Park North, North Street, , West , RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (calls may be recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6 www.horsham.gov.uk

Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 19TH JULY 2011 AT 2.00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman) Sheila Matthews (Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur Ian Howard Adam Breacher Liz Kitchen Jonathan Chowen Gordon Lindsay Philip Circus Chris Mason George Cockman Brian O’Connell David Coldwell Roger Paterson Ray Dawe Sue Rogers Brian Donnelly Kate Rowbottom Andrew Dunlop Jim Sanson Jim Goddard

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21st June 2011 (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 Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 DC/11/0787 PARSONAGE FARM, DEER PARK, HENFIELD

A2 & Shipley DC/11/0878 LAND SOUTH OF HILLAND FARM, STANE STREET, BILLINGSHURST

A3 Chantry DC/11/0969 THE OAKS, HAMPERS LANE,

A4 Chantry DC/11/0400 LAND EAST OF SAWYARDS, MANLEYS HILL, STORRINGTON

A5 Chantry DC/11/0751 DOWNSVIEW FARM, CLAY LANE,

A6 Chanctonbury DC/11/0567 HATCHES HOUSE, EAST STREET,

A7 , DC/11/0872 OLD BARN NURSERIES, WORTHING ROAD, &

A8 Henfield DC/11/0538 LANCASTERS, WEST END LANE, HENFIELD & DC/11/0549

A9 DC/11/0736 PEPPERS FARM, PEPPERS LANE, ASHURST, STEYNING

A10 Chantry DC/11/0764 OAKDENE COTTAGE, HAMPERS LANE, STORRINGTON

A11 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/11/0963 KEYS, MILL LANE, & West Grinstead

A12 Chantry DC/10/2543 THE HOLT, MERRYWOOD LANE, ,

A13 Chanctonbury DC/11/0938 MORNINGSIDE, LORDINGS LANE, WEST CHILTINGTON

NOTE:

(i) Those items which are headed DELEGATION in the recommendation are seeking authority for the application to be decided by the Head of Development. The Committee is not being asked to decide the application as it is unable to do so at this meeting.

(ii) The suggested conditions or reasons for refusal may alter from those set out in the agenda.

(iii) Applications relating to sites in two or more parishes are shown under the first Parish in alphabetical order.

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

DCS110621

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 21st JUNE 2011

Present: Councillors: Sheila Matthews (Vice-Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Andrew Dunlop, Jim Goddard, Ian Howard, Brian O’Connell, Roger Paterson, Sue Rogers, Jim Sanson

Apologies: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay, Chris Mason, Kate Rowbottom.

DCS/20 MINUTES

The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 24th May 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/21 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor George DC/11/0571 Personal – knows one of the Cockman objectors Councillor Jim DC/11/0508 Personal – he lives in Monastery Sanson Lane

DCS/22 INTERESTS OF OFFICERS

The Chief Executive reported that Elizabeth Francis, Committee Support Officer, had declared an interest in planning application DC/11/0588. The interest arose because a close relative of the officer lived adjacent to the site and was an objector to the application. The officer had confirmed that she would take no part in the processing or determination of the application.

DCS/23 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/24 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/10/0939 Land South of Groomsland Drive A2 Dominion New and Gillmans Industrial Estate Homes Marringdean Road, Billingshurst DC/11/0008 Sussex Farm, Church Road, Mr Allen Russell Partridge Green, RH13 8JR DC/10/2427 Pear Tree Farm, West Chiltington Tracey Poulton Lane, Billingshurst, RH14 9DP DC/11/0018 Bainbridge Court, Washington Pathway Healthcare Road, Storrington, RH20 4DE Ltd DC/11/0064 Land East of Valerie Manor, Mr Barry Tiller Henfield Road,

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/10/1648 Luckista Caravan Site, Frankham Real DISMISSED Billingshurst Road, Estates Limited (Delegated) Ashington, RH20 3AY. DC/11/0068 Mill House, Countryman Mr and Mrs L DISMISSED Lane, Shipley, RH13 8PZ Stacey (Delegated)

DCS/25 DECISIONS ON LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

Ref No Site and Development Decision

DC/10/0903 Tattleton Lodge, Hammerpond Road, Granted Plummers Plain - for the use of Tattleton Lodge as two separate dwelling instead of one. DC/11/0831 Tomsetts Barn, Wheatsheaf Lane, Henfield - Refused for the use of Tomsetts Barn for the repair and storage of vehicles.

2 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/26 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0571 - CONSTRUCTION OF 12 SINGLE PERSON AND SMALL FAMILY UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION ON DISUSED GARDEN OF SOUTH LODGE, LITTLEWORTH SITE: GARDEN OF SOUTH LODGE, LITTLEWORTH APPLICANT: THE TRUSTEES (Councillor George Cockman declared a personal interest in this application as he knew one of the objectors)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the construction of 12 single person and small family units of residential accommodation on disused garden of South Lodge, Littleworth. The application was put forward as enabling development to facilitate the repair of Grade II* buildings at St Hughs Monastery, Henfield Road, Partridge Green. The proposed dwellings would be contained within a single block of two and a half to three storeys in height and varying in ridge height from 7.6 metres to 9.7 metres. Materials used would include brick, render and tile hanging.

Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS7 & PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP15 & CP19 and Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC7, DC9, DC13 & DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

A similar application had been withdrawn in 2010 after receiving an unfavourable officer recommendation (DC/10/0871). In 2002, planning permission had been refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed for enabling development of 16 houses and 1 separate annexe and access at land immediately to the rear (east) of the currently proposed site (WG/25/01).

The Strategic Planning Team were concerned that this proposal was both an inappropriate form of development and in the wrong location, being contrary to normal development plan policy and national policy guidelines. The comments of the Access Forum, the Design & Conservation Officer and Sussex Police were noted. Southern Water raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Natural and the Environmental Agency had no comments to make on the application. County Council commented that the principle of the development did not accord with current sustainable transport policies. Comments of Cowfold Parish Council were noted. West Grinstead Parish Council strongly opposed the application. Littleworth Residents Association objected to the proposal. Forty-two letters of objection and one of comment had been received.

3 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/26 Planning Application: DC/11/0571 (cont.)

One member of the public and a member of West Grinstead Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The application site was located outside any built-up area as defined by the Local Development Framework, to the east side of Littleworth Lane. This part of Littleworth Lane was characterised by scattered ribbon development in a rural location.

The current application differed little in siting from that previously considered unacceptable at appeal in 2002 and the identical withdrawn application submitted in 2010.

Given its road frontage, the development could be considered even more prominent than that previously considered unacceptable at appeal. It was considered that the harm that would be caused by the development would outweigh the benefits created by the restoration of the listed building.

It was noted that there was significant local objection to the proposal and almost no support.

It was also noted that the highways problems, first raised as an issue in 2002, had not been overcome and that neither details in respect of visibility splays nor a satisfactory Road Safety Audit had been submitted.

Members therefore considered that, whilst some attempt had been made to establish the need for the development, no attempt had been made to address the concerns regarding the impact upon the character of the area.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0571 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development by virtue of its scale, form, layout and prominence would not reflect the existing pattern of development and therefore adversely affect the visual character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies CP3 of the Core Strategy and DC1 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Local Development Framework.

4 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/26 Planning Application: DC/11/0571 (cont.)

02 It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the development is the minimum necessary to secure funding for the identified restoration and conservation works to the Monastery and that the evaluation of alternative options which would cause less harm to established amenities has been significantly thorough and rigorous to show that any proposal would minimise disbenefits. The proposal therefore conflicts with government guidance contained within PPS5, English Heritage guidance and policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Local Development Framework.

03 It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would not be prejudicial to highway safety since adequate visibility splays or a satisfactory Road Safety Audit have not been provided. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework

DCS/27 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0789 - TWO NEW DWELLINGS TO REPLACE EXISTING DWELLING SITE: ST FRANCIS, THAKEHAM ROAD, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR N JOHNSON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of two dwellings to replace the existing dwelling. Dwelling 1 (Plot 1) would measure 13 metres by 8.1 metres with a ridge height of 8.2 metres. Dwelling 2 (Plot 2) would measure 13.4 metres in width with gable projections measuring 8.1 metres by 5 metres and 9.3 metres by 4.7 metres. The ridge height of this dwelling would be 8 metres.

Government policies PPS1 and PPS3; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12 and CP13; and General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

5 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/27 Planning Application: DC/11/0789 (cont.)

Relevant planning history included: SG/35/63 Site for bungalow Refused SG/42/63 Site for bungalow Granted SG/17/64 Bungalow Granted DC/05/1081 Replacement dwelling and garage Granted DC/10/2147 Two new dwellings to replace existing dwelling Withdrawn

The comments of the West Sussex County Council Highway Authority were noted. The Parish Council objected to the application. One letter of comment and eight of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to and a member of the public spoke in support of the application

The application site was located within the built up area of Storrington, located on the southern side of Thakeham Road.

It was considered that the new dwellings would represent an unsympathetic, cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the future occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the locality, while having regard to the size of the plots, layout of the proposal together with the pattern and character of surrounding development.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0789 be refused for the following reasons:

01 Having regard to the size and height of the dwellings proposed, the amenity areas for each dwelling, their relationship with each other, the pattern and character of the surrounding development, it is considered that the proposal represents an unsympathetic, cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the future occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the locality, contrary in particular to policy DC9 of the LDF General Development Control Document 2007 and policy CP1 & CP3 of the Core Strategy 2007.

02 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to

6 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/27 Planning Application: DC/11/0789 (cont.)

transport and community facilities infrastructure and is thereby contrary to Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy 2007 as it is not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met

DCS/28 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0508 - OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF SINGLE DETACHED HOUSE WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE WITH NEW VEHICLE ACCESS OFF FERN ROAD SITE: CATHOLIC SANCTUARY, FERN ROAD, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: THE NORBERTINE ORDER IN STORRINGTON (Councillor Jim Sanson declared a personal interest in this application as he lived in Monastery Lane)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the erection of a single detached chalet style dwelling with an integral double garage on land formerly used as a shrine for the Our Lady of England Catholic Church. The proposal also included the formation of a new vehicle access from Fern Road. Outline consent was sought for the means of access and layout of the site with all other matters reserved for future determination.

Government Policies PPS1 & PPS3; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP13; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy were relevant to the determination of the application..

An outline application for the erection of 5 terraced 2-bed houses had been refused and was subsequently dismissed on appeal in November 2010 (DC/10/0796).

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer, Southern Water and the County Surveyor raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. The County Archaeologist had advised that there were no known or anticipated archaeological implications. The Parish Council strongly objected to the proposal and one letter of comment had been received from a neighbouring resident. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application.

The application site was located to the west of the Our Lady of England Catholic Church, within the defined built-up area of Storrington and with the South Downs National Park to the south of the site.

7 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/28 Planning Application: DC/11/0508 (cont.)

The main issues in the determination of the application were considered to be the effect of the development on the character of the surrounding area and the preserved trees on the site. Storrington was classified as a village capable of accommodating some expansion, infilling and re-development in the Core Strategy document and therefore the principle of development was acceptable.

The prevailing character of the surrounding area was of detached dwellings on relatively large plots. In this respect, the current proposal was considered to reflect the spaciousness associated with other neighbouring dwellings and would be in keeping with the semi-rural appearance of the area.

Although the site was constrained by high banks on the western and north- western boundaries and the preserved trees on the site, the proposed dwelling would be located centrally within the site and would be served by an acceptable level of unfettered amenity space open to direct sunlight, so as to make the likelihood of post development residential pressure on the surrounding trees low. It was therefore considered that the proposal would result in an acceptably low degree of impact on the surrounding trees in the area.

Members therefore considered that the revised scheme, in terms of its design and scale, would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area and overcame the previous reasons for refusal in respect of application DC/10/0796.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0508 be granted subject to the following conditions

01 A1 – Outline Permission 02 E3 – Fencing 03 H4 – On site Parking 04 J10 – Removal of permitted development 05 L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping 06 M1 – Approval of Materials 07 O1 – Hours of Working 08 L2a – Protection of trees 09 L3 – Trenches 10 O2 – Burning of Materials…please insert ‘in connection with the development’ All arboricultural works shall be executed in full accordance with the letter from Harraway Tree Services dated 3rd June 2010 with attached plan. DCS/28 Planning Application: DC/11/0508 (cont.)

8 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

12 Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Southern Water. 13 Prior to the commencement of development details of the measures to protect the public sewers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Southern Water. 14 No development shall take place until the access from the site to the public highway has been designed, laid out and constructed in all respects in accordance with the plan submitted on 7th June 2011, Drawing no. 11.01/04A 15 M8 – Sustainable Construction

REASON

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

DCS/29 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0486 - ERECTION OF A 1.5 STOREY DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SITE: LITTLE BARTON, HAMPERS LANE, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR L SEXTON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a one and a half storey dwelling to the west of Little Barton. However, from the plans submitted the dwelling appeared to comprise a two storey dwelling with no accommodation within the roof space. The associated pedestrian access to the proposed dwelling would incorporate part of the existing garden land to the south of Little Barton. The existing garage to the south-east of Little Barton would be used for the parking of cars and cycle storage in connection with the proposed dwelling and parking spaces would also be positioned in the turning head to the south-east. Two car parking spaces would then be provided in the paved area to the north-east corner of Little Barton to serve the existing dwelling.

The application site was situated within the built up area of Storrington and within the Character Area as designated within the Council’s Local Development Framework.

9 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/11/0486 (cont.)

Government policies PPS1 & PPS3; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP3 & CP5; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC3, DC6, DC9, DC15 & DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included: SG/2/97 Erection of one bungalow on land adjacent to Refused Brook Lodge, Badges Holt, Storrington and dismissed at appeal SG/7/96 Erection of a single dwelling and associated Refused access on land adjacent to Brook Lodge, Badges Holt, Storrington SG/20/89 Erection of two bungalows on land adjacent to Refused Brook Lodge, Badges Holt, Storrington SG/37/86 Two dwellings and double garage to serve The Refused Oaks and Little Barton and dismissed on appeal

The comments of the County Council’s Highways department and the Council’s Arboricultural Officer were noted. Heath Common Residents’ Association objected to the proposal and the Parish Council strongly objected to the application. Seven letters of objection had been received from the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

Whilst the site was located within a Category 1 defined built up area, this did not necessarily indicate that it was suitable for development, as any proposal would need to meet the criteria within the Council’s other development plan policies. The application site was also located within the Heath Common Character Area, where policy specified that planning permission would only be granted for proposals that retained the unique character of the area presently created by predominantly low density residential development set within a semi-rural environment. It was recognised that this area was particularly vulnerable to change from infill and redevelopment pressures which, if undertaken inappropriately, would have a significant detrimental effect on the characteristics of the area.

Due to the restricted space to the south of Little Barton, it would only be possible to provide pedestrian access to the proposed dwelling which would also take up some of the limited side garden space serving Little Barton itself. If the proposed dwelling were erected the Little Barton site would be served by a small rear garden area comprising a swimming pool and very limited garden space to the south of the dwelling.

10 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/11/0486 (cont.)

It was therefore considered that the erection of a new dwelling in this location would create limited amenity space for the existing and future occupiers of Little Barton and an undesirable form of back-land development which would detract from the low density residential character of the Heath Common Character Area.

Taking into account the height of the proposed dwelling and the excavation of land, the proposed property would still sit at an elevated level in comparison to Little Barton to the east and The Oaks to the south-east. Whilst the dwelling had been mostly designed to avoid any direct overlooking from first floor windows to the northerly and easterly neighbouring occupiers, concern was expressed regarding the proximity of the dwelling to neighbouring properties and the overbearing impact a house of this scale would have on the nearby neighbouring properties. It was also considered that the proposed first floor southerly windows and balcony would overlook these neighbouring properties. . Members therefore considered that the proposal represented an undesirable form of back-land development on a constrained site and that it would impact upon the amenities of nearby neighbouring properties and the character of residential development within the Heath Common Character Area.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0486 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed dwelling and associated access represents an undesirable form of back-land development which would be out of keeping with the low density residential character of sites within the Heath Common Character Area. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy DC15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

02 The proposed dwelling and associated access would be overbearing and adversely affect the privacy and quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/11/0486 (cont.)

03 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure, education provision, fire and rescue services and community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Core Strategy (2007) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

DCS/30 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0588 - REMODEL AND EXTEND EXISTING HOUSE, ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY POOL HOUSE, NEW VEHICLE ACCESS AND ADDITIONAL WALLING ALONG CHANTRY LANE SITE: THE CHANTRY, CHANTRY LANE, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MRS SIEPMAN

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the remodelling of the existing house to include external alterations, new balcony to the west and single storey extensions to the east, west and south. A new vehicular access and associated driveway was proposed to the north-east of the dwelling along with the extension of an existing stone wall to the eastern front boundary of the site. A detached single storey pool house outbuilding was also proposed to the west of the dwelling. Although the submitted plans showed the demolition of the front portico and changes to windows and doors within the existing building, these did not require the benefit of planning permission and were not therefore included in the application description.

The application site was located on the western side of Chantry Lane, within the built up area and within the South Downs National Park.

Government policies PPS1; Local Development Framework, Core Strategy policies CP1, CP3 & CP5 and Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies DC3 & DC9 were relevant to the determination of this application.

12 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/30 Planning Application: DC/11/0588 (cont.)

Relevant planning history included: DC/11/0509 Change of use of The Oak Room and two storey Granted side extension DC/05/1541 Change of use of The Oak Room and two storey Refused side extension and allowed at appeal DC/04/2394 Change of use of The Oak Room with a single Refused storey glazed extension and timber frame extension DC/04/0493 Change of use of The Oak Room with a single Granted storey extension

West Sussex County Council raised no highways objection to the proposal. The Parish Council objected to the application and one letter of objection had been received from a neighbouring resident. One member of the public spoke in objection to and the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

The principal issues in respect of the consideration of this application were the effects of the proposed development on the character of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Whilst the application had originally proposed the construction of a car parking area to the south-east corner of the site, one metre from the adjacent wall of the southerly neighbouring house, amended plans had been submitted re-positioning the parking space 3.5 metres from the neighbouring property. The proposed replacement side extension had also been set back in line with the front elevation of the existing house to avoid any overbearing impact to the southerly neighbours. It was therefore considered that these amendments had overcome concerns regarding the loss of amenity to the southerly neighbouring occupiers.

