under this policy. Similarly, the Inspector when considering the Kingfisher Farm appeal on a site adjacent to Greenfield Farm reached the same conclusion in respect of sustainability. On consideration of the application site in 2009 it was noted that although the site is in a rural location the occupant’s son had been attending school in Pulborough and had access to other local facilities i.e. doctors and dental surgeries. It is accepted that walking is more likely to replace short car trips, if the distance is under 2 km, whilst cycling has the potential to substitute short car trips and to form part of a longer journey by public transport, particularly if under 5km. It is recognized that most local facilities are not within walking distance, with the school and railway station approximately 2.7 km and approximately 3.4 km away respectively. However, it should be recognized that many facilities e.g. the railway stations and the local school, appear to be within cycling distance, which suggests this location is not wholly unsustainable. It is also understood that buses do run daily along the A29, and the bus stop is within walking distance of the site (approximately 1.8 km away).

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

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

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

Landscape Impacts

6.12 With regards to the landscape considerations it is considered that the site is well screened from the road due to the low height of the mobile home and the existing boundary treatment. The South Downs National Park Authority noted with regards to the previous APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10

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

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

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

Named Occupiers

6.15 The site has been occupied by the applicant since 2007, and was the subject of enforcement action, an appeal and a refused planning application. The enforcement appeal related to the stationing of a mobile home (EN/22/2007) which was dismissed by the appeal Inspector. The Inspector in his consideration of the application determined that “Overall, I conclude that the family’s membership either individually or collectively, does not satisfy the definition of gypsies and travellers set out in Circular 01/2006. Consequently, there is, on this occasion, no need to examine any requirements for special residential accommodation for travellers in any depth or to assess whether there is any overall shortage of gypsy and traveller accommodation in this part of West Sussex that could be met by this site.” However the Inspector did agree that the applicant is ethnically a Romany Gypsy.

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

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11

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

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

Conclusion

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

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

Parsons Field Stables

Scale : 1:1250

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 19 November 2013 Change of use from agricultural to a mixed agricultural/Class D1 use to DEVELOPMENT: enable provision of a Early Years Nursery SITE: Pear Tree Farm West Chiltington Lane Billingshurst West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/13/1492 APPLICANT: Mrs Tracey Poulton

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for a change of use from agriculture to a mixed agricultural/ D1 use (Sui Generis) to enable the provision of an Early Years Nursery alongside the existing agricultural use on the site.

1.2 The application proposes the provision of an Early Years Nursery which would provide for up to 35 children at any one time. The proposed nursery would employ 13 members of staff. The proposed nursery is designed to focus on learning through nature and wildlife and will operate on various parts of the land depending on the weather and time of year.

1.3 The accommodation for the proposed nursery would be provided within ‘cabans’ which the applicants claim are non-permanent structures. The proposed ‘cabans’ are circular in shape with a diameter of approximately 5metres and a maximum height of approximately 2.5metres. The ‘cabans’ would be constructed of timber.

1.4 It is proposed to provide a car parking area for 20 vehicles at the south east entrance to the site, parallel to the existing drive using permeable paving blocks. It is suggested that there would a further 6 parking spaces for staff close to the existing barn. In addition to this, the existing access track would be widened to 6 metres.

Contact Officer: Emma Greening Tel: 01403 215122 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

1.5 The nursery would operate 5 days a week (Monday to Friday) from 08:00 and 18:00. The applicants suggest that traffic flows will be distributed throughout the day with peak flows in the morning and evening.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The application site is located outside of the built up area boundary. The main dwelling house (Pear Tree Farm) is a Grade II listed building. There are a number of public footpaths running through the site and an area of Ancient Woodland on the western edge.

1.7 The site itself is accessed off the western side of West Chiltington Lane and is located in a predominantly rural area. The access currently serves the main dwelling house (Pear Tree Farm) and a barn which has permission to be converted into a dwelling house. The surrounding area is characterised by open fields and field hedging. There is hedging along the front boundary of the site with post and rail fencing close to the entrance. A wind turbine and solar panels are located in the field to the east of the main dwelling house and there is a poly tunnel located in the field to the north east of the main dwelling house.

1.8 At the time of the site visit, one of the barns which are located approximately halfway along the access track had been converted into an office. The nearest neighbouring properties are located to the southern boundary of the site, to the western and north western areas of the site. Along the northern boundary runs ‘New Road’ and open fields/ woodland are located to the south and west.