It was also considered that the proposed extensions to the south and west and external alterations to the east of the building would be in keeping with the main dwelling in terms of their scale and appearance. As the application property was set further back than the neighbouring dwelling, High Chantry, it was considered that the proposed balcony to the western elevation would only overlook the rear garden of the application site.

Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed demolition of the ornate single storey portico to the front of the building did not require planning permission, Members were keen that its possible re-use should be investigated.

13 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/30 Planning Application: DC/11/0588 (cont.)

Members therefore considered that the proposed development was acceptable in principle, as it would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and would not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or the appearance of the street scene.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0588 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, following discussions with the applicant regarding the possible rebuilding of the portico at another site. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/31 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1931 - ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY ANCILLARY DOMESTIC TIMBER BUILDING COMPRISING LIBRARY AND STUDY SITE: TEMPLEMEAD COACH HOUSE, LOWER STREET. PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: MR P A L VINE

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the construction of a detached ancillary building to the south west of Templemead Coach House for use by the applicant for a library and study. The proposed building would be approximately 11.35 metres long, 3.9 metres wide and 3.25 metres high.

The application site was located outside the built up area boundary of Pulborough and within the Pulborough Church Place Conservation Area. The proposal would be sited within part of the garden area of Templemead Coach House, which was a Grade 2 Listed Building fronting onto the southern side of Lower Street and was within the built up area boundary.

Relevant planning history included: DC/06/2309 Installation of solar energy water heating Granted collectors to roof elevation DC/06/2565 Installation of solar energy water heating Granted collectors to roof elevation (Listed Building Consent)

Government policies PPS1 and PPS5; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP19; and General Development Control policies DC2, DC4, DC9, DC12, DC13 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

14 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/31 Planning Application: DC/10/1931 (cont.)

The comments of the Council’s Conservation Officer, the Environment Agency and Southern Water were noted. The Parish Council strongly objected to the application and one letter of objection had been received. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

It was considered that, due to its siting, the proposed building would not have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. It was noted that, in view of its proposed location close to the river, the building would need to be constructed with a raised floor level. It was therefore proposed that it would be constructed on piers, which would be hidden by a timber skirt with planting to the front. It was considered that the timber skirt around the piers would soften the appearance of the building and would result in it appearing more characteristic of an ancillary garden building.

The application had been amended since its submission, with the windows proposed on the northern elevation of the building being removed, and it was therefore considered that the proposal would not result in loss of privacy to the neighbouring property.

Members therefore considered that, on balance, the proposed outbuilding would not harm the character of the Conservation Area or the amenities of neighbouring properties and that it would not impact on the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings nor detract from the overall special historic and architectural character of the locality.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1931 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, to allow the rewording of conditions 4 and 10. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted

DCS/32 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0750 - CONSTRUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO BARN SITE: SPRINGLANDS BARN, FRYLANDS LANE, APPLICANT: MR AND MRS T JACKSON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the construction of an alternative access to the barn, which had planning permission for conversion to a residential property.

15 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/32 Planning Application: DC/11/0750 (cont.)

The application site was located outside any built up area and was therefore subject to the countryside policies of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007). The site was also outside the defined residential curtilage of the Barn and was classified in planning terms as agricultural land.

Government policies PPS1 & PPS7; policies DC1, DC2 & DC9 of the Horsham Development Control Policies (2007); policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Horsham District Council’s Core Strategy and policies C4 and CC4 of the South East Plan were relevant to the consideration of this application.

Relevant planning history included: SH/7/90 & Conversion of a redundant agricultural barn and Refused SH/8/90 outbuildings to residential use (planning and appeal permission and listed building consent) dismissed SH/6/81 & Convert the barn into dwelling with garaging Granted SH/7/81 (planning permission and listed building consent) SH/1/80 Convert the barn to a dwelling. Refused

One letter of support and one of objection had been received.

The locality was generally rural in character with areas of open fields and farmland surrounding the site.

Planning permission and listed building consent had been granted in 1981 for the conversion of Springlands Barn to a residential property. Works had been commenced before the permission lapsed and, therefore, the remainder of the works could continue in perpetuity. This permission did not alter the existing access arrangement.

It was considered that there was no agricultural justification for the proposed access and its siting would result in an increase of the residential curtilage of the property, representing an encroachment of residential use and paraphernalia into the countryside which would be detrimental to the rural nature, appearance and character of this site.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0750 be refused for the following reason:

16 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/32 Planning Application: DC/11/0750 (cont.)

01 The proposed access by virtue of its siting would represent an unacceptable form and scale of development that would result in the encroachment of residential paraphernalia into the countryside which would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of this countryside location. The proposal thus conflicts with policies C4 and CC4 of the South East Plan policies, policies DC1, DC8 and DC9 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies 2007, and policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007.

DCS/33 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0621 - PROPOSED VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING AREA SITE: 5 BLACKSTONE RISE, BLACKSTONE LANE, BLACKSTONE, HENFIELD APPLICANT: MR AND MRS P. SCARFIELD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the creation of a new vehicular access and parking area to provide parking for two cars at the front of this 2-storey, semi-detached dwelling. The proposed access and parking area would be 10.25 metres long and 5 metres wide, increasing to 7.6 metres at the junction of Blackstone Lane.

The application site was located on the western side of Blackstone Lane, outside any designated built-up-area boundary and was therefore subject to the relevant countryside policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

Government policy PPS1; policies DC1, DC2 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) and policies CP1 & CP3 of the Core Strategy were relevant to the consideration of this application.

In 2001, planning permission had been granted for a single-storey rear extension to the dwelling (WK/24/01).

The comments of the County Surveyor and the Parish Council were noted.

The proposed works would involve the removal of a number of shrubs, small trees, a larger Pine tree and most of the existing hedgerow which ran along the front boundary of the site.

17 Development Control (South) Committee 21st June 2011

DCS/33 Planning Application: DC/11/0621 (cont.)

It was therefore considered that, in order to ensure the proposed access and driveway were adequately screened and softened by planting, a condition requiring details of hard and soft landscaping should be imposed if the application were granted.

It was noted that there were examples of accesses and parking areas at other dwellings along Blackstone Rise, which varied in scale and the materials used. It was therefore considered that the proposed works would be in keeping with the character of the locality and would not be visually obtrusive.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0621 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission (3 years) 02 L1 Hard and soft landscaping 03 M1 Approval of Materials

REASON

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

. The meeting closed at 3.30pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

18

Development Control (South) Committee 19th July 2011 Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates

DC/11/0835 – Approved - Castle Cottage The Hollow, Washington.

An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the occupation of Castle Cottage in non compliance with an Agricultural Occupancy Condition. The application was granted as it was proved that the Cottage had been occupied by persons not employed in Agriculture for a period of ten years prior to the application.

DC/11/0501 – Approved – Glenmore, Brighton Road, Shermanbury

An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for the use of part of the land at Glenmore for display and sale of cars. The applicant had proved that he had been using the area for sole use for display and sale of cars for more than 10 years as opposed to the lawful mixed use for residential purposes and sale of cars previously granted by Lawful Development Certificate in 1994.

DC/11/0212 – Approved – Hurston Studio, Storrington

An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for the occupation of Hurston Studio in breach of an Agricultural Occupancy condition that was attached to SR/10/66. The Applicant has proved to the Council that the property has been occupied in breach of this condition for a period of ten years prior to this application, without the benefit of planning consent. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 19 July 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Residential development comprising 130 dwellings and provision of open space (Land to the East of Parsonage Farm) (Approval of Reserved Matters) SITE: Parsonage Farm, Deer Park, Henfield WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/11/0787 APPLICANT: Charles Church South Coast

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate for approval the grant of reserved matters in consultation with the Local Members to ensure that provision is made for 52 units of affordable housing, to examine issues relating to construction traffic and to ensure that development does not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of neighbouring properties.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks reserved matters approval for the erection of 130 dwellings further to an outline approval granted under reference DC/09/1222. The application form states that matters of landscaping, appearance, layout, scale and access are being sought for approval under this application, although approval for access has already been given at the outline stage.

1.2 Following the outline approval, the site has been acquired in its entirety by Charles Church South East.

1.3 At the time of writing this report, officers are seeking clarification regarding the tenure and mix of the development. The legal agreement completed in connection with the outline application required a total of 52 affordable housing units comprising 40% of the development. Although the Design & Access Statement (DAS) submitted with the application initially confirms that the applicant will comply with this requirement, a later reference in the DAS refers to 49 units being provided

Contact: Gary Peck Extension: 5172 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.

for affordable housing, while the schedule accompanying the site layout only indicates 48 units. This discrepancy has been raised with the applicant and clarification is anticipated prior to the meeting.

1.4 Similarly, in terms of the tenure of the development, the outline proposal indicatively stated the mix of units would be 10 x 1 bed, 44 x 2 bed, 42 x 3 bed, 28 x 4 bed and 6 x 5 bed.

1.5 The Design & Access Statement submitted with the current application states 10 x 1 bed (as previous), 30 x 2 bed (14 less), 64 x 3 bed (22 more), 23 x 4 bed (5 less) and 3 x 5 bed (3 less). However, the schedule accompanying the site layout appears to indicate 8 x 1 bed units (2 less than the outline permission), 36 x 2 bed (8 less), 60 x 3 bed (18 more), 23 x 4 bed (5 less) & 3 x 5 bed (3 less). Again, therefore, clarification has been sought regarding the final precise mix of the dwellings proposed and it is anticipated that this will be provided prior to the meeting.

1.6 As was debated at some length during consideration of the outline application, the proposed landscaped areas include a buffer area to the existing housing to the east of the development as well as a landscaped area to the west towards the open countryside. There will be also green pockets of space within the more central parts of the site.

1.7 With regard to drainage, details, including a Flood Risk Assessment, were submitted at the outline stage and considered acceptable by Southern Water and the Environment Agency. Further details will be required to discharge the conditions imposed under the outline permission before development can commence and will therefore be submitted outside of this reserved matters application.

1.8 Similarly, in respect of highways information, the technical aspects of the access to the development were considered at the outline stage and a condition imposed. However, further details are currently being sought in respect of the access requirements in relation to the construction of the development given that construction vehicles will need to travel close to existing residential dwellings.

1.9 The proposed dwellings will meet Level 3 of the government’s Code for Sustainable Homes.

1.10 The proposed dwellings are all 1.5 or 2 storeys in height and it was discussed prior to the submission of the application that the proposed materials should reflect the already constructed Phase 2 of the Parsonage Farm development

1.11 Members are also reminded that a legal agreement was completed at the outline stage, securing contributions of around £880 000 towards community facilities and transport infrastructure, the provision of 52 units of affordable housing and a requirement for the developer to construct or fund a link road from the Youth Club to the Leisure Centre.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.12 The application site is located within the built-up area as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework following its allocation for residential development. The site has altered little since the outline application was granted permission save for the erection of a board giving details of the development near to the south eastern part of the site

1.13 The site is located to the west of the existing Parsonage Farm development which itself is to the north of the village centre of Henfield. Existing residential properties within the Parsonage Farm development are clearly visible from the eastern boundary of the application site.

1.14 The application site presently consists of open countryside with an access road to the farm crossing the centre of the site in an east to west direction. The application site slopes down slightly from south to north. The northern and western boundaries of the site contain further open countryside with the farm further to the west although it is well screened from the application site.

1.15 To the south of the application site is a belt of mature trees standing beyond an existing access spur road which will be used to service the development from the southern side. Further to the west is a public footpath after the spur road ends which has a line of lampposts along its northern side.

1.16 Beyond the line of mature trees is St Peter’s School to the south west of the application site, its playing field being closest to the application site with the school itself beyond.

1.17 To the south east of the application site is Henfield Leisure Centre which is partly visible beyond the tree line.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant government policy is contained within PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, PPG16 and PPG 17.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies SP3, CC1, CC4, CC7, CC8, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, NRM1, NRM2, NRM4, NRM5 and BE1 of the South East Plan are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 are relevant to the determination of the application. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4.

2.5 Policies DC2, DC8, DC9, DC18 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are also relevant to the determination of the application.

2.6 Policy AL12 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document relates specifically to the application site.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.7 Outline planning permission was granted in 2010 for residential development comprising 130 dwellings and provision of open space (application reference DC/09/1222)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Housing Strategy & Development Manager comments:

Housing Officers refer to the Design and Access Statement and Plan PL10.

The Design and Access Statement mentions 52 affordable homes – however, when the tenure split is set out later in the document – 36 homes for rent and 13 for shared ownership – the total is 49.

Then, the schedule on Plan PL10 indicates 48 affordable homes. It would be helpful to know how this discrepancy has arisen, and Housing Officers would ask the applicant to confirm that 52 affordable homes will be delivered.

The applicant’s continuing dialogue with Southern Housing Group is welcomed, and it is hoped that the applicant will soon be in contract with Southern for the delivery of the affordable homes.

The affordable homes featured as a priority in the North West Sussex Homes and Communities Local Investment Plan, and Southern Housing Group has included the scheme in its bid for funding to the Homes and Communities Agency. The bid was fully supported by the Council.

The location and outlook of the affordable homes has caused discussion. The units are situated centrally, rather than at various points throughout the development. Normally, the Council would look for affordable homes to be clustered in more than one group - however, Southern Housing Group has no objection to the location and in a letter to the Case Officer, Liz Hills, Area Development Manager, points out a number of advantages. In view of this, Housing Officers agree that the affordable units can be situated as shown on the plan.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5.

3.2 The Design & Conservation Officer commented:

I have visited the site and assessed the plans. I have also read the comments from Henfield Parish Council and have the following observations on the reserved matters scheme:

Layout, including open space

The layout has been informed by local development patterns, such as the neighbouring earlier phases of Fawn Rise. The developer has clearly has learnt from the more successful places and spaces created by these earlier phases and it is clear from the plans and supplementary guidance that the layout is space focussed, with paths and streets linking these areas. This approach is welcomed and with the right details and materials, should result in one of the more successfully designed housing developments in the district in recent years.

The green buffer to the rear of 1-23 Fawn Rise should result in an integrated transition between the earlier phases of the development, and this particular stage. The spaces and the connections between the roundabout in the south and the greens in the north seek to ensure that there is a new space and varied streetscape at every junction. The landscape buffer to the west, as well as meeting the policy requirements for this site, is a substantial and welcome break between the development and the open farmland. It is logical to concentrate development to the more urban southern edge, leaving a loose and spacious development pattern to the north, reflecting the areas’ countryside edge location and green outlook.

In general, the main spaces are overlooked by dwellings, providing a pleasant outlook as well as natural surveillance to discourage anti-social behaviour. There is a mix of parking, including on street, driveway, garage and courtyards and in most cases, the parking courts to the rear are also overlooked, again providing key surveillance over these areas. The dwellings facing the countryside are also welcome; these provide excellent outlook and negate the need for ugly rear boundaries facing what is arguably most attractive feature of the locality.

Henfield Parish Council commented that the affordable housing units are clustered together, instead of the pepper-potted favoured in PPS3. I fully appreciate and understand the sentiments of the parish council and this is a particular issue which officers are always keen to raise with developers. It is not uncommon to see tenure- obvious affordable housing sections in large scale developments and as such officers work hard to eliminate such issues at pre-application and application stages. Unfortunately, the task is sometimes made difficult as there are real issues of maintenance, design and viability to consider as part of the overall scheme. In this scheme, the affordable housing located is closest to the existing development; however it also borders three side of the main village green area and clustered in a series of groups. The architectural details, typologies, scale and attention to the open spaces should make it indistinguishable from the market housing. On balance, from a design perspective, the location of the affordable housing does not raise an objection.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6.

On a minor note, there are a number of parking courts on the scheme which although there are no objections in principle, two of the larger areas may require revising to increase natural surveillance: unit 5-10 and 97-108

Scale

The amount of units and layout is considered to be appropriate to this location. The use of 1.5 and 2 storey units is also acceptable. The density and pattern of development relates well the surrounding suburban development and countryside is also considered to be acceptable.

Appearance, including architectural details and boundary treatments

The general principle of Sussex vernacular is supported as this is appropriate design style for a countryside edge location site. The variation of dwelling types, typology, arrangement of units, street scene elevations and details such as windows, doors, porches etc shows thought and appreciation of locally found styles and details. Much of the detail is a continuation of the successful and integrated design style of the existing later stage at Fawn Rise and this approach is welcomed.

Henfield Parish Council have asked for a number of changes to the architectural details of some units – I do not intend to repeat their requests, but I have read them in conjunction with the plans and all are reasonable requests that could be addressed should the application be delegated to officers via Committee. However, I do not believe that the suggestions are substantial enough to warrant a reason for refusal should this be unobtainable. Nevertheless, I do strongly request that these amendments are made in order to enhance the architectural details of the scheme. I hope the applicant is willing to do this and it will ensure a high quality design throughout.

Materials can elevate an average scheme to a good scheme, and likewise it can erode and decrease the quality of a good scheme. The Council would expect high quality materials to be used throughout the scheme on both the affordable and market houses. The use of UPVC windows and composite materials can be acceptable outside of areas of historic value, but the Council would not wish to see poor examples of these submitted to discharge any standard materials condition. For example, UPVC windows should reflect the detail of their timber counterparts and artificial slates should be of a size, colour and texture reflecting that used locally. Plain clay tiles and Wealden red bricks are a feature of the Sussex vernacular and there are varying product qualities on the market – again the Council would expect the size, finish and colour of the tiles and bricks to accurately reflect these locally found details.

The broad principle and detailed landscaping plans are best commented upon by the Council’s Landscape Architect, however in general the tree lined north/south route, plus areas of formal, semi formal and countryside buffer are supported in urban design terms.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7.

In conclusion, the application proposals a high quality, successful scheme which makes good use of the site. In broad terms, the layout of spaces and buildings should make an attractive and sustainable community, while the architectural details are taken from local vernacular style. Apart from some minor amendments as detailed above, the application meets the design requirements of Policy AL6, plus the general development control policy DC9. The application is therefore supported.

3.3 As the application is for reserved matters, Strategic Planning does not wish to make any comments

3.4 Any comments from the Landscape Architect will be reported verbally at the meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 Henfield Parish Council has submitted the following detailed comments:

The Parsonage Farm Phase 3 development is now close to being acceptable to Henfield Parish Council. The following response outlines Council’s views on such topics as Layout, Appearance, Landscaping, Scale, Access and General Points.

Layout The main criticism on the proposed development is the allocation of open space. Council believes the large area in the southwest corner is largely wasted as it is open space bordering on open farmland. Council appreciates the need for a buffer to soften the development boundary but feels a small proportion of this open space would better serve both the new residents of the Phase 3 development, and the existing residents of Fawn Rise in particular, if more open space was allocated in the area between Nos 23-29, 31 and 35 Fawn Rise, and the proposed development.

The initial layout of the development indicated that the social/affordable housing units were to be integrated amongst the private housing, (colloquially referred to as “a pepper pot effect”). Council understands that this is the preferred option now with some other Local Authorities favouring this approach. It is understood that Outline Planning permission was given based on this concept. The applicant has stated that the clustered option is now preferred, to make the task of maintenance and the general upkeep of communal areas much easier for the Southern Housing Group, (SHG), who will own the freeholds to the social/affordable housing. This will also allow them, (SHG), to provide group services, such as TV satellite links and communal heating systems. After much deliberation Council is now of the belief that an integrated development will lead to a more cohesive environment instead of what may be conceived as an “us and them” community.

Appearance / Design The general design of the dwellings, both individual and terraced, is of a high standard and will complement the environment of a Village such as Henfield. It is particularly pleasing to see the type of roofing material to be used which is understood to be restricted to 10” x 6” roof tiles and artificial slates, and does not APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8.

incorporate concrete pantiles. Council feels that, whilst the designs are good, there are some changes it would like to see implemented and has listed them below:

Units 5 & 6 The rear of the garage on the eastern elevation appears to have a grey, artificial slate tile-hung finish. This is according to the key of materials to be used. This may be a mistake, and Council would recommend a red stock brick finish so that No.5 and No.6 can be of the same appearance.

Units 12 and 37, 47, 54, 55, 96 The roof of this type of unit seems to be very busy with three dormers, two lead gablets and one roof light. Council suggests a barn end at the end of each unit, which would remove two dormers and the lead gablets.

Units 13-16, 23-25, 65-68, 93-95, 97-100 These blocks of terraced homes would be more in keeping with the rural location if they had a barn end to soften the more stark appearance of the gable end. This would possibly be of more importance when considering the blocks of three homes.

109,112,123 Because of their more individual setting, these homes would also benefit from a barn end as it would give the dwellings a rural appearance.

Unit 110 As it is, a Georgian door is more appropriate and a Georgian porch would much improve the design.

Unit 40 This would also benefit from barn ends and for the roof to be tiled to match its allocated garage.

Units 69, 70, 71 Georgian doors need a Georgian porch.

Units 97 – 100 Make the exterior finish to both end units of the same material i.e. both rendered or both light multi-stock bricks.

Units 122-123 Move unit 122 slightly further north, thus making room for the single garage allocated to No 123 to become a double garage attached to No 122. The double garage on the northern boundary allocated to unit 122 could then be allocated to unit 123 and increase the number of garage spaces.

Mr K C Potts, from Independent Town Planning Services, acting on behalf of the original developer, wrote in his letter dated 8th October 2009 to the Case Officer regarding the applicant’s commitment to incorporating new technology within the development with the aim to achieve at least Code Level 3 for private housing and Code Level 4 for affordable housing, in accordance with the requirements for the Code for Sustainable Homes. Council would like an assurance from the developer APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9.

that these points raised by Mr Potts will be incorporated into the proposed development.

A huge opportunity will be missed here if the development does not embrace any provision for green technology. Solar Panels, (photovoltaic cells), to complement and reduce the usage of mains electricity, providing energy savings of up to 25%, insulation of the highest quality, and the storage of rainwater for domestic use should also be included, with Argon-filled triple glazing being fitted wherever possible. Council would also like to see the inclusion of ground source heat exchange systems in the form of Ground Heat Pumps installed into properties wherever appropriate. Ground source heat exchange systems collect energy stored in the earth to heat water for all domestic requirements. A heat exchange system of this type would offer excellent energy savings on water heating costs of approximately 75%. Evidence of this type of system can be found at a development in nearby Storrington, which was completed some 2-3 years ago. The residents speak very highly of these systems and comment that their household bills are substantially reduced as a result.

Two other areas Council would like to see addressed at this design stage are: a. All ground floor apartments should be ergonomically laid out in such a way that wheelchair users and other disabled tenants can enjoy an independent lifestyle. We would like to see wider doorways and hallways to give ease of access, switches and powerpoints positioned for ease of use and showers instead of baths. The ground floor apartments on the North Mead Estate, part of the Phase 2 development, have been designed in this manner b. All apartments should be fully soundproofed. Because of the close proximity of the units, tenants will be subject to noise nuisance and full soundproofing will ensure this does not occur. This should also apply to the terraced and semi-detached properties.

The developer should be made aware that provision will have to be made for up to three “wheelie bins” per household: one for domestic waste, one for garden waste (where applicable), and one for recycled waste. The developer should also be made aware of the hard work that has been undertaken over the past two years to place a much greater emphasis on recycling to the residents of Henfield. All of the apartments will have two “wheelie bins”, one for domestic waste and one for recycling. If provision is not made for both types of bin, as is the case on the North Mead Estate, residents will act irresponsibly and leave their bins in open view anywhere they like, thus making that part of the estate unacceptably unsightly.

Landscaping Council would question if the drawings give an accurate assessment of the proposed landscaping. Council would hope that the open space between Nos. 23, 29, 31 and 35 Fawn Rise and the Phase 3 development, is enlarged, as this is where properties of Phases 2 & 3 are at their closest point. The landscaping in this area has to be given special consideration, in accordance with the letter from Mr Malcolm Paine to Mr R Lofthouse, and the Case Officer. Council feels that this APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10.

would be an opportunity for the developer to demonstrate their consideration of the existing residents of Phase 2.

Council would like to see special consideration given to the type of trees used in the landscaping, with regards to their positioning for the long-term. Council feels that the larger native species would be better for the boundary buffer, and that trees throughout the development area be chosen from slow-growing ornamental species, so that they may better complement the built environment.

Attention has to be given to the permeability of the hard standing and open areas. Council would like to see “pervious concrete” used for general car parking areas, areas with light traffic use, residential streets and pedestrian walkways. The high porosity of this concrete will allow water from precipitation and other sources to pass directly through, thereby reducing the runoff from the area and allowing groundwater recharge. It is an important application for sustainable construction and is one of many low impact development techniques used by builders to protect water quality. The use of permeable blocks for driveways would also be an attractive welcomed addition.

Scale The ratio of the private to affordable housing within the development is absolutely correct. The 1.5 and 2 storey properties would be the maximum acceptable. Council is pleased that the emphasis placed upon 3 storey buildings being out of character for Henfield did not fall on deaf ears.

Access Council supports the need for a residential travel plan as required under Condition 7 of the Outline Planning permission which would see a drop of between 10% and 15% of the estimated increase in traffic that will be generated by a 130-homes development. A residential travel plan is essential to encourage residents to restrict the use of motor vehicles.

Council would like a guarantee that the development will have adequate access for utility & emergency vehicles, especially in the “courtyard” areas and through the covered ways.

The non-allocation of parking spaces within the affordable housing will lead to the area becoming an unofficial, illegal, commercial vehicle park overnight. This occurs on the North Mead Estate, east of the development, where there are allocated parking spaces. To prevent this situation occurring, all parking spaces should be allocated to a property and locking posts put in place wherever possible.

General points In a survey for affordable housing needs in Henfield, undertaken by Action in Rural Sussex, (AiRS) in 2008, it was identified that Horsham District Council had over 73 applicants from the Parish on its Housing Register who were considered to be in housing need. However, with only 52 of the dwellings being set aside for affordable housing, Henfield’s social housing requirements will not be met. Council believes that Housing Register applicants from Henfield should be given first choice of these APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11.

properties, and would seek assurance that the process to identify those applicants in most need, should begin at the earliest opportunity.

Council is fully aware of the sewage problems incurred by the residents living within Phase 2 of the development. Just recently there was a discharge of dirty water and sewage from a manhole adjacent to No.14 Mallard Way, and it has been discovered that this is a regular occurrence throughout Phase 2. It cannot be stressed too highly that the discharge of any sewage is totally unacceptable and that “adequate” sewage management will not be good enough. Council would like to see the Phase 3 sewage management system designed with more than just adequate capacity, so that surges in sewage flow due to possible ingress of surface water can be met, thus preventing the development and surrounding areas becoming ecologically unacceptable. The developer’s Design & Access Statement makes no reference to sewage management, although reference to water drainage is made twice. It is now believed that Council will not be consulted upon the issues of water drainage or sewage management, but would ask that the points raised here be duly considered when addressing this issue.

Council would like the developer to keep sufficient topsoil on site for landscaping purposes. Stockpiles should be placed so as not to inconvenience residents.

During the development of the proposed site, no site offices or site compounds should be erected in the vicinity of the Phase 2 development, but should be placed to least affect the residents.

We are advised by a local resident in Fawn Rise, that open land behind No.45 and No.47 Fawn Rise, in the north east corner, is included in open space as part of Phase 3. This area has been maintained by Sunley’s, the original developer, and has always been regarded as being part of Phase 2 open space. Can Horsham District Council please ensure that the correct amount of open space for Phase 3 is being allocated when considering this application?

Council has sought advice and suggestions from many sources regarding Public Art. It is envisaged that this could take the form of public seating and street furniture. Henfield Parish Council would find such Public Art acceptable.

In conclusion All concerned parties have been given the opportunity to put forward their opinions with regards to both the Outline Planning Application, and this full Planning Application. Analysis of the information gained from the Applicant’s Access & Design Statement/Exhibition, and consultation with the General Public, has allowed the Planning and Advisory Committee to formulate this response. Council believes that with some slight alterations and compromising on design, layout, and materials used, the 130 dwelling development will be an acceptable addition to the Parish of Henfield.

3.6 The Environment Agency do not wish to comment on the reserved matters application but seek to ensure that the drainage condition imposed upon the outline condition is discharged satisfactorily.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12.

3.7 West Sussex County Council comments that the Highway Authority was consulted on the outline application when the principle of development was accepted. Traffic generation/impact and the safety in highway terms of the proposed access were considered in depth and found to be acceptable. This application therefore seeks approval for the internal layout in highway terms to enable adoption of the estate roads by the Highway Authority in the future. The County Council has requested further detail to aid their considerations, include the areas of highway to be adopted, dimensions of the carriageways and roundabout and visibility splays on the junctions. It is understood that further information will be submitted prior to the meeting.

3.8 Following local concern, officers have requested that the applicant and the County Council give consideration to the method and/or routing of construction traffic if permission is granted. A verbal update will be given at the meeting.

3.9 Southern Housing Group has commented as the affordable housing provider within the application. The Area Development Manager states:

“I can confirm that we are very happy with the location and outlook of the proposed affordable homes. These dwellings are provided in a central location, largely on or close to the main street. Many of our new homes will have views over various new landscaped areas and will therefore have attractive outlooks.

The strategy of the developer is to have tenure blind elevations, meaning that the affordable housing is not easily distinguishable, which helps create a sustainable community. The affordable housing is proposed as a mix of affordable rent and shared ownership (part buy/part rent) which will dilute the impact of the overall numbers of affordable housing within the new development.

Our units are serviced by different road access which creates further subdivision within the scheme. However, the external areas will all be managed by a single management company meaning that services such as landscape maintenance will be provided to the whole estate, irrespective of tenure.

Whilst it might be perceived on plan that then affordable housing is concentrated in one area, the reality is that this is subdivided and diluted by vehicle routes, landscaping and orientation.”

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.10 4 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:

- highways and access - loss of privacy - adverse impact upon amenity - effect upon trees / landscaping - scale of development - design - affordable housing units are all concentrated in a single location - overdevelopment of the site APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13.

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

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights 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 proposal will have an adverse impact upon crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 Since the principle of development has been established by the grant of outline permission, it is considered that the main issue in the determination of the application is whether the submitted reserved matters details are acceptable having regard to the outline approval with particular reference to the effect of the development upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, the character of the area and the requirements of the legal agreement.

6.2 Members will recall that the site was allocated for development under the provisions of the Local Development Framework. Given the continuing requirement to ensure that a suitable supply of land is available for development and noting that at present the Council as Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as required by PPS3, it is considered necessary to comment at the outset that the delivery of residential development on the site is of some importance, particularly given the increasing pressure being placed on the Council to accept development on unallocated sites outside of the built-up area, some of which have been successful on appeal, with further decisions to come. Furthermore, the development would provide 40% affordable housing as required under the terms of the legal agreement and where allocated sites, such as this, are clearly viable enough to provide such a percentage of affordable housing, they should be brought forward as early as possible.

6.3 Outline permission has already been granted for development on the site and therefore there is no objection to the principle of development. Members who served on the Committee at the time of consideration of the original application will recall that while there significant local objection to the scheme at the outset, by involving neighbours, the Parish Council and the Local Members as much as possible in negotiations, many of those objections were either removed or reduced and ultimately it was considered that a scheme of very fair compromise was agreed.

6.4 It is considered that such a partnership approach should be used again with the current application. It is understood that the developers held public meetings prior to the submission of the application, and meetings were also held with officers where the importance of following as closely as possible the principles of the APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14.

outline permission was discussed, such as maintaining the buffer between the development and existing housing to the south east part of the site.

6.5 In that regard, while not a determinant of the application in itself, it is noted that only a very small number of objections have been received to the current application which would suggest that the general approach to the development is maintaining the amenities of neighbouring properties and reflecting the character of the area as far as is possible.

6.6 However, there are still points of concern, most of which have been raised in the comprehensive comments submitted by the Parish Council. The issue of affordable housing is of especial importance. As set out in the introduction to the report, there are some discrepancies at the time of compiling this report between the submitted plans and the supporting information in that while the requirement for 52 units of affordable housing is explicitly agreed to (and indeed required by the previous legal agreement), this is not reflected in the layout plan and therefore this issue will clearly need to be resolved satisfactorily before any decision can be finally made.

6.7 The Parish Council, along with local residents, have questioned the location of the affordable housing in that it is clustered together rather than integrated throughout the whole development. Although the Parish Council state that permission was granted on the basis that the affordable housing was provided in an integrated manner, it should be remembered that the previous outline proposal did not seek approval for the location of the affordable housing at that stage, nor had an agreement reached with an affordable housing provider. Although it appears that it could be deduced from the previous plans that the affordable housing was not to be located in a cluster, such plans were indicative only and so, in terms of the location of affordable housing, were not the basis of the outline approval.

6.8 Having regard to Local Development Framework policies, and those now contained in the District Plan, it is considered that the delivery of affordable housing is of critical importance. In this respect, the Council’s fourth priority in the District Plan, that of Living, Working Communities states as a priority heading that the provision of housing to meet local and economic needs which explicitly includes access to affordable housing to meet local needs. Such local need in Henfield is high as outlined in the Parish Council comments.

6.9 It is considered, therefore, that the comments of the affordable housing provider, Southern Housing Group, should be given significant weight in considering the affordable housing issue. They state they are “very happy” with the location and outlook of the affordable housing. Having regard to this comment, your officers also agree with their assertion that “whilst it might be perceived on plan that then affordable housing is concentrated in one area the reality is that this is subdivided and diluted by vehicle routes, landscaping and orientation.” The affordable housing units could be said to be located in two main clusters either side of the main east- west access road running through the proposed development, however the southern cluster is separated from the northern cluster by a green open space in the central part of the site and in fact would be read as being integrated with the private housing to be provided immediately to its south between which there is no road or formal green space. Similarly, the westernmost units of the northern cluster APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15.

are located within an area of private housing and, on the assumption that 4 more units need to defined as affordable housing to ensure compliance with the 40% requirement, it is likely that such integration would increase still further.

6.10 In respect of highways, the County Council has requested clarification on some technical points but since access was approved at the outline stage and is already subject to a condition which must be discharged prior to the commencement of development, it is not considered these points are matters which cannot be covered elsewhere. Of more relevance at this stage, are issues relating to construction traffic since the site is situated beyond the existing residential development at Parsonage Farm and therefore access would need to be through the existing estate road which has some traffic calming measures including chicanes.

6.11 As has been evidenced at other developments in the District, while a development itself can be fully acceptable, the means of constructing it can cause a greater loss of amenity to nearby residents than the development itself when it is completed. Given the nature of the site and its surrounds, therefore, it is considered that further clarification would need to be given during the delegation period as to how construction traffic will enter and exit the applications site. Your officers have raised these points with both the County Council and the applicant and it is understood that discussions are ongoing. Any further update to this report will be given verbally at the meeting.

6.12 Although the number of objection letters is small, and that any adverse impact upon neighbours has been almost eliminated by the alterations made at the outline stage, it is also considered that there are some matters relating to the central part of the site that may need further consideration. These primarily affect number 21, 23 and 29 Fawn Rise where it has not proven possible to provide as wider buffer between the development and these properties than has been the case in the south eastern corner of the site and the most northern section.

6.13 In terms of overlooking, the nearest dwellings within the new development would exceed the normally accepted distance of 21 metres between facing windows and therefore that is not considered to be an objection in terms of loss of privacy. However, one of the three access points is located between numbers 23 and 29 and the garage of the latter is immediately adjacent to the application site boundary. Also, at present the boundary treatment to the rear of these existing properties does not consist of any significant screening. It is felt, therefore, that further consideration could be given within the delegation period to ensuring that the development satisfactorily integrates with these properties perhaps by clearly defining the access road boundary with existing development and investigating suitable landscaping within the application site.

6.14 In conclusion, while there are some outstanding points to be addressed, it is considered that this development has the potential to very successfully integrate into the existing Parsonage Farm development and provide much needed housing including the required affordable housing provision. Much of this potential has been achieved via consultation between the respective parties and it is considered that the delegation period will allow for such successful discussion to take place again where required. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the application be delegated for approval in consultation with the Local Members to ensure that provision is made for 52 units of affordable housing, to examine issues relating to construction traffic and to ensure that development does not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of neighbouring properties.