1.9 The category 2 settlement of Barns Green is located approximately 2.2 kilometres by car from the application site and Billingshurst (Category 1 settlement) is located approximately 4.5 kilometres by car from the application site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant Government Policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012

2.3 Relevant sections include: 1 (Building a Strong and Competitive Economy), 3 (Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy), 4 (Promoting Sustainable Transport), 7 (Requiring Good Design), 8 (Promoting Healthy Communities), 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment), 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2007): CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP14 (Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services), CP15 (Rural Strategy), CP19 (Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport)

2.5 Horsham District Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies (2007): DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC6 (Woodlands and Trees), DC9 (Development Principles), DC13 (Listed Buildings), DC23 (Sustainable Farm Diversification), DC40 (Transport and Access)

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

PLANNING HISTORY

There is a relatively extensive planning history for the site predominantly relating to the main listed dwelling house and barn, which whilst not directly related to this application form part of the overall history for the site

Applications DC/10/0346 and DC/10/0347 granted permission for a two storey link extension with single storey storage building and construction of new access drive and garage

Applications DC/09/2268 and DC/09/2310 granted permission for repairs, alterations and change of use of redundant listed agricultural barn for residential purposes

DC/10/2427 was allowed at appeal for the installation of 16 solar panels, 1 wind turbine and batter store

Application DC/11/1248 was permitted for the Erection of 12 No. solar panels and retrospective planning for the erection of a building used as a battery store and 4 No. solar panels

Application DC/11/0639 concluded that agricultural prior approval was not required for erection of a poly tunnel

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Head of Leisure and Economic Development: supports this application on the basis that the Council supports small business and related employment particularly in rural areas.

3.3 Strategic Planning Policy Manager: Has advised of the following policy issues:  Policies DC1, CP1 and CP2 set out that any development must ensure the sustainable development rural areas and should maintain and enhance the landscape character of the District’s countryside, villages and towns, whilst it is recognised that the natural and undeveloped nature of rural areas must be protected  The NPPF states that planning should support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas and promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses  It is considered that the location of the D1 nursery use on agricultural fields does not represent sustainable development of the rural area and could potentially result in inappropriate levels of activity on previously undeveloped rural land  Consideration needs to be given on the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Grade II listed farmhouse  Overall, the countryside location of the application should be judged against the provision for new facilities and the creation of jobs supporting the rural economy, whilst also taking into account the Grade 2 listed building

3.4 Design and Conservation Officer: Following the submission of amended plans to exclude part of the field from the proposal, it is advised that the parking area is in the least harmful location on the site and improvements to this area are on balance considered acceptable. Therefore it is considered that on balance the application is considered to preserve the APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

heritage asset and would therefore meet the requirements of DC13 and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.5 Arboricultural Officer: No objections to the proposal (verbal response)

3.6 Head of Public Health and Licensing: No Objection

3.7 Access Officer: Concerns over the disabled parking and level of provision within the facility

3.8 Leisure and Parks: No comments

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.9 WSCC Childhood Services: comments that the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment Termly Monitoring Reports show that there is an identified need for additional early year’s childcare places in Horsham District. Representatives from the service have visited the proposed site and have no reservations that these premises could be made into an appropriate environment for an early year’s provision.

3.10 WSCC Highways: has no objection to the proposal and made the following comments:  Acceptable in principle but require modifications to be made to the proposed access road width and/ or car parking space layout  Suggest that visibility is good and do not raise an objection to intensification of the access  Suggested widening the access road and if this could not be achieved then making the spaces wider or angle the spaces at 60 degrees  Consideration needs to be given to providing disabled spaces  Required a modification to the car parking and access road layout and a revised drawing showing the new proposals along with the dimensions of car parking bays and access road to be included to satisfy concerns over cars being able to enter and exit the parking spaces in one movement.

Following the submission of amended plans WSCC Highways raise no objection to the proposal.

3.11 WSCC Rights of Way: Do not consider that the proposal would have a negative impact on users of the rights of way. Only concern is that during construction there may additional traffic which could inconvenience users, however this is not considered significant enough to object.

3.12 Ofsted: Any response received will be reported verbally at the meeting

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.13 Billingshurst Parish Council: Strong Support

3.14 Neighbour Comments: 6 letters of objection received from 5 addresses over two consultations raising the following concerns:  Site is clearly unsustainable, the entire business will be car dependent and there is no public transport provision in the area  Would be more appropriate to establish the business in the built up area  Pear Tree Farm poses dangers to children with a deep pond, electric fences etc  Would add to the level of traffic using the narrow country lanes  Concerns about the lack of provision of toilets APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

 Concerns regarding the use of ‘Cabans’ in winter months  Security arrangements are inadequate given the public footpaths which run through the site

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

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework has a golden thread running through it which seeks to ensure a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the planning system performs an economic, social and environmental role. The Framework requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan. It is considered that the policies contained within the Horsham District Local Development Framework are still relevant in this case.