The outline conditions remain applicable to the development. If there are any further conditions, these will be imposed during the delegation period in consultation with the local members.

8. REASONS

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

Background Papers: DC/11/0787 Contact Officer: Gary Peck APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 19th July 2011 DEVELOPMENT: First floor side extension with amended roof, replacement of single storey front porch with new porch, replacement of single storey rear porch with new study and construction of detached garage SITE: Oakdene Cottage, Hampers Lane, Storrington WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/11/0764 APPLICANT: Mr B Sadler

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Request from Heath Common Residential Association

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the construction of a first floor extension to the north-eastern elevation of the dwelling which will incorporate a new bedroom, store and ensuite bathroom. The eaves of the dwelling on the northern elevation will be raised to first floor window level and the roof will also be re-thatched to incorporate a valley from front to back of the house.

1.2 A single storey extension with pitched roof will be added to the north-easterly elevation and a single storey porch extension will be added to the south-westerly elevation. A detached double garage incorporating a hipped gabled roof is proposed to the south-easterly corner of the application site and a new associated vehicular access will be created along Hampers Lane. The realigned access to the north of the dwelling will be maintained for exclusive use by Blackbird Cottage.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is situated within the built up area of Storrington and is located within the Heath Common Character Area as designated within the Council’s Local

Contact: Rebecca Tier Extension: 5382 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2.

Development Framework. The Heath Common area incorporates a unique semi- rural residential character which predominantly comprises low density development set within large plots. The application site is located on the western side of Hampers Lane and is currently accessed via a shared driveway to the north of the application dwelling which also serves Blackbird Cottage to the west of the site.

1.4 The property comprises a two storey detached dwelling which is visible within the road. The property is a traditional Wells cottage with a thatched roof and stone façade with brick quoins. The local area is characterised by detached two storey properties and chalet bungalows set within spacious plots.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2007) – CP1, CP3 & CP5.

2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies (2007) – DC3, DC9 & DC15.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 SG/26/02 - In 2002 Planning permission was refused and allowed at appeal for the change of use of detached ancillary residential accommodation to a separate residential unit (now known as Blackbird Cottage). SG/49/98 – In 1998 Planning permission was refused and allowed at appeal for the retention of raised height of garage. SG/42/98 – In 1998 Planning permission was refused and allowed at appeal to raise the height of the previously approved garage and installation of windows. SG/40/97 – In 1997 Planning permission was approved for a double garage. SG/8/97 – In 1997 Planning permission was approved for alterations to dormer windows previously approved. SG/24/96 – In 1996 Planning permission was approved for the construction of dormer windows and external chimney. SG/52/95 – In 1995 Planning permission was approved for use of part of the residential accommodation for blood relation ancillary to main house. SG/45/93 – In 1993 Planning permission was refused and dismissed at appeal for the conversion of first floor of workshop to flat. SG/10/93 – In 1993 Planning permission was approved for a single storey extension and two storey extension. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3.

SG/26/92 – In 1992 Planning permission was refused and dismissed at appeal for the conversion of first floor of garage/workshop to granny annexe. SG/29/90 – In 1990 Planning permission was approved for the erection of double garage and workshop. SG/12/90 – In 1990 Planning permission was refused for the erection of double garage and workshop.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 West Sussex County Council have commented that Hampers Lane is not maintained as a public highway, and is only maintained as the legal line of Bridleway 2627. WSCC have not therefore raised any safety objections to the proposal, but would recommend the following informatives:

 Safe & convenient public access is to be available at all times across the full width of the Right of Way. The path is not to be obstructed by vehicles, plant, scaffolding or the temporary storage of materials and/or chemicals.  Any down pipes or soakaways associated with the development should discharge into an existing drainage system and away from the surface of the Right of Way.  If the bridleway surface is considered damaged as a result of the development then the applicant may be required to make good the surface to a standard satisfactory to West Sussex County Council’s Rights of Way team.  The Applicant would also be advised to contact the WSCC Rights of Way team regarding this proposal.

3.2 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has raised no objection to the proposal and has made the following comments:

 Our records indicate the presence of five protected oak trees on this property, but none now exist; I understand that what remained pre-1987 was blown over in the Great Gale in October of that year.

 No other trees in the garden area to the property are of any particular or especial merit.

 The proposal will require the removal of a portion of the hedgerow along Hampers Lane, which is of Berberis, but I record no objection to this.

 The revised position of the driveway along the northern boundary will require the removal of the Silver birch tree close to the boundary. This tree, measuring around 15m in height and exhibiting a stem diameter of 380mm is quite a well shaped specimen, but is essentially a woodland or heathland tree, commonly found in the locality, and is not in my view of particular or especial merit. It is visible from Hampers Lane, but is sited around 20m to its west, and views from this public area are restricted. It is of course readily visible from the adjacent property Hampers Cottage, but overall I feel that its general public amenity value is limited, and as such it fails to meet the criteria for a Tree Preservation Order. I therefore register no objection to its removal. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4.

 Of higher importance is the very large and very impressive beech tree within Hampers Cottage itself. This is a protected tree, and is sited 7.3m to the north of the northern flank wall of the existing garage, due to be demolished. As such the proposed roadway will pass through this tree's RPA (a circle with a radius in this case of 12m) and if constructed using normal excavation techniques could cause extensive damage to the roots. Provided the roadway is built in a manner which will not cause such harm, I would have no objection to its actual position; however, a suitable condition should be utilised to ensure that this takes place. I therefore suggest the following condition: The driveway along the northern edge of the site shall be constructed entirely above ambient ground levels using the ‘no dig’ technique in full accordance with the details of the publication APN 12 “Through the Trees to Development” (Patch & Holding, Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service, 2007)* using a cellular confinement system. * This publication may be obtained from the AAIS at Alice Holt Lodge, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey. GU104LH. Tel: 09065 161147. Reason: To protect the roots of the large protected beech tree on the adjacent property from damage by root severance and/or compaction in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007).

3.3 Washington Parish Council have made the following comments in relation to this application:  It appears that the alterations to the cottage have been carefully and sympathetically thought out, and the use of materials will blend with the existing building.  However, the proposed new garage is of concern, as it is to be placed very close to the Hampers Lane boundary. A reduction of the ridge height, and sufficient screening would lessen the visual impact on the street scene. Visibility from the access point of the new drive also needs to be addressed as this is a very narrow section of the lane.  In front of the existing garage is a mature Birch tree which is quite a striking feature, members feel this should be retained, and would like to request the opinion of Will Jones the Arboricultural Officer be sought, prior to any decision being made.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 The Heath Common Residents Association (HCRA) have objected to this application and have requested that the application be refused as currently presented. The Heath Common Residents Association have raised the following concerns:  Little of the modest amount of greenery that is left would remain to enhance the setting, if approval of the application as currently presented were granted.  There is no objection in principle to the modest extensions to the existing dwelling subject to any neighbour concerns on amenity. HCRA would like to see the thatched roof retained and repaired. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5.

 Ceding of the drive in its entirety would leave little ground available to screen the existing property. Other properties to the west of Hampers Lane share a modest amount of frontage to the lane whilst retaining their own drives. There seems to be little practical benefit, in terms of character of the area, or the amenity of any future occupiers of Oakdene Cottage, in terms of the formal ceding of the driveway to Blackbird Cottage.  In relation to the siting of the new garage to the front of the property HCRA has concerns regarding the street scene impact of this proposal. It is the view of the HRCA that this would present a very cramped appearance to the lane at this point and thus present a threat to the character of the area.  Some current soft landscaping currently disguises the potential impact of the proposal. Nevertheless, much of that soft landscaping may not be in the ownership of the applicant. The screening to the lanes is important to the character of the area and it is for that reason that HCRA pressed for guideline 12 in the Village Design Statement for no new access for a new single dwelling. Whilst Blackbird Cottage is not now new, the proposal for the new access for Oakdene Cottage derives directly from the changes involved in the approval for the separate drive for Blackbird Cottage.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issues are the effect of the development on the character of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

6.2 The proposal seeks to create a first floor extension which will extend over the existing single storey element of the house on the northerly side of the building. The proposed first floor extension will therefore come no nearer to the northerly neighbouring property Hampers Cottage and the 4 metre high hedge along the boundary will continue to provide privacy for both neighbours. The proposed single storey extension to the north-easterly elevation will measure 2.2 metres by 3.5 metres and 3.3 metres high and will similarly be screened and distanced from the northerly neighbouring property. The porch extension to the south-westerly elevation of the building will comprise a small addition and is not considered to have any impact on the southerly neighbouring site, which is distanced by approximately 10 metres. It is therefore considered that the proposed extensions will not cause any adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding neighbouring occupiers. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 6.

6.3 The proposed extensions will incorporate matching random stone and brick quoins to the exterior walls and clay tile to the single storey extensions. The main roof of the house will also be re-thatched as part of this proposal. It is considered that the proposed extensions and changes to the external facades of the building have been designed to complement the attractive appearance of this traditional Wells Cottage. It is therefore considered that the proposed extensions and alterations will not appear duly prominent within the street scene.

6.4 The proposed detached garage will be situated forward of the existing dwelling and within the south-eastern corner of the application site. The garage will be located approximately 1.2 metres from Hampers Lane to the east and 0.4 metres from the southern boundary of the site. The garage will measure 6.4 metres by 5.4 metres whilst incorporating an eaves height of 2 metres and a total ridge height of 4.3 metres. The garage will comprise brick built walls with plain clay tiles to the barn hipped roof. The proposal seeks to remove the existing 2 metre high hedge to the front boundary of the site and erect a replacement post and rail fence adjacent to the road frontage. The proposed garage will therefore be visible within the street scene, however the garage will not incorporate any accommodation within the roof space and it is not considered to be out of keeping in terms of scale or appearance with other buildings within the area. In terms of proximity to the road, there are examples of dwellings such as Hamper’s Barn on the opposite side of the road being much larger in scale and similarly situated close to the road. It is therefore considered, given the visibility of dwellings within this part of the road, that the erection of a single storey garage outbuilding will not cause any adverse impact on the character of the Heath Common Character Area or the appearance of the street scene.

6.5 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted in relation to any potential impact that the proposals may have on trees within and surrounding the site. The Tree Officer has confirmed that none of the existing preserved Oak trees are still standing on the site and that the unpreserved Silver Birch Tree which is proposed for removal on the northerly boundary of the site is of low amenity value. In relation to the proposed realignment of the northerly driveway, the Tree Officer has however requested that the new driveway is constructed above ambient ground level to ensure that the roots of the adjacent Beech tree within the grounds of Hampers Cottage are not damaged. The driveway is currently within the ownership of Oakdene Cottage and therefore the Local Planning Authority will attach a condition to secure that a “no dig” technique is used on the proposed driveway. 6.6 The application site has a vast planning history in relation to the change of use of the outbuilding (now known as Blackbird Cottage) within the former rear garden of Oakdene Cottage to a separate unit of residential accommodation. Planning application SG/26/02 was allowed on appeal for the change of use of Blackbird Cottage to a separate residential dwelling. In this case the Planning Inspector specified that the shared gravel driveway should be constructed of a different surface to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in order to avoid any undue noise caused by vehicles. The existing shared driveway incorporates brick and shingle. The proposed driveway will therefore be conditioned again to enable APPENDIX A/ 10 - 7.

the Local Planning Authority to ensure that the surface does not cause any undue noise and remains in keeping with the character of the area. 6.7 The Heath Common Residents Association’s have concerns that the proposed access does not accord with the Heath Common Village Design Statement guidance which specifies that a single new dwelling must not create a new access onto the Lanes network. However, Blackbird Cottage and Oakdene Cottage are now two separate established sites and therefore this does not contravene the guidance within the Health Common Village Design Statement.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01. A2 Full permission 02. M6 Prescribed materials (Extensions & Garage) 03. L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping 04. No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and sample of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for the proposed driveway have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials shall conform to those approved. 05. L11 Works under canopies of retained trees (driveway) 06. S4 Surface water details (option A)

Informatives

 Safe & convenient public access is to be available at all times across the full width of the Right of Way. The path is not to be obstructed by vehicles, plant, scaffolding or the temporary storage of materials and/or chemicals.  If the bridleway surface is considered damaged as a result of the development then the applicant may be required to make good the surface to a standard satisfactory to West Sussex County Council’s Rights of Way team.  The Applicant is advised to contact the WSCC Rights of Way team on 01243 777100 regarding this proposal.

8. REASONS

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/0764 & SG/26/02 Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 19th July 2011 DEVELOPMENT: French doors with Juliet balcony to 1st floor bedroom SITE: Keys, Mill Lane, Partridge Green, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 8JU WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/11/0963 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Burrows

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Agent request

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for a minor material amendment to permission Ref. DC/11/0124 to facilitate the installation of French doors with a Juliet balcony in a first floor bedroom toward the west end of the rear elevation of the property.

1.2 Under the previous application Ref. DC/11/0124, the applicants proposed the French doors at the subject location, although these were removed from the scheme arising from planning officer and third party neighbour concerns.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The subject site, which is in the countryside, consists of a substantial two-storey dwelling house, which extends the full width of the subject site from east to west. Significant extension and alteration of the dwelling has already been undertaken, in particular a single storey rear extension has provided the applicants with a large balcony area overhead, which is served by the rooms at first floor level.

1.4 The site is screened at the front by uneven evergreen hedgerow, which ranges from approximately 5m to .5m in height. The rear of the property is also screened with hedging of varying height and density and a wooden fence. In particular, the

Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5460 APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2

common western boundary is screened by evergreen hedgerow and a 1.8m closeboard fence. The evergreen hedging screens the majority of the subject site from the adjoining property, although the area immediately adjoining the rear elevation of the property, which is screened by the closeboard fence, provides no screening barrier from the first floor rooms.

1.5 In terms of adjoining properties, the subject site is adjoined to the east by a private laneway, which provides access to another property, and to the west by a two- storey dwelling. The west adjoining dwelling occupies a similar sized plot to the subject site, with an extensive garden area situated to the rear.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS 7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policy of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 is: DC9.

2.4 The relevant policy of the Core Strategy is: CP3.

PLANNING HISTORY

WG/45/88 Alterations and two-storey extension Permitted DC/08/0513 Rear and side extension and detached garage Permitted DC/10/2363 Detached garage block Refused DC/11/0124 Minor material amendments application with Permitted respect to DC/08/0513 - rear and side extension and detached garage

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 None consulted

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None consulted

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 West Grinstead Parish Council has no objection to the proposal.

3.4 One letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring resident on the grounds of loss of privacy.

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

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.

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

5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact on safety and security issues.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 It is considered that the central issue in the determination of the application is the effect of the development on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers

6.2 The applicant has applied to install French doors with a Juliet balcony in a first floor bedroom toward the west end of the rear elevation.

6.3 The previous application for alterations to this site, DC/11/0124, initially proposed the said French doors at the subject location. However following receipt of a letter of objection and planning officer concern at the retention of the said doors, the applicants agreed to remove the doors from the scheme and replace them with a window.

6.4 The identified concerns related primarily to the loss of privacy, which is currently enjoyed by the neighbouring occupier, such an access onto the rear roof would create. It is considered that these issues remain valid in the case of the current application.

6.5 At the time of submission of this application, boundary screening in the area immediately west of the rear extension was non-existent. However, in the past number of weeks the applicants have undertaken to improve screening at the boundary, erecting a 1.8m wooden closeboard fence. However, the introduction of this fencing is considered of little significance given the above ground floor location of the subject French doors and Juliet balcony. As such, the absence of appropriate boundary screening in this area provides the applicants with a significant view into the private rear garden of the adjoining property, impacting upon the privacy of the adjoining occupiers.

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 4

6.6 In addition to the closeboard fence, it was noted that the applicants have fixed a trellis screen and artificial evergreen planting adjacent to the west side of the proposed Juliet balcony, which it is maintained will mitigate any overlooking issues.. This screen is not considered to reduce the visual impact of the subject balcony. Furthermore, it is considered, given its location and appearance, the screening addition accentuates the adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining property by reason of its poor design and conspicuous appearance.

6.7 In conclusion, given the location of the proposal within the rear elevation, the absence of any meaningful boundary screening immediately west of the said doors, and the proximity of the subject property to the west adjoining property, the proposed French doors and Juliet balcony would significantly impact upon the amenities of the adjoining dwellers, reducing the level of privacy currently enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that permission be refused

1. Given the layout of the subject property, the absence of appropriate screening and the proximity of the subject dwelling to the adjoining property, the French doors and Juliet balcony would significantly reduce the level of privacy available to the occupiers of the west adjoining property known as Cotswold. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

Background Papers: DC/11/0963 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell APPENDIX A/ 12 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19 July 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Retention of gate and fence along frontage of The Holt

SITE: The Holt, Merrywood Lane, Storrington

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/10/2543

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs J Gamble

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This application was previously considered at the February meeting of the committee whereby it was resolved to investigate the possibility of the fence being lowered or re-sited behind the existing hedge, in consultation with the Local Members.

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse to grant planning permission.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was first reported to the February meeting of the committee whereby it was resolved to investigate the fence being re-sited or lowered behind the hedge. The previous committee report is appended.

1.2 Further discussions have been undertaken with the agent and it has been agreed that should the fence be moved to sit behind the existing hedge then this would be deemed permitted development, as it would not be considered to lie adjacent to the highway. However despite a number of requests to the agent at the time of writing this report the fence has not been relocated.

1.3 It remains your officer’s view that the retention of the fence and gate along the front boundary is unacceptable, as it is considered to have a detrimental impact upon its surroundings and therefore should be refused as previously recommended.

Contact: Doug Wright Extension: 5522 APPENDIX A/ 12 - 2.

2. CONCLUSION

2.1 It is recommended that permission be refused and authority sought to take enforcement action to seek the removal of the fence.

2.2 Permission should be refused for the following reason:

Refuse The retention of the fencing and gates to the front garden, by virtue of their height and appearance would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance of the street scene and the surrounding area. The development is therefore contrary to policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/10/2024, DC/10/2543 Contact Officer: Doug Wright

APPENDIX A/ 13 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19 July 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Proposed Garage

SITE: Morningside, Lordings Lane, West Chiltington

WARD: Chanctonbury

APPLICATION: DC/11/0938

APPLICANT: Mr C Bailey

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member Request (Councillor Circus)

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a 2 bay garage with a store. The application originally sought permission for a 2 bay garage with a workshop, utlility area and studio/office, however this was considered to be excessive in size and scale in respect of the existing dwelling and its close proximity to the lane.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 This site is located along the south west side of the private lane of Lordings Lane, which is situated on the eastern side of the village of West Chiltington Common and within the built up area. The existing dwelling is a single storey building set back

Contact: Doug Wright Extension: 5522 APPENDIX A/ 13 - 2.

from the lane with a front curtilage, which consists of a substantial parking area and grassed area with hedging along the front boundary.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are DC9 and DC15 in Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 There is no relevant planning history for this site.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 None undertaken

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Chiltington Parish Council originally objected to the application stating the following: “We object to this application as we consider this building would not relate sympathetically with the existing building due its size, both in length and height and due to the slope of the site the building would sit higher than the house and be unduly prominent in the street scene. The building would tower over the adjoining property Timaru and no amount of planting would hide the building from view from users of this rural road characterised in the main by properties well screened by hedging and shrubs from the road.”

However following the submission of amended plans, West Chiltington Parish Council at the time of writing this report no further comments have been received. Any comments will therefore be verbally given at the meeting.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 7 Letters of objection have been received and have raised the following concerns:

 Overdevelopment of the site  Detrimental upon the street scene  Proposed building is excessive in size and height APPENDIX A/ 13 - 3.

 Overbearing in size

At the time of writing, 2 further comments have been received following the submission of the amended plans. 1 letter upholds their objection, whilst the other withdraws its previous objection.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issue is the effect of the development on the semi rural character of the surrounding area.

6.2 The originally submitted plans proposed a building which was considered to be excessive in size & scale and would have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area, consisting of a 2 bay open frontage garage, a utility area, as well as a studio/office, producing an overall length of 16m with a depth of 6m and would sit to a height of 4.5m. Therefore amended plans were sought and provided a proposal which gave a reduction in the buildings length to 11.4m, retaining the 2 bay garage and log store with the addition of a store room, however resulting in the loss of the utility area and studio/office. The proposed garage would be of a timber construction with oak feather edged boarding, along with a clay tiled pitched roof. 6.3 The proposed garage with a separation distance of 2m would run parallel with the western boundary of the site and would sit to the north of the main dwellinghouse at a distance of approx 9.5m. The proposal would also involve the planting of further vegetation along the roadside boundary to provide greater screening plus additional planting adjacent to the existing parking to the front of the existing dwelling, this would provide both privacy for the applicant and screen the garage from the lane. The existing access point would also see a reduction in its width. The garage, whilst is not of the same materials of the main dwelling, is considered to be in keeping with the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. The dwelling and the garage sit within a large plot, the garage being located approximately 10m from the front boundary, which would comprise of a large amount of vegetation, enabling the building to be less prominent within the site and to the street scene. 6.4 The property is located within an area of West Chiltington comprised of private and narrow lanes, which consist of varying styles of dwellings, of which many have detached garages located forward of the main dwelling, many of whom have less APPENDIX A/ 13 - 4.

vegetation along the front boundary than “Morningside”. It is therefore considered that the garage in its current position is in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area and does not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene. The proposal therefore complies with the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007)

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01. A2 Full Permission 02. M6 Prescribed Materials 03. L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping

8. Reasons for granting planning permission:

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

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

Background Papers: DC/11/0938 Contact Officer: Doug Wright

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 19 July 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Residential development comprising new access road and 67 dwellings (comprising of 25 x 2-bed, 30 x 3-bed and 12 x 4 bed plus) following Outline approval DC/09/1794 (Approval of Reserved Matters) SITE: Land South of Hilland Farm, Stane Street, Billingshurst WARD: Billingshurst & Shipley APPLICATION: DC/11/0878 APPLICANT: Taylor Wimpey South West Thames Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate approval of Reserved Matters in consultation with the Local Members subject to the receipt of satisfactory comments in respect of the amended plans

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application for the approval of reserved matters

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks the approval of reserved matters following the previous granting of outline planning permission on appeal. As is usual for reserved matters applications the principle of development has already been established and this application is therefore for the approval of details related to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

1.2 The previous outline application was also for 67 dwellings but the mix of accommodation was slightly different – the outline scheme having proposed 34 x 2- bed, 23 x 3-bed and 10 x 4 bed plus units and the current application proposing 25 x 2 bed (9 less than previously), 30 x 3 bed (7 more) and 12 x 4 bed plus units (2 more). As at the outline stage, the development will provide affordable housing at the rate of 40% therefore equating to 26 units. This provision, as well as financial payments towards infrastructure, was secured by the completion of a Section 106 agreement at the outline stage.

Contact: Gary Peck Extension: 5172 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

1.3 The means of access to the site was established at the outline stage. 130 parking spaces will serve the development.

1.4 Since the layout of the development at the outline stage was in illustrative form only, some changes have been made to the current submission. The main differences from that previously submitted include the provision of a central green area, development on the western boundary is flank end to protected trees, a greater variety of outward facing and flanking development on northern and eastern boundaries and rear parking courts to restrict the numbers vehicles visible in the street scene.

1.5 Further to comments outlined section 3 of the report, amended plans have been received relating to the design of the development and providing further information.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The application site is outside of any built-up area as defined by the Local Development Framework but is located immediately to the north-east of the built-up area boundary of Billingshurst. The outline proposal was submitted under the terms of the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document which seeks to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling 5 year housing land supply. While the Council refused the application, the Inspector allowed a subsequent appeal.

1.7 The site is on the eastern side of Stane Street between a roundabout serving the by-pass to the north and residential development to the south, the nearest residential dwellings being in High Seat Copse and Norman Close. There is a consistent tree and hedge screen as well as a ditch to Stane Street, although a temporary access has broken through the hedge to allow access to the site in order to comply with any pre-commencement conditions. A permanent access will be similarly provided once development commences. There is a more intermittent level of screening to the nearest residential properties. The site is about a metre higher than Stane Street and generally rises to the north east.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 & PPG13

2.3 Policies SP1, CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, H1 & H3 are among the policies of the South East Plan relevant to the determination of the application.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.6 Guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD is also relevant to the determination of the application.

2.7 The Billingshurst Parish Design Statement Supplementary Planning Document is also relevant.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.8 Outline planning permission was granted on appeal in 2010 for residential development comprising new access road and 67 dwellings (comprising of 34 x 2- bed, 23 x 3-bed and 10 x 4 bed plus)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic Planning state that as the principle of development has been allowed on appeal and the required amount of affordable housing will be provided, they have no further comment to make.

3.2 The Engineering Section comment:

Previous Flood Risk Assessment Report (Ref; FRA-4263-09-16 REV A) for this development describes SuDs etc with discharge from this location at Greenfield run-off rates. As no detailed drainage design schemes have been submitted with this application I’m unable to comment on their viability and practicability for this location.

I also have reservations that the Communal Landscape Area doesn’t include the full extent of the existing local ditch network, in particular the length referred to as W2. Inaccessible surface water ditches is not conducive to a good maintenance regime. Past experience of developers conveying existing ditch ownership in piecemeal to individual property owners is fraught with difficulties in maintaining a viable surface water system. Having numerous timber post & wire fencing spanning this section (W2) of ditch plus additional fencing and hedging barricading off from the rear gardens will ‘put off’ any proper maintenance.

3.3 The Design & Conservation Officer commented:

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

Generally, the layout in considered to be legible, with a single access, leading to a green, with dwellings fronting the street, courtyards and open spaces. There is a good hierarchy through the site, with a centre amenity area created around the centre of the site, with 2 and half storey blocks of flats, with a street hierarchy of detached, semi detached houses on the access road, scaling down to mews and cottage terraces around shared surfaces to the edges of the development. However, there are a number of minor urban and architectural design elements that require altering prior to a recommendation for approval:  The main access road is dominated by a suburban layout, with semi detached and detached dwellings in a continuous run, especially on the southern side of the road plot (plots 1-12 and 48-53). This appears cramped and over developed. Some relief may be given to this street scene by either the removal of a plot, or by the removal of some of the garages in order to break up the built form. Open car barn style garages can also be a useful tool to help give some variety and relief to the street scene.  There are a number of plots which should be altered to give further overlooking to public areas. For example, plots 48, 17, 22, 29 67 and 40 require features such as active windows at ground and first floor level. These could be in the form of bay window at ground floor.  The elevation to the blocks of flats 34-39 and 42-47 are poorly detailed, unimaginative and bulky. They have no access point to the front and subsequently would present an unacceptable frontage to the green area. Revision of these blocks, both in architectural and in activity related terms is strongly recommended. There should also be some delineation of the public and private space outside the blocks.  Where tile hanging is proposed on individual plots at first floor, all elevations on this plot should be tile hung. Quarter hanging of an elevation does not accurately reflect the vernacular character for while the development style is trying to emulate.  Consideration should be given to the use of local stone in the development  Plot 26 and its parking to the rear is isolated. Suggest revision.  The path to the south of plot 13 appears not to have a purpose. Request that it is removed as it is isolated and not adequately overlooked.  As per the Police Design advisors comments, the alleyways to the rear of 58 should be gated.  It is encouraging to see a native hedgerow as a boundary treatment for the side elevations of plot 53 -54. This boundary should not be secured by a solid treatment, such as a close boarded fence or wall, as this will in the winter months be visible from Stane Street and would cause an unacceptable impact on the green entrance to Billingshurst.  Materials should be of high quality and natural. For example, plain clay tiles, natural slate and local brick, plus timber windows and doors should be used. This is a sensitive site on the entrance to the settlement and adjacent to the conservation area.

I would be happy to look at amended plans regarding the above recommended changes. It will also be necessary on an approval to condition details and samples of materials. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.

3.4 Any further comments from the Design & Conservation Officer in respect of the amended plans will be reported verbally at the meeting.

3.5 Any comments from the Arboricultural Officer and Landscape Architect will also be reported verbally at the meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.6 Southern Water state that they do not wish to comment on the reserved matters application and that their comments made at the outline stage therefore remain valid. (At the outline stage Southern Water had commented that there was inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development: the Inspector considered that the matter could be adequately controlled by condition)

3.7 Sussex Police commented:

The level of crime and antisocial behaviour at this location is average when compared to England and Wales and I do not have concerns regarding this application. I was pleased to note that the Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application gave mention to some of the crime prevention measures considered in the design and layout of the development. Guidance on Information Requirements and Validation (CLG 2010), Section 6, Paragraph 132, states, “PPS1 makes clear that a key objective for new developments should be that they create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Design and access statements for outline and detailed applications should therefore demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the design of the proposal and how the design reflects the attributes of safe, sustainable places set out in Safer Places – The Planning System and Crime Prevention”.

The lay out and design of the development consists of a number of cul de sacs which create good defensible space, allowing residents to self police their environment. The road layout if free and unobstructed. However there are a number of observations concerning the design and layout that I have concerns with.

I note from the site plan provided that there is a path that is shown starting at the central southern point of the development, which heads due east to the extreme edge of the development before heading due north to the top north eastern corner of the development. What the purpose of this path is for is not apparent and appears to serve no useful purpose. I ask that this be removed.

There appears to be rear garden access from the side and rear of plot 57 that leads to the gardens of plots 55 & 56. This route skirts the rear of plot 58, yet 58 has no rear garden or any demarcation lines to indicate its private space which leads block 58 being vulnerable. I suggest this area is gated at the north end and fencing erected at the front of the building line with appropriate gating enabling this area to be used only for the residents of plot 58. Rear access to plots 55 & 56 to be APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.

redirected via the rear of plot 54 and access to plot 57 via the front elevation. This would lead to 57 having a larger garden. Any gates that provide access to the rear gardens should be of a robust design and where applicable be of palisade design enabling surveillance from either direction.

I also have concerns over the private space of the resident of plots 34 - 39. Their rear is open from the “The green”. There should be a definitive fence line preventing unwanted and unauthorised entry to the rear of these dwellings.

I would like to reiterate my colleague’s comments of PH/VB/HOR/09/07 regarding the “flying bedrooms” and the problems associated with the parking courts beyond. From a crime prevention viewpoint these dwellings that are constructed over a vehicle entrance point, tend to restrict the views into the rear parking courts whilst additionally providing a relatively unobserved gathering / loitering point underneath. The latter could impact upon the amenity of the residents living above and assist in increasing the fear of crime.

If permitted, these under areas will need appropriate lighting installed for safety and security purposes as will the accompanying rear courtyards. To provide better observation of the rear parking courts from the adjacent rear gardens, fences should be 1.5 metre close board topped with 300 mm of trellis. This will give a more open view of the otherwise hidden parking courts from the dwellings. For an example of this please see plots 23 - 25. This strategy should be implemented throughout the development. Where there are carports proposed these will require dusk to dawn lighting installed internally in the interests of safety and security.

3.8 West Sussex County Council comment that there are no objections from a highways point of view but requesting that the condition relating to archaeology at the outline stage be re-imposed under this application.

3.9 Billingshurst Parish Council commented:

The Council were concerned about the entrance / exit of the site this goes out onto a very busy road which is currently 60mph. Pedestrians leaving or entering the site would have to cross this road as the only pavement is opposite the development site. There is also another development taking place directly opposite so there will be vehicles and pedestrians entering and exiting that site. The houses as proposed are family homes so this area could be dangerous for youngsters walking to school.

The Council would like to see some form of crossing point for the pedestrians.

The Council will also be writing to WSCC as they would like to see the 20mph zone in the High Street extended to the Hilland roundabout which would then make if safer for pedestrians / vehicles exiting the two sites

The Council did not object to the design and layout of the site.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.10 2 letters of objection has been received on the grounds of: APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.

- the density of the development is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area - adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties - increased noise and disturbance - increased flooding - lack of boundary screening - highway access and parking

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

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights 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 proposal will have an adverse impact upon crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 Since the principle of development has already been established by the grant of outline permission on appeal, it is considered that the main issues in the determination of this application are whether the detail of the proposal is acceptable in terms of its appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

6.2 While representations regarding highway safety and access are noted, the means of access was considered at the outline stage and found to be acceptable by the Inspector at the appeal. Accordingly, there are no grounds to resist the application on these grounds. Similarly, while comments have been made regarding the density of the development, the Inspector considered that the number of dwellings (67) was also acceptable and therefore there are also no grounds to resist the development on the dwellings alone.

6.3 However, the remaining matters are of importance since they relate to the detail of the development and so require consideration of those details submitted. The site is located at the northern entrance point to Billingshurst and although to some extent it will be screened by the existing trees and hedging on its western boundary, there will be some visual impact especially at the point where the main access is proposed.

6.4 The details forming the reserved matters were discussed between officers and the applicants prior to the submission of the application. It was agreed that the illustrative layout accompanying the outline permission was not necessarily the most appropriate for this important site and as a result some alterations were made as set out in paragraph 1.4

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.

6.5 As a result, therefore, it is considered that the general approach to development on the site is acceptable. The principle of a single access within the site leading to a green, with dwellings mostly fronting the street is felt to reflect the character of the area as required by the Billingshurst Parish Design Statement. The general position of dwellings nearest to the boundaries of the site is also considered acceptable in principle (notwithstanding any tree or landscape comments to be received) as they largely either front or have flank walls to the boundaries.

6.6 However, there are number of details as stated in the Design & Conservation Advisor comments which still require further consideration before the application could be considered fully acceptable. Immediately prior to the writing of this report, further information was submitted by the applicants attempting to address the comments of the Design & Conservation Advisor (as well as providing further information in respect of the Sussex Police and Engineering section comments). A further verbal update will be given to the Committee regarding the amendments.

6.7 Since permission has been granted at appeal, and having regard to the Council’s 5 Year Housing Land Supply position, it is clearly in the interest of the Council to secure the implementation of this development in an acceptable manner as quickly as possible. It should also be noted that a Section 106 agreement has already been completed at the outline stage and that provision of affordable housing will be secured at a rate of 40%.

6.8 Having regard to the above, therefore, it is considered that the application should be delegated for approval in consultation with the local members in order to resolve any outstanding issues so that the best possible development can be achieved.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the reserved matters application be delegated for approval in consultation with the Local Members subject to the receipt of satisfactory comments in respect of the amended plans and the following conditions:

01 D6 Finished Floor Levels 02 E2 No Fences 03 L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping 04 M1 Approval of Materials 05 O2 Burning of Materials add ‘in connection with the construction of the approved development’

(Conditions imposed at the outline stage remain applicable to the development)

8. REASONS

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

Background Papers: DC/11/0878 Contact Officer: Gary Peck APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19th July 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Construction of a 4 bed farmhouse style property with attached double garage in front garden of The Oaks and transfer of land to Horsham District Council to achieve the Country Park footpath link

SITE: The Oaks, Hampers Lane, Storrington

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/11/0969

APPLICANT: Mrs B McMichael

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The site that the existing property known as The Oaks and the proposed dwelling would be situated is within the built up area boundary of Storrington. However, the land included within the application site to the south, which would be required as a garden to serve the dwelling, is outside of the built-up area and therefore subject to countryside policies. It is also designated as part of the Sandgate Country Park under Policy AL19.

1.2 The proposed dwelling would be located within the front garden of The Oaks. The proposed plot would measure approximately 12.5m in width by 33m in depth. The resultant plot for The Oaks would measure 20m in width by 39m in depth. A 2.5m wide access way would also be provided to the northern side of the proposed dwelling to give vehicular access to The Oaks.

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2.

1.3 The proposed dwelling would measure 10.7m in width by 8.2m in depth and would have a ridge height of 7.2m. A rear gable projection is proposed which would project out by 4m and measure 4.6m in width with a ridge height of 6.1m. There would also be an attached garage to the northern elevation which would measure

1.4 The accommodation would provide a kitchen, breakfast area, dining room, study, hall living room and double garage to the ground floor and 4 bedrooms, an ensuite, bathroom and office would be provided to the 1st floor level. A distance of 0.7m would be retained to the southern built up area boundary and 0.7m would be retained to the proposed access drive to The Oaks.