6.2 As outlined within the National Planning Policy Framework there are three dimensions to sustainable development. The economic role seeks to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy by identifying and co-ordinating development requirements. The social role supports strong, vibrant and healthy communities to meet the needs of present and future generations and by creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services which reflect the community’s needs. Finally the environmental role seeks to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment by helping to improve biodiversity, minimise waste and pollution and adapt to climate change.

6.3 The main considerations in the determination of this application is (I) whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to policy at both central government and local level, (II) the impact on the wider countryside location, (III) highways issues, (IV) whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and (V) impact on neighbour amenity.

Principle of Development

6.4 Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies states that “Outside the built up area boundary, development will not be permitted unless it is essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria: a. supports the needs of agriculture or forestry b. enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste c. provides for quiet informal recreational use; or, d. ensures the sustainable development of rural areas

Any development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead, either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside”

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

6.5 The application seeks permission for a change of use of the land from agricultural to an agricultural/ nursery use. Presently on the site there is a single dwelling house with the Design and Access Statement suggesting that the applicants are in the process of establishing a farming enterprise on the site with livestock on the fields to the north-west end of the site and to the east there is a poly tunnel and field being used for growing a variety of fruit, vegetables and willow. The rest of the land is used for grazing.

6.6 It is acknowledged that the proposal has received support from a number of sources and that West Sussex County Council have suggested that there is a need for additional nursery places in the area. However any proposal needs to meet the objectives of planning policy.

6.7 In terms of the impact on the countryside the applicants have indicated that the proposed nursery would predominantly operate outdoors with non permanent structures within the site. The proposed nursery would have a focus on outdoor activities and would move around the site according to the time of year. At any one time, the nursery would cater for up to 35 children with 13 members of staff. Given the number of children proposed it is considered that the increase in traffic movements from staff and parents dropping off and collecting children would significantly increase the level of activity on a rural site which currently only serves one dwelling house. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

6.8 Policy CP14 of the Cores Strategy (2007) concerns the protection and enhancement of community facilities and services. This policy states that “new or improved community facilities will be encouraged….. where they meet the identified needs of local communities. There facilities or services should be preferably within the defined built up area boundaries but exceptionally may be located outside such areas where this is the only practicable option and where a suitable site well-related to an existing settlement exists”. The site is located outside the built up area boundary in a rural area with a few houses sparsely located along West Chiltington Lane. The nearest settlements are Barns Green (2.2km) and Billingshurst (4.5km). Given the rural location of the site accessed via country lanes, it is not considered that the proposal is well related to existing settlements. Furthermore, the applicants have not demonstrated that the site chosen is the most suitable option.

6.9 In addition to the issues raised above consideration needs to be given to sustainability. The National Planning Policy Framework suggest that “plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel would be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised” (paragraph 34). The site is located in a rural area where the car will be the primary means of access. The supporting information suggests that the nursery would cater for up to 35 children each day with 13 members of staff and the main traffic movements would likely be at the beginning and end of the day. Whilst the applicant has suggested that there is a bus stop less than 500metres away, this has a very limited service and it is unlikely that this would be used to access the site.

6.10 Within their supporting information, the applicants have made reference to a number of other nurseries within Sussex which they suggest is similar to what is currently under consideration. There is reference made to one nursery in Horsham District (Little Barn Owls in Horsham). Planning permission was granted under DC/12/1199 for the change of use from B1 (offices) to D1 (nursery), whilst it is acknowledged that this nursery is located outside of the built up area boundary, there are different circumstances related to the case. Application DC/12/1199 involved the relocation of an existing business into premises which already had a business use on the site and is relatively close to the main residential areas of North Horsham (approximately 500metres). Given that the application currently under consideration is for a new business, and on a site which is currently used for agricultural purposes, the two applications are not on this occasion considered comparable. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

6.11 In terms of the principle of development, it is considered that the proposed development would result in a significant increase in the level of activity on the site which is contrary is Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies. In addition to this, the proposed development is not considered to be located in a sustainable location nor would it be well- related to an existing settlement.