1.5 There are currently two areas of the proposed Country Park which are to the east and west of Hampers Lane with a section privately owned in between the two. This application would provide a 3 metre strip of footpath across the privately owned land which would then join with the other two areas.

1.6 The applicant states the intention is to offer the Council the required amount of land to achieve the Country Park link and in return it is proposed to construct 1 property in the front garden of The Oaks which is within the built up area of Storrington and allow a larger residential curtilage which would encroach into the northern part of an adjacent field.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.7 The application site is on the western side of Hampers Lane. While The Oaks and the site is within the built-up area as defined by the Local Development Framework, the southernmost part of the proposed residential curtilage, as well as the proposed footpath, would be outside of the built-up area and therefore subject to countryside policies. This area also falls within that covered by policy AL19 which states that the Council will seek to secure the Sandgate Park area for the formation of a Country Park.

1.8 The nearest residential dwellings are to the north, comprising Little Barton and a recently constructed dwelling in its front garden called Barton Lodge.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.9 DC/07/2545 Erection of 1 x 4 bed detached dwelling with 2 bay detached garage, Withdrawn December 2007.

DC/08/2475 Erection of 2 x 4 bed farmhouse style dwellings each with a 2 bay detached garage and provision of a 3 metre wide footpath to serve the country park, Refused August 2009.

DC/11/0350 Construction of a four bedroom farmhouse style property with attached double garage in front garden, Withdrawn May 2011.

There is no other relevant planning history for the site.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 & PPG13.

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, CP8 - CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs, CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements, CP15 - & CP19 -.

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: DC1 - , DC9 – Development principles and DC40 – Transport & Access.

2.5 The following policy of the Site Specific Allocations of Land 2007 is relevant in the assessment of this application: Policy AL19 (Sandgate Park) which states:

“The Council will seek to secure the Sandgate Park area, as shown on the Proposals Map, for the formation of a Country park as soon as it is practical to do so, taking into account the requirements for mineral extraction. Proposals that could assist in the formation of the country park will be encouraged. Development proposals not directly associated with mineral extraction that could prejudice the formation of the Country Park will not be permitted.”

2.6 Guidance contained within the Heath Common Village Design Statement is also relevant.

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

3.1 The Head of Strategic Planning has commented that “The application has been considered against the Horsham District Local Development Framework, in particular the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) (2007), the General Development Control Policies DPD (2007) and the Site Specific Allocations of Land DPD (2007). National policies, therefore, are also material in the consideration of the application, particularly those within PPS3: Housing and PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4.

This application follows a similar application submitted recently and withdrawn by the applicant in an attempt to address the policy issues outlined in our previous comments (application DC/11/0350).

In respect of these comments, I am happy that the applicant has now included provision of a 3 meter strip of land around the perimeter of their land which will enable the delivery of a public footpath into the wider Sandgate Park area at a time which is suitable for the authority.

Considering this application on its own merits, I can again confirm that the main policies for consideration are policy AL19 in the SSAL document which referrers to the formation of the Sandgate Country Park, policy DC15 of the Development Control Policies DPD which sets the design considerations for the Heath Common Character area and policy CP5 of the Core Strategy which alludes to the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of Storrington and .

Because part of the development curtilage spans the BUAB of Storrington and Sullington, falling into an area of land covered by policy AL19 of the SSAL, the key issue for consideration is whether the proposed development would conflict with this policy by being ‘development not directly associated with minerals extraction and prejudicing the formation of Sandgate Country Park’, or whether it amounts to a proposal that ‘could assist in the formation of the Country Park’ and can therefore be encouraged accordingly.

I again draw your attention to the policy comments made by Paul Rowley on a similar application in 2008 – DC/08/2475, which were generally supportive on the basis that the delivery of a footpath would facilitate the wider access proposals for the overall Country Park. The application was therefore seen as an opportunity ‘to commence the process of moving towards the long-held objective of implementing the Country Park’ and in accordance with AL19.

Little has changed from a policy perspective since these comments were made and whilst there has been little progression on the delivery of the Country Park, a similar position would be taken on this occasion.

The second issue for consideration is whether the proposed new structure would have an adverse impact on landscape character, particularly as the site is located within the Health Common Character area. I again leave it to the Case Officer to make a judgement on this, paying particular attention to the requirements of policies CP1, DC2 and DC15.

It is considered that the proposal would have minimal impact on the integrity of the intended Country Park, as the built structure would be contained within the BUAB and the sites curtilage is capable of being protected through planning conditions and specific limitations on future use or development. Notwithstanding this, the Case Officer should assess the Development Management implications of locating a new home in this position, with reference to the recent change in PPS3 and the definition of residential gardens. Consideration should also be given to the requirements set out in policies DC1, DC9 and DC15.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5.

To conclude, whilst the application site spans the BUAB of Storrington and Sullington, the physical structure will be contained within the BUAB, therefore provided the Case Officer is satisfied that the proposal has no adverse design implications, I see no reason for refusal. With regards to policy AL19, I suggest it is up to the Case Officer to assess whether the slight infringement of the land allocated for the Country Park is sufficiently offset by the provision of a 3 meter strip of land which will enable the delivery of a footpath into the wider park area in the future.”

3.2 The Head Countryside Warden has commented that “The long-term aim is for HDC to take ownership of sand pits between Storrington Road, Hampers Lane and Water Lane in Storrington and add to them their current holding (Sandgate Park) to make a new Country Park. Our approach has been to attempt to acquire the land as it becomes available (dependent on profitibility of the pits and success of planning applications) over the next 15 years or so, to start managing the land in an appropriate way and to plan and put into place the correct infrastructure for the future. With this in mind, it had been an aim to establish a footpath link between two areas of future Country Park which, otherwise, would be separate because of locations of private-owned land. The relevant section in the latest refresher study plan is 3.11 (page 11). In the plan on page 8 the land in question is in Area 8 and would link land to come to HDC in Areas 2 and 3.

Under the aims of the refresher study (and the original feasibility study) we are committed to attempting to establish this footpath link and so, unless there has been a change in our approach, we would approve the land transfer, although the land in Areas 2 and 3 have not yet been transferred and may not be for some time. There were some discussions with Cemex last year about early transfer of land in the north of Area 1, adjacent to Sandgate Park, but I'm not sure whether Cemex wants to follow this up at the current time.”

3.3 The Head of Housing & Community Services has no comments to make.

3.4 The Head of Public Health & Licensing has commented that they have no objection subject to the following conditions:

 No burning of waste on site;  Hours of construction, demolition, deliveries, loading and unloading during the implementation phase to be restricted to:

08:00 – 18:00 Mon – Fri 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays No activities on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 Southern Water has commented that “the exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Please note:

 No development or new tree planting should be located within 3 metres either APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6.

 side of the centreline of the public sewer;  No new soakaways should be located within 5m of a public sewer;  All existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of construction  Works;

In order to protect drainage apparatus, Southern Water requests that if consent is Granted, a condition is attached to the planning permission. For example “The developer must advise the local authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to protect the public sewers prior to the commencement of the development.”

Any new connections will require a formal application for a connection to the public foul sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.

We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent:

“A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, S023 9EH (Tel 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk”

There are no public surface water sewers in the area to serve this development. Alternative means of draining surface water from this development are required. This should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer.”

3.6 West Sussex Highway Authority has commented that West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. DC/11/0350 to which no objections were raised.

I would reiterate my previous comments on this application; no concerns would be raised taking into account the history at the site however the applicant should be made aware of the following:

Hampers Lane is unadopted but still carries Public Bridleway 2627 which provides a public right of access on foot, horseback and pedal cycle. The bridleway should not however be adversely impacted upon by this proposal.

The PROW team would welcome a new public right of way that would link the proposed areas of Country Park together and also provide access to Water Lane and Sandgate Woods. The 3 metre strip around the perimeter of the land to be provided for this purpose is therefore much appreciated.

Note for Horsham District: WSCC PROW team would urge the consideration of a multi-user route rather than just a footpath to provide safe and convenient access for as many modes of user as possible. It would be ideal if there was dedication of this link as a bridleway so as to enable an east-west access link that avoids the need to use the busy A283.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.7 Heath Common Residents Association has objected to the scheme on the following grounds:

Policy AL19 (Sandgate Country Park) – The proposal to deliver the 3m wide strip of land for the footpath could only be of possible value to HDC and the community, at such time as the land to the east and west are delivered by the relevant landowners to HDC. We need to be clear that the proposed land would need to connect with Cemax Land to the east which has been subject to extensive consideration under application DC/10/1457 and remains undecided. To the west of the Marley Field, a connection would need to be made with land within The Heidelberg/Hanson pit. Access to Sandgate Woods is currently via Badgers Holt and there is onward access to Water Lane and Sullington Warren which have rights of way. Will the Parish or HDC assume financial responsibility for the footpath if the land is secured? It is our view that the delivery of the footpath at this point in time is unnecessary and would be premature until application DC/10/1457 is decided and there is a timetable for delivery of the Cemax Land and the resolution of the ownership of the Hanson Pit once the extended mineral licence expires in December 2013.

Design – The Association is concerned about the street scene impact of the proposal. The proposal appears to request a ridge height of 7.25m with a frontage including garaging of 17 metres (House 11m & garage 6.5m). The existing garaging behind will be visible and would appear to add to the possible hard building appearance that may result from the proposal. Regardless of how the land has been registered for ownership, only part of the site is within the built up area boundary. Government Guidance in relation to the treatment of land within a residential curtilage is still evolving. Gardens of properties within built up areas were not to be classified as previously developed land therefore the infill dwelling at Little Barton is not a reason to justify the proposal.

3.8 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

“Although the proposed dwelling itself lies within the built-up area, part of the garden does not, which would change the land from "countryside" outside the built- up area to "residential curtilage" with the resulting potential for buildings (sheds etc.) and future development. Even if conditions were imposed these could, in future, be removed with the permanent loss of countryside.

The "offer" of land for a footpath was, at the time of the previous application, described by H.D.C. in its refusal as "premature as it fails to assist in the formation of the country park given that the proposed footpath does not link to any other footpath within the proposed Country Park area and there are alternative footpath routes available." This has not changed. There would be considerable loss of trees/shrubs/hedgerows which would result in opening up the vista and destroying the buffer between the countryside and the built-up area.”

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8.

3.9 Washington Parish Council has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

“The land in question is still designated as AL19 and as part of the future Country Park. A strip of this land is being offered to Horsham District Council, as part of the application, as a footpath link for the Country Park, which raises a number of concerns.

 There has been no application for change of use of the land to encompass it within the garden of The Oaks; consequently, the land may be registered to The Oaks but remains outside of the curtilage of the garden and within countryside, and Countryside Policies therefore apply.  There has been no discussion or assessment of a need, on the merits of having a footpath link in this location. Indeed it is the view of residents that such a path in this location is of no merit whatsoever as there are better existing routes already via an existing footpath over land already owned by Horsham District Council, which leads into Badgers Holt, and then on to Hampers Lane. No provision or commuted sum has been offered for interim maintenance of any path.  The footpath does not help to develop the Country Park under AL19 as it leads nowhere, and is actually not a requirement at this particular stage, as access already exists. As such the provisions with AL19 which may permit development where it would otherwise not be permitted do not apply in our view. This application therefore would need to be assessed against existing Countryside Policies. The issue also arises of what happens should a Country Park never materialise. It may well be premature to permit an application on the basis that it helps to enable a Country Park, when any alleged benefit is of such a small significance in enabling the development, which is in any event not likely to materialise for some considerable time.  Planning Policy has recently changed and the rules under PPS3 no longer class gardens as previously developed land. Whilst we accept that a neighbouring property gained permission under the old definition of previously developed land, should this application be permitted on the basis of a precedent having been set, then this would undermine the intention of the government when PPS3 was amended.  The alleged gain, if accepted, for the proposed Country Park with this application is not thought to be sufficient to allow the building of another dwelling in Countryside, which could then set a precedent for the future. Consideration should be given to the forthcoming Localism bill which is intended to give local communities more say on the development they wish to see or not within their community.  In summary, this application seeks to remove land from countryside to private garden, build on previously undeveloped land in countryside, is of too large a size for the plot, is detrimental to the surrounding area and street scene, not in accordance with the Heath Common Design Statement and not in accordance with the wishes of the local community. The justification for the application is an allegation it helps to deliver a Country Park. A benefit which is both premature and unfounded as existing benefits in terms of footpaths already exists.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9.

3.10 1 letter of objection has been received on the grounds of:

 This is essentially a revival of application No DC/08/2475 on this site which was refused.  There is now only one dwelling proposed instead of two.  There is still a proposed footpath on the southern boundary from Hampers Lane eastwards which leads nowhere, therefore it is of no benefit.

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

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area.

6.2 The application site is beyond the southernmost extent of residential development on the western side of Hampers Lane and therefore any development could be said to from an important visual gateway to the Heath Common area which is acknowledged as being of high visual character. There is, however, a reasonable level of screening to the site from Hampers Lane which would, to some extent, reduce the visual impact of the development.

6.3 With regard to the proposed dwelling in the front garden of The Oaks, it is noted that immediately to the north, a similar style dwelling was granted permission in 2007 in the front garden of Little Barton. The approved ridge height of this property was 8 metres, therefore slightly higher than the dwelling proposed under this application. At the last meeting of the Committee, planning permission was refused for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of Little Barton. As such, therefore, this demonstrates that each application in the Heath Common area must be judged on its own merits.

6.4 Although the proposed dwelling is located within the built up area boundary, part of the proposed residential curtilage is outside of the built-up area boundary. Given the size and footprint of the dwelling, it would not appear possible to located the APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10.

residential dwelling wholly within the built-up area and it appears that even if the dwelling were made substantially smaller, it would still be unlikely that a dwelling could be incorporated into the existing residential curtilage without adversely affecting the character of the area. The area of land outside of the existing built-up area required to serve the dwelling equates to approximately 450 square meters. Such encroachment into a countryside area is would normally be considered unacceptable.

6.5 However, the proposal also falls to be considered against policy AL19 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land document which states that proposals which could assist in the formation of the Country Park will be encouraged. The field to the south of The Oaks is currently privately owned (by the applicant) but is situated in between parts of the proposed Country Park to the east and west of Hampers Lane. There is no current pedestrian access between these two proposed elements of the Country Park and therefore the application also proposes the provision of a defined 3 metre strip for a public footpath to be signed over to the Council in order to achieve the footpath access from the part of the Country Park east of Hampers Lane to that west of the Lane. As such, therefore, the provision of the path could assist with the progression of the Country Park as set down by policy AL19.

6.6 The comments of the Head of Strategic Planning are noted at paragraph 3.1. She considers that the progression of the Country Park should take advantage of opportunities as they arise and that, in her view, the current planning application represents such an opportunity. It is clearly important, though, that the proposed route links up fully with the provisions made in other parts of the Country Park which as yet it would not do so although there could well be opportunities in the future.

6.7 Notwithstanding the above comments, it is recognised that there is significant local concern regarding the proposals. Similar concerns were expressed in the proposal refused under reference DC/08/2475.

6.8 It is clearly important a balanced view is taken, therefore. In Development Management terms, it has been long established that Heath Common is one of the more sensitive areas in the District with a strongly defined character that can be easily eroded by inappropriate planning proposals. This is borne out by the fact that, along with West Chiltington Common, it is the subject of a particular policy relating to its area, DC15, which requires any development to maintain the unique character of the area. Such site specific policies are now less common as Local Development Framework policies are required to avoid direct repetition of government guidance.

6.9 Given that the dwelling could only be realistically be accommodated using a significant area of land outside the built-up area, it is considered that this in itself would adversely affect the character of the area. The edge of the built-up area is clearly defined and to breach such a line for residential purposes (albeit that the house itself would be within the built-up area) would adversely affect the character of the area. Although the applicant has made every effort to locate the dwelling appropriately, and has responded to a request to reduce its size, it has not in your APPENDIX A/ 3 - 11.

officer’s view been sufficient to overcome the harm that would be caused by the effect of the proposal on the character of the surrounding area.

6.10 Notwithstanding this harm, it could be argued that the provision of the footpath to assist in the provision of the Country Park is a material consideration that over- rides such harm, especially as the successful provision of the Park would benefit a wide number of people both within and outside the District. However, at present the application for the RMC site to the east remains undetermined, the site of which includes a potentially much longer section of footpath and there are other parts of the proposed Country Park which also yet to have such footpath links. The footpath to be provided, therefore, is not independently essential to the provision of the Country Park and so, as harm is considered to be caused to the Heath Common area by the accompanying development proposal, on balance it is felt that the application cannot be supported at this stage.

6.11 It is acknowledged that the applicant has worked hard to secure a potentially acceptable scheme, however strong local opposition remains. On balance, it is therefore concluded that the application is unacceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development would adversely affect the character of the surrounding area by virtue of its scale, siting and location and part of the application site lies outside any built-up area as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework where there is a strong presumption against additional residential development. The proposal is therefore considered to represent inappropriate development for which there are no overriding reasons to justify a departure from development plan policies. It therefore conflicts with policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP13 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC9 & DC15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

02 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure, fire and rescue services and community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

Background Papers: DC/11/0969

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 19th July 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Erection of three 2-bed cottages SITE: Land east of Sawyards, Manleys Hill, Storrington WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/11/0400 APPLICANT: Mr S Arch

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member request

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Legal Agreement to secure contributions towards fire and rescue and community facilities.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a terrace of three 2-bed cottages. Three half hipped gables are proposed on the front elevation and the rear first floor bedroom of each unit would be served by French doors and a Juliet balcony. The dwellings would be constructed of brick and flint with an element of timber cladding at first floor level under a plain tile roof.

1.2 No changes are proposed to the existing access arrangements and four car parking spaces, to include one disabled space, would be provided to serve the dwellings.

1.3 In terms of amenity areas, the cottage to the west would have its own modest private garden to the west and south. The cottages to the middle and east would have small rear gardens to the south and a large shared garden to the east.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is a long, narrow strip of land located on the south side of the A283, Manleys Hill, and just to the west of its junction with Chantry Lane. The site has a substantial frontage to Manleys Hill (approx. 48m) but a very limited depth (approx. 17m). The bulk of the site was formerly the car park which served the

Contact: Hazel Corke Extension: 5177 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2.

former Sawyards restaurant which was previously located in a large property immediately to the west. Planning permission has been granted for the re- development of the former restaurant.