Impact on the wider countryside location

6.12 In terms of the impact on the countryside location, Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (2007) states that “The landscape character of the District, including the settlement pattern, together with the townscape character of settlements will be maintained and enhanced. Activities which may influence character should only take place where: a. the landscape and townscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced taking into account key landscape and settlement characteristics, including maintaining settlement separation”. The application site is located within a rural area with a few houses scattered along West Chiltington Lane. The existing dwelling house (Pear Tree Farm) is accessed via an unmade track which serves a single dwelling house and there are a number of public footpaths which cross the site. The dwelling house is currently surrounded on all sides by fields which have their boundaries marked by hedging.

6.13 There are two main elements to the proposal, the parking area and the siting of the proposed ‘cabans’. The parking area would be located close to the entrance of the site and would involve increasing the width of the existing track to up to 6 metres in width and the addition of a passing bay to the north of the existing turning area and 20 spaces to be located to the south of the existing track close to the entrance. The proposed parking area would be constructed of permeable paving blocks with joints that can be filled with soil and also the amended plans show that the parking spaces have been broken up to try and reduce the expanse of hard surfacing. Whilst it is noted that there is some existing tree screening to the south, it is considered that the proposed parking area would suburbanise the area with the introduction of additional hard standing, and it is therefore considered that the parking area proposed and widening of the track would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area.

6.14 The second issue for consideration is the impact of the ‘cabans’ on the countryside location. Whilst the applicants claim that the six ‘cabans’ will move round the site depending on the seasons, general locations have been identified for the summer and winter months. The proposed ‘cabans’ would be accompanied by associated paraphernalia for the nursery including the proposed field kitchen and toilet facilities as well as outdoor games and equipment, it is also likely that some temporary fencing would be required. Whilst the ‘cabans’ might not constitute development, the nursery would operate all year round. It is considered that the structures associated with the nursery would be highly visible from the public footpaths which run through the site, and these structures coupled with the associated paraphernalia would have an adverse impact on its countryside location.

6.15 In terms of the impact on the countryside location, it is considered that the proposed parking area and structures associated with the running of the nursery would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the rural location.

Highway Safety

6.16 In terms of the impact on highway safety, the Highways Authority has been consulted on the proposal. No objection has been raised to the intensification of use on this access and it is suggested that visibility is acceptable. Concerns were however raised regarding the APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8

layout of the parking bays in relation to the width of the track way. Amended plans have been submitted and the Highways Authority has not objected to the proposals. Given the Highways Authority have not raised an objection to the proposal, it would be difficult to justify a reason for refusal on highways grounds.

Impact on setting of the Listed Building

6.17 Pear Tree Farm is a Grade II listed dwelling house and there is an additional listed barn located along the track to the dwelling. Whilst the submitted information suggests that the ‘cabans’ are non-permanent structures which would be moved around the site, consideration still needs to be given to their impact on the setting of the listed building. During the course of the application the Design and Conservation Officer suggested that the most sensitive areas of the site which would affect the setting of the listed building were the lane and the area to the south of the access lane in front of the listed building. In response to this concern the listed dwelling and barns and part of the field which surrounds the buildings have been removed from the red edging thereby removing the ‘cabans’ from being located in a position where they would impact on the setting of the listed building.

6.18 The second area of concern was the proposed parking area, which although located a significant distance from the listed building itself still provides part of the experience when accessing the main dwelling house. The parking area has been amended and the Design and Conservation Officer has suggested that the location of the parking is the least harmful location on the site. As a result, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal will have some impact on the heritage asset, this is not considered significant enough to justify refusal of the scheme on this basis.

Impact on neighbour amenity

6.19 In terms of the impact of the proposal on neighbour amenity, the nearest neighbours are located close to the southern and eastern boundary of the site, with the properties to the west located a number of fields away from the site boundary. Whilst the proposal may have some impact on neighbouring properties in terms of additional noise given the number of children proposed for the nursery, the location map for the ‘cabans’ show that they will generally be located to the north west of the site. In addition to this, the access way would be approximately 60 metres from the nearest neighbouring property. As a result the overall impact on neighbour amenity is considered limited.

Other Issues

6.20 During the course of the application, a number of other issues have been raised. These include concerns over child safety. A number of the neighbour representations received have outlined concerns regarding the safety of children on a working farm and the proximity of public footpaths and ponds. Whilst the concerns regarding child safety are noted any nursery permitted would need to receive a license from Ofsted to be able to operate. The supporting information supplied as part of the application has suggested that the curriculum, security, and the number of children attending would have to be approved and licensed by Ofsted. Whilst the representations are noted, it is considered that they would be dealt with by other legislation and it would not be possible to control by planning condition.

6.21 The second issue is that of the barn which is located approximately halfway along the existing track. Planning permission and Listed Building Consent was granted under DC/09/2268 and DC/09/2310 for the change of use of the barn for residential purposes. At the time of the site visit, the original hovel was being used as an office. Having looked at the planning history for the site, it does not appear that any conditions have been discharged on this permission and further clarification has been sought from the applicants APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9

regarding the works which have taken place. It should however be noted that this barn does not form part of the planning application and has been removed from the red edge area. It is however not clear from discussion with the applicant as to where the administrative element of the nursery would be located.

Conclusion

6.22 As has been previously outlined above in 6.1 and 6.2 the National Planning Policy Framework has three key roles (economic, social and environmental). It is acknowledged that the proposal would provide employment opportunities and contribute towards meeting a need for nursery places. However the proposal is considered to have an adverse impact on the countryside location in terms of the increased level of activity. In addition it is considered the proposed parking area, ‘cabans’ and associated paraphernalia would adversely affect the visual amenities of the rural location. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Frameworks objectives on balance it is considered that the economic and social benefits from the proposal would not outweigh the significant negative impact on the environment and countryside location.

6.23 Overall, it is considered that the proposed change of use to allow a nursery to operate on the site would result in a significant increase in the overall level of activity in this rural location. In addition to this, it is considered that the development would be overly reliant on the private car and would ultimately have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of its countryside location. As a result it is considered that the proposal fails to meet the aims of planning policy and it is recommended that planning permission is refused.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission is refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed change of use would result in inappropriate development outside of the built up area boundary in an isolated and unsustainable countryside location. In addition to this it is considered that the proposed nursery would ultimately result in an increased level of activity in the countryside which coupled with the proposed structures and associated paraphernalia would have an adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the rural area. As a result it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CP1, CP3, CP14, CP15 and CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC13 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/13/1492 DC/13/1492

Pear Tree Farm

Scale : 1:5000

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 19th November 2013 Redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development DEVELOPMENT: comprising 12 dwellings and a B1a commercial unit, together with associated car parking, amenity space, access and landscaping SITE: Lamina Dielectrics Station Works Myrtle Lane Billingshurst WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/13/1346 APPLICANT: Thakeham Homes

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement securing community facilities and transport infrastructure contributions.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing commercial unit on site and the erection of 12 dwellings and a B1a commercial unit that would be split into four individual units, together with associated car parking, amenity space, access and landscaping.

1.2 The B1a commercial unit would measure 25m by 12.8m and would have a flat roof height of 5.8m. The building would be subdivided into four units with each unit consisting of a reception/office area and a small kitchen and toilet area. 14 car parking spaces are proposed for the B1a units.

1.3 The development also proposes the erection of 6 no. 2 bed and 6 no. 3 bed houses. The 2 bed houses would have a living room, cloakroom and kitchen / diner to the ground floor and 2 bedrooms and a bathroom to the first floor level. The 3 bed houses would consist of a hall, lounge, kitchen / dining area and cloakroom to the ground floor level and 3 bedrooms, en-suite and bathroom to the first floor level.

1.4 The dwellings would have different designs and utilise different materials which include brickwork, tile hanging, natural slate roofs, clay roof tiles and feather edge boarding.

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

1.5 Amended plans have been received deleting the garages from the development and the parking for Plot 1 and 2 has been moved slightly further to the east which gives Plot 1 a larger garden. The parking for Plot 4 has been amended so that it does not encroach into the rear garden for the property. All the dwellings would have two car parking spaces and there would be two designated visitor bays within the site.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The site is located within the built up area of Billingshurst and is outside any employment protection zone. The site is located at the western end of Myrtle Lane. The northern part of the site consists of a disused commercial building and associated hard standing and the southern part of the site consists of hardstanding.

1.7 To the south of the site is a sub station and the railway line, to the west is a footpath and the grounds of Billingshurst Leisure Centre, to the north is a Sports Ground and to the east of the site is a newly built residential development and an MOT Centre. A Public Footpath runs through the site from east to west and links to a footpath that runs north / south along the western boundary of the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 14 tells us that at its heart is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking’.

Paragraph 7 states that there “are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.” “An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.”

Paragraph 56 states that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

Paragraph 59 states “design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally.”

Paragraph 61 states “Although visual appearance and architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.”

Paragraph 64 states “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.” APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

Paragraph 66 states “Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.”