1.5 Manleys Hill slopes down from east to west into the village of Storrington. At the rear of the site there is a steep bank which was formerly heavily treed but is now largely cleared of vegetation. At the eastern end of the site close to the junction with Chantry Lane, there is a small clump of trees and the site frontage has been planted with laurel hedging.

1.6 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. To the rear (south) lie dwellings located in Chantry Close. These dwellings sit in an elevated position in relation to the application site and generally the boundary of these properties with the application site is formed by a close boarded fence. Along this part of Manleys Hill other residential properties are predominantly detached and sit within comfortable well-landscaped plots, set back from the highway.

1.7 Whilst the application site lies outside of the Storrington Village Conservation Area boundary, nevertheless, it directly abuts this designated area.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS3 are relevant to the determination of the application.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are relevant to the application:- CP1 (Landscape & Townscape Character), CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP5 (Built-up Areas and Previously Developed Land) and CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements

2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies are DC9 (Development Principles) and DC12 (Conservation Areas).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/07/0890 – In 2007 an application for the construction of four 2-bed semi- detached cottages was dismissed on appeal. The Inspector held that the proposal would have represented an over-development of this very constrained site harming the street scene and the character and appearance of the locality. Because of the importance of the street scene as an approach to the village centre, the proposal would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3.

2.6 DC/08/1934 – In 2008 an application for the erection of a terrace of three 2-bed properties was dismissed on appeal. The Inspector found against the proposal on the grounds that setting the terrace so far back from the road and so close to the southern boundary of the site where there is a steep bank would be poor design creating a low standard of residential development. In addition, it was not demonstrated that the proposed form of development would be compatible with achieving a suitably engineered response to problems associated with the stability of the steep bank on the southern boundary of the site.

2.7 DC/09/1112 – In February 2010 a scheme for the erection of a building comprising four 1-bed flats was allowed on appeal. The Inspector held that as the site was previously developed land within a sustainable settlement where further residential development was anticipated there did not appear to be any ‘in-principle’ objections to the development of the site for residential purposes. The appeal was therefore allowed subject to conditions including the requirement that a scheme to stabilise the bank should be submitted for the Local Planning Authority’s approval prior to the commencement of development.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 Southern Water advises that there are no public surface water sewers in the area to serve the development and therefore alternative means of draining surface water from the development are required which should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer. Southern Water also requires a formal application for a connection to the public foul sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.

3.2 The County Surveyor raises no objection to the proposal from a highway point of view subject to conditions. A site visit has been undertaken and it would appear that the access can accommodate two vehicles safely. However, to ensure an adequate level of visibility is maintained any proposed planting at the frontage of the site must be no higher than 0.6m above the ground level and any existing foliage must be maintained in order to safeguard the visibility splay. The most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing point of access and therefore the access appears to be operating safely. The proposed level of car parking is within the latest WSCC parking standards. A transport infrastructure contribution would not be sought given the removal of over 40 car parking spaces which previously served the former restaurant.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 4 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents on the grounds of over-looking; insufficient parking; loss of trees and detrimental impact on the attractive entry to the village.

3.4 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal on the following grounds: APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4.

 loss of trees  insufficient parking provision  increased pressure on the existing sub-standard sewage and water systems in Storrington  the development would result in houses with gardens that were just a steep bank and with insufficient amenity space  overlooking of the proposed dwellings by the existing houses at the top of the bank  the bank is not considered to be stable thus endangering the stability of the houses at the top of the bank  plans are misleading because the bank is much steeper than the drawings show  the site is on one of the main entrances to the village and currently a very attractive landmark  noise generated by the volume of traffic on the A283 can be a nuisance to nearby residents  an AQMA has been declared just metres from the site  there are severe visibility issues when exiting from Chantry Lane and it is considered that this proposal would exacerbate the problem.

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

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.

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

5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact on safety and security issues.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in the determination of the application are considered to be the effect of the development on the character of the surrounding area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the residential environment of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

6.2 Storrington is classified as a village capable of accommodating some expansion, infilling and re-development in the LDF Core Strategy document and therefore the principle of development is acceptable.

6.3 Furthermore the principle of residential development on the site has been established by the scheme for a block of four 1-bed flats which was allowed on appeal in 2010, notwithstanding, that two previous applications for residential APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5.

development of the site were dismissed on appeal for the reasons cited in Paras.2.5 & 2.6.

6.4 The current application proposes the erection of a terrace of three 2-bed cottages with an overall footprint which would be slightly smaller than that of the approved scheme. It is also proposed within the current application to re-locate the building further west and slightly closer to the former restaurant building.

6.5 It is maintained by the applicant that the advantages of moving the building further to the west are:

 To provide a more visually cohesive development.  To take advantage of the lower bank height to the west and the slightly increased depth of the site at this point  To provide a more interesting and varied rear elevation to the building  To provide more south facing windows which would reduce the need for internal lighting and would improve the living conditions provided  To provide a better outlook for the occupants of the proposed units.

6.6 Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be benefits to any future occupiers of the cottages from the re-location of the building in terms of an improved living environment, nevertheless there is concern that the existing occupiers of the properties in Chantry Close would be likely to be adversely affected by the re-siting the building. In this respect, it is considered that there would be at least a perception of overlooking from the first floor rear windows of the proposed terrace of the properties to the rear and consequent loss of privacy of the existing neighbouring occupiers.

6.7 In response to this concern, the applicant has indicated that amended plans will be submitted showing a re-arrangement of the fenestration on the first floor rear elevation. The French doors and Juliet balcony at the western end of the building would be re-located to the west side elevation and the French doors serving the middle unit would be replaced with a Velux window. The French doors at the eastern end of the building would remain, as given the height of the bank at this point, it is not considered that the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers to the rear would be affected by the proposal. Subject to the submission of suitably amended plans it is considered that the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties would be protected.

6.8 With regard to the parking provision, the County Surveyor has advised that the level of provision is within the current WSCC parking standards and has therefore not raised any concerns in this regard. Furthermore, the site is located in an accessible location within easy walking, cycling and public transport access of the village centre with its shops and services and thus is in accordance with sustainable travel policies.

6.9 Concern has also been expressed by neighbouring residents with regard to the stability of the bank. In this respect the applicant has advised that works to stabilise the bank have been undertaken and completed. An inspection of the bank in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development was found to be relatively APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6.

stable but the upper surfaces could not be guaranteed to remain as such. It was therefore decided to stabilise the bank by use of a system of anchors as designed by a specialist company. Such systems are used extensively for bank retention often seen where unstable ground is found against roads or embankments and utilises a series of driven anchors into the solid sub soil and tied into a reinforced grid and base terram. This is a fully designed and guaranteed system to ensure long term stability of the bank and to enable a vertical face to be created near the bottom without the need for retaining walls. Whilst the black base terram layer is currently visible, re-growth will occur so the anchors and black base terram would not be seen in time.

6.10 It should be noted that the stabilisation works have been undertaken without any recourse to the Local Planning Authority, however, the Council’s Property Services Officer was consulted on the matter and in response to which no adverse comments were made. In terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, it is your officers view that the undertaken works would in time largely preserve the ‘soft’ approach into the village and are certainly preferable to the alternative of a high retaining brick wall. In this respect, it is not considered that the stabilisation works will have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area and in particular to the adjoining Conservation Area.

6.11 In conclusion, whilst there is sympathy with the concerns raised by the Parish Council and local residents relating to the development of the site for residential purposes, given that there is an extant permission on the site for four 1-bed flats, it would be very difficult to justify a reason for refusal on this basis. Subject to the receipt of suitably amended plans relating to the fenestration on the rear elevation, the proposal is considered acceptable for the reasons given above.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions and the completion of a Legal Agreement to secure contributions towards fire and rescue (to be advised by WSCC) and community facilities of £5,859:

1. A2 – Full Permission 2. E3 – Fencing 3. H4 – On Site Parking 4. J10 – Removal of Permitted Development 5. L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping 6. M1 – Approval of Materials 7. O1 – Hours of Working 8. O2 – Burning of Materials…please insert ‘in connection with the development’ 9. M8 – Sustainable Construction. 10. Within six months of the date of any planning permission, maximum visibility splays shall be provided at the site access onto the A283 (Manleys Hill) in accordance with a plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These splays shall thereafter be kept clear of all APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7.

obstructions to visibility above a height of 0.6 metres above the adjoining road level. Reason : In the interests of road safety. 11. The development hereby approved shall not be 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 use. Reason: To provide car-parking spaces for the dwellings. 12. S4 – Surface Water Details …….Option A

Note to Applicant A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (Tel no. 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

Note to Applicant The applicant is requested to provide a copy of the Certificate of Guarantee in respect of the stabilisation works to the bank.

8. REASONS ICAB2 – The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/0400 Contact Officer: Hazel Corke APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19th July 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Cold store facility to store approximately 50 - 60 carcasses per week, installation of an emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes

SITE: Downsview Farm, Clay Lane, Cootham

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/11/0751

APPLICANT: Mr Richard Scott

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal is for the erection of a cold store facility to store approximately 50 - 60 carcasses per week, installation of an emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes.

1.2 The building would be located within the yard area of Downsview Farm which is located to the east of Clay Lane and to the north of Amberley Road. The building would be sited into the bank which forms the northern boundary of the yard area. The building would measure 8m by 11m and would have a ridge height of 4.2m.

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The proposed site is within a countryside location and the boundary for the South Downs National Park runs along the southern edge of the access track. The site for the cold store would be just outside the South Downs National Park.

1.4 The farm consists of 20.2ha (50 acres) of grassland and is in two blocks with access to the farm and hard standing running through the middle. The land to the north of the access track 11.3ha (28 acres) is currently being used for pig production as the soil type is sandy. The other block of land 8.9ha (22 acres) to the south of the access track is predominantly clay and is unsuitable for pig production. The applicant proposes to keep 30 ewes on this block of land. Also included in this 22 acres is an area of hard standing which is at the end of the access track and is effectively a yard with 5 bulk feed bins and 2 shipping containers used for storage. There is planning permission for a mobile home on the site to the south of the entrance to the farm. There is also a small woodland on the south east boundary of the farm.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.5 DC/08/1741 Prior notification to erect 5 feed bin stores, permitted September 2008

DC/10/0785 Siting of temporary mobile home for agricultural worker and associated residential curtilage, permitted 27th September 2010.

There is no other relevant planning history for the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

2.3 The South Downs Management Plan 2008 – 2013 and South Downs Planning Guidelines 2008 are relevant material considerations in the determination of this application since the South Downs National Park’s creation in April 2010. The guidance contained within the documents reflects government guidance which seeks to give maximum protection to the most valuable landscapes.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 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 & CP15 – Rural Strategy.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.

2.5 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character & DC9 – Development Principles.

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

3.1 Head of Public Health & Licensing has stated that “In view of the nature of the area and the absence of any sensitive residential dwellings in close proximity to the site, this department has no objections to this application and therefore I have no adverse comments to make. The generator is to be placed inside a building, the site is in a dip and its distance from the nearest noise sensitive dwelling means that noise output will reduce significantly over that distance. Noise is not going to be an issue. I understand that its proposed use is for emergencies only.

From the plans it looks as though the nearest receptor will be about 250m away. Given the data provided the sound pressure level at the nearest receptor will be in the region of 40db. The applicant has suggested that the generator will be housed in a building which will further reduce the noise level at the nearest receptor. So from the data provided this shouldn’t exceed the World Health Organisation guideline values for community noise.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council has commented that “We were consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. DC/785/10 to which no highway objections were raised, however it was noted that any development which would increase vehicle movements at the existing access onto Clay Lane would potentially be subject to improvements to visibility.

This proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information. A site visit can be arranged on request.

The Applicant’s Design and Access Statement indicates that the proposal would generate an additional 12 movements per week, and these would presumably be large vehicles associated with the new cold storage building. WSCC would therefore recommend a condition ensuring that the hedge to the south of the access be maintained to a height of no greater than 1m above carriageway level to ensure intervisibility between vehicles travelling on Clay Lane and those emerging from the farm access.”

PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.3 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council has no objection to the application and state that “It is obvious that the applicant is trying to supply local meat to local business.”

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.

3.4 11 letters of objection have been received on the grounds that:

 The applicant wants to turn this agricultural land into light industrial use;  The generator will make considerable noise;  This is creeping development;  There were no pig shelters, silos weighing tents 3 years ago;  The proposal will have a visual impact on the area;  The applicant claims that this facility is required for delivery efficiency;  The site is close to the South Downs National Park;  Other available rental premises exist in the area that would meet the requirements of the applicant;  The applicant has failed to plant the trees and hedges he promised along the western boundary;  There is still an issue with noise and odour from the farm;  The applicant will increase his traffic movements to and from the site by taking the pigs to the abattoir, bring them back, taking them to get finished products and for sale;  Clay Lane is very narrow and any increase in traffic will have an impact on the lane;  The applicant will be storing and finishing meat products for others which is not pig farming;  There is no mains electrical power on the site at present;

3.5 The Association has objected to the application.

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

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5.

6.2 Policy CP15 (Rural Strategy) states that “In the countryside, development which maintains the quality and character of the area whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity will be supported in principle. Any development should be appropriate to the countryside location and should:

a) contribute to the diverse and sustainable farming enterprises within the District or, in the case of other countryside-based enterprises and activities, contributes to the wider rural economy; and either b) be contained wherever possible within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion or, in thecase of an established rural industrial estate, within the existing boundaries of the estate or c) result in substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside particularly where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved.

6.3 The applicant has been trading as a pig farmer since 1998 and operates as a sole trader. He had been farming on rented land until he purchased the application site in the autumn of 2008 and moved his pigs onto the site. The pigs are kept in paddocks and there are four distinct areas on the farm, dry sows, farrowing, weaners/growers and fattening pigs.

6.4 There are no permanent buildings for the pigs with shelter provided by pig arcs. Straw is used for bedding and the progeny between weaning at 3-4weeks of age and slaughter are fed using an ad-lib system. The applicant sells 40-50 pigs/week, these pigs are all sold wholesale to local butchers or directly to the public.

6.5 The proposed cold store would provide storage for up to 60 pig carcasses and 40 lambs. The applicant states that they are currently unable to collect and store their pig carcasses slaughtered for delivery each week without several trips to collect them from Farnborough Abatoir which is 40 miles away which limits the efficiency with which he can deliver them to the butchers he supplies. The applicant has stated that this makes him less competitive, especially in the current economic climate.

6.6 A number of objections have been received to the application, one of the main objections was to the proposed generator within the building which is to be used for emergencies only. The Head of Public Health & Licensing has stated that “From the plans it looks as though the nearest receptor will be about 250m away. Given the data provided the sound pressure level at the nearest receptor will be in the region of 40db. The applicant has suggested that the generator will be housed in a building which will further reduce the noise level at the nearest receptor. So from the data provided this shouldn’t exceed the World Health Organisation guideline values for community noise. In view of the nature of the area and the absence of any sensitive residential dwellings in close proximity to the site, this department has no objections to this application and therefore I have no adverse comments to make. The generator is to be placed inside a building, the site is in a dip and its distance from the nearest noise sensitive dwelling means that noise output will reduce significantly over that distance. Noise is not going to be an issue.”

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6.

6.7 The building would be sited to the northern side of the yard area which is just outside the South Downs National Park. The building would be built within the bank where the land rises up to the north by approximately 4m. Therefore, it is considered that the building would not be visible from the north although a soft landscaping condition will be attached in order to get some additional native hedging planted along the top of the bank (northern boundary of the yard) in order to screen the yard from the north. It is considered that the building would not be visible from the south due to the dense tree screen to the south of the yard, the level of the yard being approximately 3 – 4 metres lower than the surrounding land and the fact that the building will be clad in wood in order to restrict its visual impact on the surrounding area and South Downs National Park. Having consulted the South Downs National Park Liaison Officer it is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse visual impact on the natural beauty of the National Park.

6.8 The proposed use if granted would be for a cold store facility, emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes for use by Mr R Scott only in connection with Scott Free Range only. This would limit the use of the building to the applicant only.

6.9 The applicant has stated that the proposal would generate an additional 12 vehicle movements per week which the Highway Authority has raised no objection to. Therefore, a refusal reason based on traffic movements alone could not be justified.

6.10 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would accord with Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007 as the building is fairly small in scale with a low level roof which would be sited on land which is at a lower level to the surrounding fields which would reduce the buildings visual impact on the area.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1) A2 Full Permission 2) J5 Personal Limitation ‘The use (Cold store facility to store approximately 50 - 60 carcasses per week, installation of an emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes by Scot Free Range) hereby permitted shall be carried on by Mr R Scott (Scott Free Range) only and shall be for the period during which the premises are occupied by Mr R Scott Only.’ 3) In the event of the building hereby permitted ceasing to be utilised /occupied in connection with the pig / sheep business at Downsview Farm, it shall be removed from the site and the land shall be restored to a condition which has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – B3 reason. 4) M1 Approval of Materials 5) L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7.

6) D6 Finished Floor Levels 7) O2 Burning of Materials 8) O1 Hours of Working

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

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

Background Papers: DC/11/0751

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 19th July 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Conversion of stable and outbuildings into residential unit SITE: Hatches House, East Street, West Chiltington WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/11/0567 APPLICANT: Mr Ian Walter

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer Referral

RECOMMENDATION: to refuse planning permission

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was first considered by the Committee in May 2011. The application was originally recommended for approval subject to the completion of a legal agreement securing contributions towards community facilities. The committee subsequently agreed to delegate the application for approval in consultation with the local members to seek a commuted payment for affordable housing.

1.2 Your officers have subsequently investigated the sum required for a commuted payment for affordable housing in this location. The sum requested would be £68,640. This was calculated having regard to Section A7 of the Planning Obligations SPD. The affordable housing requirement at 40% would result in 0.4 of one house – this is based on the assumption of a 3 bedroomed unit of 1300 sq ft. Open market value of the unit at £300 psf sales revenue would give £390,000. Site value at 40% OMV is £156,000 plus 10% allowance as per the SPD giving a commuted sum of £176,000 for one whole affordable unit. Multiplying this figure by 0.4 produces a commuted sum payment of £68,640.