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the quality of new development, CP5 – Built up areas and previously developed land, CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs & CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC9 – Development principles, DC19 – Employment Site / Land Protection and DC40 – Transport & Access.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has a long planning history but there are no applications of relevance.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Head of Public Health & Licensing has no objection and has advised that it is appropriate to deal with contamination issues at the site by condition.

3.2 Drainage Officer has no adverse comments but would recommend a drainage condition that requires details showing the feasibility of this connection to the existing network.

3.3 Equalities Officer has stated that the disabled space should meet Part M requirements (5% of public parking spaces at the commercial premises should be designated as accessible parking bay for disabled employees/visitors).

3.4 Strategic & Community Planning has stated that the site lies within the built up area boundary of Billingshurst. Policy DC19 of the General Development Control Policies document states that the redevelopment of commercial land within the BUAB will only be permitted if the Council is satisfied that the commercial unit(s) are no longer needed and/or viable for employment use. It is known that a large proportion of the Myrtle Lane industrial estate is vacant and that the units are in need of modernisation. The application will improve the character of the site and make improvements to the footpath improving accessibility to the adjacent playing fields. The scheme will also increase the availability of parking for the commercial units, something which is noted as being deficient in the 2010 Employment Land Review. Furthermore one of the key planning principles of the NPPF is to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (i.e. Brownfield land). The principle of residential development in this location is therefore considered acceptable provided the evidence submitted demonstrates that the site is no longer viable for employment use, as per the requirements of policy DC19 and that the proposal will not have a negative impact on the amenity of local residents. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

3.5 Strategic Land & Property Manager has stated that “the property is located in an area close to Billingshurst Station which has a mix of both residential and commercial property. It is noted that the site adjacent to the subject site is also being redeveloped for residential use. Due to the condition and location of the existing building it is considered that the loss of the employment use, some 500 sq m, is tolerable, particularly as the applicant proposes to develop some 341 sq m of new B1a space which will be more suited to modern needs.”

3.6 Arboricultural Officer has no objections.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.7 Natural England has no objection as the development is unlikely to affect any European Protected Species.

3.8 Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development.

3.9 West Sussex Rights of Way Officer has stated that the developer should be aware that a formal diversion will be required although in this case it may be appropriate for this to be achieved through Town & Country Planning legislation, (‘to allow development to take place’) administered by HDC.

3.10 Environment Agency has no comments.

3.11 West Sussex Highway Authority has no objections subject to conditions.

3.12 Archaeological Officer has no objection on archaeological grounds.

3.13 County Ecologist has no objections.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.14 Billingshurst Parish Council object on the following grounds:

 Surface water must go into the existing Southern Water manhole.  Tree removal –there is a proposal to remove trees which are actually on Station Road Gardens and which provide a nice backdrop.  A footpath goes through the site;  Traffic movements need to be in compliance with the condition attached;  Footpath from Myrtle Lane to Natts Lane, Bowling Club and Station Road Gardens – the footpath, which was recently resurfaced by WSCC, is in constant use and should not be moved.  Proposed access road to commercial units – this road will go through 4 of the new houses on the coal yard part of the site which would pose a risk to residents.  Parking – there is insufficient parking space for residents and only 2 parking spaces on the whole site for visitors.  Commercial units – is there evidence to suggest that these units will be used at all when there are already small units available at other locations which remain empty?

3.15 2 letters of comment have been received stating:

 This location needs to be improved;  Support the need for more housing and factories;  Developers /Contractors parking and deliveries need to be confined to onsite parking; APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

 The access road to the proposed offices should not be through the proposed new houses;  The trees to the north of the proposed development are on Billingshurst Parish council land and are part of Station Road Gardens;  It is also important that no surface water from this development is allowed to be displaced into Station Road Gardens;  The Bowling Club main services run through Station Road Gardens very close in places;

3.16 1 letter of objection has been received on the grounds of:

 The layout is unsuitable as there are two houses within close proximity of the MOT Centre;  Lack of car parking;  There isn’t enough space for HGV’s to turn in the Office area;  WSCC intention to limit parking within Myrtle Lane will exacerbate the parking problems in the area;  The car parking provision is unworkable;

3.17 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further representations received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

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

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be:

1) the principle of the development, 2) the viability of the existing commercial site, 3) the density and design of the development, 4) Landscaping, 5) the effect of the development on the amenities of nearby occupiers and the character of the area, 6) access, traffic levels & highway safety; 7) noise and contamination

Principle

6.2 The thrust of advice from National Government is that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location being within the built up area of Billingshurst which is a Category 1 Settlement under Policy CP5. Category 1 Settlements are considered to be towns and villages that are capable of infill and redevelopment due to the services and facilities they offer. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6

6.3 The Employment Land Review, 2010 identified that the Myrtle Lane site had a significant volume of vacant space and that 30% of the buildings were considered poor quality. It describes the site “as having a low intensity of use, significant volume of vacant space, buildings of a variety of ages and quality, mixed environmental quality and inadequate parking.” In this regard, it should be noted that one of the key planning principles of the NPPF is to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (i.e. Brownfield land). Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states "Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support local communities." This links in with the requirements of Policy DC19 which requires marketing information to be submitted in order to demonstrate whether an existing commercial site is viable.

6.4 Paragraph 37 of the NPPF states “Planning Policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities”.

Viability of Existing Commercial Site

6.5 Policy DC19 states that “redevelopment of commercial land within the built up area boundary, but outside of the EPZs will be permitted in the following circumstances:

1) The Council is satisfied that the commercial unit(s) are no longer needed and/or viable for employment use. Evidence showing that the units(s) have been marketed at the current market value for at least 12 months prior to the application submission should accompany any such application.”

6.6 The applicant has supplied marketing information and the Council’s Strategic Land & Property Manager has reviewed the information and has commented that the accommodation on site is dated and appears to exhibit a degree of physical obsolescence. The report submitted does not give information on the lease terms, particularly regarding insuring and repairing liabilities. If the owner had sought a full repairing and insuring lease this would prove unattractive to potential occupiers. It is considered that due to the condition and location of the site that the loss of the employment use, some 500 sq m, is tolerable, particularly as the applicant proposes to create 341 sq m of new B1a floor space which will be more suited to modern needs. It is considered that the site has been marketed for a reasonable period of time with no significant interest. Policy DC20 also supports the creation of small commercial units within the built up area stating “To help maintain an adequate supply of small units, proposals for the erection of two or more small units (700 sq m or less) will be considered favourably provided that the Council is satisfied that there is a need for such units in the locality.” It is considered that there is a need for new small scale units within the built up areas. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal does meet the requirements of Policy DC19, DC20 and the NPPF.

Density

6.9 The development of 12 houses plus a B1a office building is considered to be of an acceptable density of 33.3 dwellings per hectare and this is increased to 46.1 dwellings per hectare when the area for the commercial use is excluded. Policy DC18 states that ‘All proposals will be expected to make efficient use of land (over 50 dwellings per hectare for town and village centres, in some cases); however development must also respect the local character into which it is placed.’ Therefore, the density of the housing scheme is close to 50 dwellings per hectare required in town and village centre locations.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7

Design / Scale

6.10 The dwellings proposed are of various designs which would utilise a varying pallet of materials including stock bricks, tile hanging, natural slate roofs, clay roof tiles and feather edge boarding. The dwellings are all semi detached with different roof heights which vary between 7.9m - 9.5m. The dwellings that are 9.5m in height are considered to be high, however the dwellings permitted in the development to the east of the site under reference DC/12/0029 have ridge heights of 9.5m and 8.1m. Therefore, it is considered that the ridge heights would not be out of keeping with the character of the area.

6.11 The plans have been amended during the determination of the application in order to create larger rear gardens for Plots 1, 9 and 10. The gardens for Plots 9 and 10 measure 10 metres in depth which gives approximately 20 metres between the first floor rear windows of the proposed dwellings and the dwellings permitted under DC/12/0029. The Council’s rear to rear window standard is 21m, however given the character of the area, 20m is considered sufficient in order to meet privacy standards.

6.12 The B1a commercial building would have a flat roof with a glazed front, partially glazed and solid side elevations with a solid rear elevation. The building would have a floor area of 314 square metres but would be split into four separate units each providing a floor area of 73.2 metres square. The design and scale of the building is considered to be acceptable for its proposed use and would be in accordance with Policy DC9.

Landscaping / Trees

6.13 The development involves the loss of five trees, T1, T2, T4, T5 and T7. However the rest of the trees on the northern and western boundaries are to be retained with new soft landscaping including replacement trees being proposed under a landscaping scheme to be conditioned. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has raised no objection to the development scheme. The existing trees will be protected during development by tree protective fencing. It is important than adequate soft landscaping is proposed within the development in order to soften the impact of the new built form on the character of the area and the public footpath that runs through the site.

Impact of nearby occupiers / Character of the Area

6.14 There are no properties directly to the north or west of the site but there is a new housing development to the east of the site as previously advised at paragraph 6.11. A distance of 20 metres has been retained between the dwellings and it is considered that this distance is acceptable given the density of the area. Also to the east, is an MOT Test Centre, a distance of approximately 10.2m is retained between the nearest dwelling and the MOT building. Public Health & Licensing has been consulted as part of the application process and has raised no objections to this relationship in terms of noise and disturbance.

6.15 The buildings in Mrtyle Lane are a mixture of differing styles, designs and uses. Most of the buildings are residential in use but there are offices and an MOT Centre within the street. It is considered that the style of the dwellings would be similar to those permitted and built to the east of the site and would pick up characteristics from the local area in their design.

Access / Parking / Traffic Levels

6.16 The proposal will utilise the existing vehicular access onto Station Road. Access for pedestrians will be achieved from the existing footway along Myrtle Lane. The scheme proposes 24 spaces for the residential dwellings and 14 parking spaces for the commercial APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8

use, which gives a total of 38 car parking spaces. The number of spaces proposed accords with West Sussex County Council’s Guidance on Parking.

6.17 The site has an established commercial use although it is currently vacant. The commercial use would have generated a number of vehicle movements and the proposed residential use would generate relatively few movements compared to the previous commercial use. Therefore, in terms of vehicular movements this proposal should result in a reduction in vehicular movements compared to the historic use on the site.

6.18 There are facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, such as the train station within a short walking distance. Billingshurst centre is within walking and cycling distance which would reduce the reliance on the use of the private car. The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds subject to the completion of a legal agreement securing contributions. These contributions could go towards the improvement of the current carriageway condition from the site to the entrance of the Martin Grant Home works directly to the east of the site.

6.19 Noise & Contamination

The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical and Contamination Assessment Report and a Noise and Vibration Report on which Public Health & Licensing has been consulted. Following the submission of additional information Public Health has no objection to the scheme subject to conditions in relation to the control of contamination.

Summary

6.20 In conclusion, it is considered that the principle of the change of use from commercial buildings to residential is acceptable in this instance as the applicant has provided evidence to show that the site is no longer required for commercial purposes. It is considered that the proposed scheme would respect the character of the area and would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties due to the design and layout of the proposed development.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved subject to completion of a legal agreement securing contributions towards community facilities, fire and rescue services and transport infrastructure and the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission

02 M1 Approval of Materials (excluding demolition and enabling works)

03 J1 Use Limitation “The commercial unit hereby approved shall be used for B1a use only”

04 D6 Finished Floor Levels (excluding demolition and enabling works)

05 G6 Recycling

06 J10 Removal of Permitted Development – Dwellings “A, B, C, D and E only”

07 J13 Removal of Permitted Development – Windows

08 O1 Hours of Working

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9

09 O2 Burning of Materials (in connection with the development)

10 The dwellings hereby approved shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such national measures of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling(s) shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved. Reason: To ensure the dwelling makes the most efficient use of renewable energy and to comply with policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11 Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition and enabling works) details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water Reason: To ensure there is suitable drainage infrastructure provision to serve the development in accordance with policy CP14 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

12 Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition and enabling works) full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

 Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details  A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Existing and proposed levels, to include those for the access road and the adjacent open space  Hard surfacing materials including those for the public footpath: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels  Walls including retaining walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials  Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

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

13 H6 Wheel Washing

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10

14 No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide car-parking spaces for the use in accordance with Policy DC40 of the Development Control Policies 2007.

15 No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters:

 the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction,  the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction,  the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors,  the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste,  the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development,  the erection and maintenance of security hoarding,  the provision of other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders),  measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security,  details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

16 No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

17 No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle turning space has been constructed within the site in accordance with the approved site plan. This space shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

18 Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition) approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

A. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

 all previous uses  potential contaminants associated with those uses  a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors  potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 11

B. A site investigation scheme, based on (A) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

C. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (B) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

D. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (C) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason – To ensure that any contamination is dealt with In accordance with Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy 2007 and the requirements of the NPPF 2012.

19 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason – To ensure that any contamination is dealt with In accordance with Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy 2007 and the requirements of the NPPF 2012.

20 O3 Site Clearance

8. REASONS

ICAB1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.

IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.

Background Papers: DC/13/1346

Case Officer: Kathryn Sadler

DC/13/1346

Lamina Dielectrics

Scale : 1:1250

SLA Number 100023865