ASSESSMENT

1.3 The applicant has indicated that the sum required by the Local Planning Authority towards affordable housing would not be achievable and would result in the project becoming unviable. The applicant has confirmed that his son and his family would wish to move into the property to enable them to care for him, as he currently

Contact: Nicola Mason Extension: 5289 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2.

resides in Hatches House. The property is required to be separated from the main house so as to allow a mortgage to be raised on the property to allow its conversion. The applicants son has been living overseas and due to his financial situation the conversion of the outbuildings would be the only way the family could afford to move back into the village of West Chiltington.

1.4 It is however your officers view that the conversion of the outbuildings would result in the provision of an open market dwelling which would not meet a designated local need. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy CP5 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. As part of the assessment of the first report which went to committee relating to this site (previous report attached) it was considered due to the background and planning status of the site that the application would only be acceptable subject to a contribution towards community facilities. The committee then determined that a commuted sum towards affordable housing would be appropriate in this instance. It is therefore your officer’s view that if the affordable sum is not received the application would be contrary to policy CP5.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons;

1) Having regard to the location of the site within a category 2 settlement it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the development would address any specific local needs. It would therefore be likely to reinforce unsustainable travel patterns contrary to Policy CP5 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007. 2) The proposed development makes no provision towards affordable housing and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 and CP19 of the Core Strategy and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies.

Background Papers: DC/11/0567 Contact Officer: Nicola Mason

WK3/DC071028/46 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 24 May 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Conversion of stable and outbuildings into residential unit SITE: Hatches House, East Street, West Chiltington WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/11/0567 APPLICANT: Mr Ian Walter

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member request (Cllrs Arthur, Circus & Jenkins)

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement securing contributions towards community facilities

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full permission for the conversion of a stable and outbuildings to a residential unit. Permission has previously been granted for a conversion of the same buildings, in an identical fashion, to ancillary residential accommodation to the main dwelling.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The application site is situated within the built-up area of West Chiltington as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

1.3 The buildings which are the subject of the application consist of a 2 storey stone storage building with single storey stabling adjoined to its rear and a single storey barn type building currently used in part for parking purposes.

1.4 The main existing residential property, Hatches House, is immediately to the south, fronting East Street itself and is the larger of a pair of dwellings, the other being Hatches Cottage.

Contact: Nicola Mason Extension: 5289 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2.

1.5 To the rear of the application site, the land rises steadily to the north to Hatches Paddock, a dwellinghouse built in the 1970s while to the north-west are largely converted buildings granted permission in the 1990s, as well as Granary Cottage which contained an element of new build.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant government policy is contained within PPS1 and PPS3

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP13 of the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework are considered most relevant to the development.

2.4 Policies DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies of the Local Development Framework are also considered relevant to the determination of the application.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 Planning permission was originally granted for the conversion of stable and outbuildings into ancillary accommodation for Hatches House in 1995 (WC/15/95) and was renewed in 2000 (WC/14/00), 2005 (DC/05/0663) & 2010 (DC/10/1881).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 None undertaken.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Chiltington Parish Council commented:

“As West Chiltington is classified as a Category 2 settlement in the LDF any dwellings should meet a local need as expressed in a survey of residents. It has not been shown that this conversion would meet any need expressed in the Housing Needs Survey carried out in December 2008. Permission has been given for the conversion of the buildings for ancillary accommodation to Hatches House but it does not meet current planning policy for West Chiltington as a Category 2 settlement for it to be converted as a separate unit of accommodation or meet any proven need expressed in the Housing Needs Survey and therefore this application should be refused.” APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 1 letter of objection has been received on the grounds that the track which serves access to the 5 houses is already in a poor state and this would be exacerbated by use from a further dwelling.

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

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights 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 proposal will have an adverse impact upon crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in the determination of the application are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties and whether the proposal meets the relevant policy requirements.

6.2 Planning permission has been granted on 3 separate occasions for the conversion of the buildings which are the subject of this application into ancillary accommodation serving the main dwelling, Hatches House. The permission remains valid until 2015 having been renewed last year. Since the previous proposals were for ancillary accommodation, permission does not currently exist for the use of the subject buildings as a separate dwelling.

6.3 The extent of the ancillary accommodation previously permitted is somewhat unusual in that the approved plans contained a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom and 3 bedrooms. As such, the dwelling is quite capable of being occupied as a separate unit of accommodation whereas ancillary accommodation is often required to be arranged so that it is still dependent upon facilities in the main dwelling which it serves. Such an arrangement is most common in countryside locations where, if a separate unit of accommodation constituting a new dwelling was not considered acceptable then it would be necessary to restrict the facilities available in the ancillary building to ensure it could not be used separately.

6.4 The application site, however, is located within the built-up area and so at the time of the original permission, since the principle of residential development was APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4.

considered acceptable in such areas, it was not considered necessary to restrict the layout of the dwelling so that it was not tantamount to the layout of a separate dwelling. Indeed, it appears that it was only because the applicant had applied for ancillary accommodation that it was restricted as such.

6.5 Nonetheless, between the third and fourth renewals of permission, the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework emerged which classified West Chiltington as a ‘Category 2 settlement’. Whereas previously to its publication, new residential development in West Chiltington was acceptable in principle, now it was subject to the restrictions of policy CP5 which stated that it was a village with a more limited level of services which should only accommodate small scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs. (Local needs being defined as local requirements for housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and the extent to which development would not reinforce unsustainable development patterns). Since the publication of the Core Strategy, new residential development has generally been resisted in West Chiltington as a result of this policy.

6.6 A view could be taken, therefore, as expressed by the Parish Council that the development does not meet any identified local need and should be resisted under the terms of the policy.

6.7 Given that permission already exists for an identical conversion, however, there would be no additional impact in terms of building work as a result of the proposal and in turn its effect upon the character of the area. This would not be the case were the proposal for a new build. Moreover, were permission to be granted, it would allow the Council to secure contributions towards community facilities which is not currently the case under the terms of the previous permissions. A representation letter has been received noting the current condition of the access to the site, for example, and it may be that monies used from a legal agreement could be used to improve the access.

6.8 Policy CP5 also imposes requirement that new development should not reinforce unsustainable transport patterns. While there is some difference between the usage of an ancillary building and a separate unit of accommodation, the level of such difference would to some extent depend upon the level of ancillary accommodation provided and, in this instance, the level of accommodation is such that it is not considered there would be a material difference between the use of the buildings for ancillary purposes and use as a separate unit of accommodation. Furthermore, the site is located within West Chiltington Village rather than West Chiltington Common and therefore account has to be taken of the site’s proximity to the school, village shop, church and pub. As such, therefore, access to the services provided in West Chiltington can, unusually for the settlement as a whole, be accessed without the need for a car.

6.9 It should also be noted that policy CP5 also states that ‘the emphasis will be on the re-use of suitable previously developed land (including the reuse or conversion of existing buildings) for housing.’ This proposal would involve the conversion of an existing building on previously developed land and thus meets that requirement of the policy. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5.

6.10 In summary, therefore, while any proposal for new residential development in West Chiltington has to be scrutinised very carefully, it is considered in this case that the proposal can be considered acceptable. Given the extent of the previously permitted ancillary accommodation, the opportunity to secure financial contributions, the proximity of the site to village services and that the proposal involves the conversion of an existing building, it is considered that the application could be approved and, due its very particular set of circumstances, would not act as a precedent for future development in West Chiltington.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and the completion of a legal agreement securing financial contributions towards community facilities:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M1 Approval of Materials 03 E3 Fencing 04 L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping 05 O1 Hours of Working 06 O2 Burning of Materials 07 S4 Surface water details…option A… 08 S3 Restriction on development (drainage works) 09 S1 Restriction on occupation (sewage disposal) 10 G6 Recycling…The dwelling… 11 J10 Restriction on permitted development…Classes A-H

8. REASONS

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality

Background Papers: DC/11/0567 Contact Officer: Nicola Mason APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19th July 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Erection of 1086 square metres of horticultural poly tunnels, installation of a rain water storage tank and re-location of site office

SITE: Old Barn Nurseries, Worthing Road, Dial Post

WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead

APPLICATION: DC/11/0872

APPLICANT: The Garden Centre Group

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal is for the erection of 1086 square metres of horticultural poly tunnels, installation of a rain water storage tank and re-location of site office.

1.2 The proposed poly tunnel building would be sited to the west of the existing poly tunnels and to the east of the existing garden centre. The proposed poly tunnel would measure 24m by 45m and would have a ridge height of 4m. The building would consist of 3 arc type buildings which would have translucent polythene in transparent white, the sides would consist of shade net in dark green which could be rolled up and aluminium guttering. The proposed water storage tank would be sited to the north of the proposed poly tunnel and be a circular structure measuring approximately 9.1m in width by 2.1m in height and would be constructed from galvanised steel profiled sheeting. The size of the proposed rainwater tank has

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2.

been calculated to attenuate flows of rainwater likely to arise in a 1 in 100 year event. The water would then be transferred to the main storage tanks in the south of the nursery for use for irrigation.

1.3 The site office portakabin is presently located to the south west of the poly tunnels and it is proposed to re-locate the office building to the north of the existing poly tunnels.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 Old Barn Nurseries is located in a countryside location to the east of the A24 and to the west of Grinders Lane. The site comprises of 0.2 hectares within that part of the broader Old Barn Nurseries site which is used for horticultural production. The broader Old Barn Nurseries site comprises of 6.3 hectares of land in mixed use for the purposes of the garden centre and horticultural business use.

1.5 The site is split into two, with the main garden centre, coffee shop and restaurant to the west of the site and the growing area to the east of the site which is closed to the general public.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.6 The site has a long and detailed planning history but the most recent history consists of:

DC/11/1026 Erection of playground equipment, pending consideration

DC/10/1486 Demolition of existing building and erection of conservatory, Permitted 25/1/2011

DC/10/0219 Retention of 2400 square metres of horticultural poly tunnels, Permitted 31/1/2011

DC/09/1659 Retention of resurfacing of car park and installation of soakaways, Permitted 3/11/2009

DC/09/0708 Change of use of the ground floor of the existing bungalow to a coffee shop and alterations to the elevations, Permitted 17/6/2009

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 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 & CP15 – Rural Strategy.

2.5 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development Principles, DC25 - Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites/Intensification of Uses & DC38 Farm Shops and Garden Centres in Rural Areas.

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

3.1 The Technical Services Officer has no comments to make on the proposal.

3.2 The Head of Public Health & Licensing has commented that “this Department has no objections in principle to this proposal. Should this application be granted, I would ask that the following conditions are added:

Construction

 A licensed waste removal contractor shall remove all clearance debris and construction waste from the site.  No burning of materials to take place on site  Hours of construction activities including deliveries and dispatch shall be limited to: 08:00 – 18:00 Monday until Friday, 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Operation

 External lighting is to be directed away from neighbouring premises and shall be installed in such a manner so as not to cause annoyance or disturbance.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 The Agricultural/Horticultural Advisor has commented that:

i) The business on site continues as a well managed enterprise and is an expanding concern.

ii) The proposed tunnels will increase the capacity to grow on plants and thus the profitability of the business. The area for the tunnels is not in productive use at the present and is essentially a waste area.

iii) The rainwater tank will take the rain from the roofs of the proposed tunnel and APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4.

this liquid will be used to irrigate the plants.

iv) The relocation of the office is necessary as its existing site will be effectively covered by the proposed tunnels.

v) The proposals will better serve the expanding existing garden centre use and I am of the opinion that these proposals are reasonably necessary for the purposes of horticulture within the unit.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.4 1 letter of objection has been received on the grounds of:

As neighbours we have lived under great stress from this nursery due to the movement of 200 heavy lorry movements per week plus vans and coaches; Traffic movements cause noise, pollution, dust & disturbance; The building will cause overshadowing; Reduce our privacy; We are surrounded by poly tunnels;

3.5 West Grinstead Parish Council have objected to the application stating “We will continue to object to each and every application until and unless they address the existing problems of drainage, traffic movements in and out of the site, breach of S106 agreement. There has been a complete disregard of the agreement made by Wyevale reps & advisors with the reps of the PC, Cllr Chowen (DC) & HDC officers at the site visit in January 2011.”

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

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5.

6.2 The applicant has stated that the polytunnels will allow increased production of own grown plants and shrubs by the Garden Centre Group for sale in the adjacent Old Barn Nurseries Garden Centre. The rainwater storage tank will be used to collect surface water from the polytunnels roofs for re-use for irrigation of plants grown at the nursery.

6.3 With regard to West Grinstead Parish comments, your officers can advise that the alleged breach of the S106 legal agreement is being investigated. With regard to the drainage works, information from The Garden Centre Group’s Civil Engineer and Planning Agent has been received. They have confirmed that the two outstanding items of drainage work which need to be completed are the installation of the storage tank and the installation of the pumping equipment which are scheduled to be completed between 13th – 15th July 2011. They have confirmed that most of the drainage works agreed in January’s meeting have been undertaken which includes the installation of a water storage tank, the lagoon & pumping station. The storage tank will take all surface water discharge from the existing and proposed poly tunnels to the east of the site for re-use on site for irrigation purposes.

6.4 As previously advised at Para. 3.3, the Agricultural Consultant has confirmed that in his opinion the polythene tunnels are reasonably necessary for the purposes of horticulture within the business and will increase the capacity to grow on plants and thus the profitability of the business. The area for the tunnels is not in productive use at present and is essentially a waste area. The relocation of the office is necessary as its existing site will be effectively covered by the proposed tunnels.

6.5 It is acknowledged that Policy CP15 seeks to minimise the amount and scale of new building in the countryside, however, the polytunnels have been erected on land which lies within the existing boundaries of the site. Furthermore, the application site is reasonably well screened by trees from Grinders Lane to the east and Honeybridge Lane to the south and it is therefore considered that there would be no harm to the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Old Barn Nurseries is a long established business and now forms part of the Garden Centre Group which is a national concern. Having regard to the Consultant’s comments, it is considered that the polytunnels will contribute to the horticultural enterprise at the site and thus be compatible with the aim of rural economic development.

6.6 In relation to the effect of the development on adjoining occupiers, Oaklands lies some 100 metres to the north east of the polytunnels. Given the proposed use of the tunnels for plant growing/potting together with the separation distance to Oaklands, it is not considered that the development would have any significant adverse impact on the adjoining occupiers.

6.7 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the requirements of Policies DC25 and DC38 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1) A2 Full Permission 2) M6 Prescribed Materials 3) O2 Burning of Materials 4) O1 Hours of Working

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

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

ICTN1 The proposal would not be obtrusive in the landscape or harmful to the visual quality of the area.

Background Papers: DC/11/0751

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19th July 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Change of use of ancillary accommodation to holiday accommodation, single storey pitched roof extension and alterations (Full Planning & Listed Building Consent)

SITE: Lancasters, West End Lane, Henfield

WARD: Henfield

APPLICATION: DC/11/0538 & DC/11/0549

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs A. Davies

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer Referral.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission and listed building consent for the change of use of the existing ancillary building to holiday accommodation and the erection of a single-storey pitched roof extension on the rear elevation of this building. 1.2 The application building is currently used as ancillary accommodation for the main dwelling of Lancasters. The building as extended would provide holiday accommodation with 1 bedroom, a bathroom, a living/dining area and a kitchen.

Contact: Lisa Da Silva Extension: 5633 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.

The proposed extension which would house the kitchen would measure 2.7m in length, 2.75m in width and would have a ridge height of 3.3m, with a height to the eaves of 2.2m.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 This site is situated on the southern side of West End Lane and is located outside of any built up area and as such is subject to the countryside policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework. 1.4 Lancasters is a Grade II listed semi-detached dwelling. The existing ancillary building is not listed in its own right but is considered listed due to it being within the curtilage of the listed building prior to 1948. This building is situated at the northernmost part of this site. There are other outbuildings, namely a garage and a carport within this site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS7 & PPG15

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of the Horsham Development Control Policies (2007) are DC1, DC9, DC13, DC24, DC28 & DC39.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Horsham District Council’s Core Strategy are CP1, CP3, CP15 & CP18.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/10/2332 & 2333 - In 2010 planning permission and Listed Building Consent was granted for the Removal of flat roofed open storage area, extension and alteration of existing outbuilding to provide additional residential floorspace.

DC/09/0339 – In 2009 Listed Building Consent was granted for the removal of secondary chimney stack to rear elevation

DC/08/1710 & 1711 - In 2008 planning permission and Listed Building Consent was granted for the replacement of existing flat roof with 1st floor pitched roof extension

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

DC/08/0667 & 0668 - In 2008 an application for planning permission and Listed Building Consent for replacement of existing flat roof with 1st floor pitched roof extension was withdrawn.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Henfield Parish Council has stated that they have no objection to this application, they also state that the proposed development must remain ancillary to Lancasters.

3.2 7 Letters of objection in total have been received for this application, including a letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining dwelling known as Lancasters Barn, who object to this planning application for the following reasons:  The extension would seriously detract from the character and enjoyment of the neighbouring property (the Barn).  The extension would obliterate the open scene currently enjoyed from the large windows of the neighbouring dwelling and this would change the outlook from the Barn significantly.  The appearance from the Barn would be dominated by the roof of the proposed extension.  The extension would seriously detract from the appearance and character of the Barn and its setting.  The relative privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the Barn would be potentially impaired by the proposed use.  The building would be occupied by a variety of different people at unrestricted times.  The outside patio area would be available for use, this would impact upon the privacy of the occupiers of the barn as there would be direct views from the patio to the private garden area of the Barn.  There may be added noise intrusion from this change of use, particularly from windows being open in the summer.  The proposed kitchen may produce cooking smells which will affect the Barn.

The other objectors to this application object for different reasons, these include:  Overdevelopment of the site.  The removal of the ancillary use on this building will allow for the creation of a separate dwelling. if the application is granted this would mean the Cottage is no longer part of the main dwelling and could be used as a separate property in the future.  A similar application for holiday let accommodation along West End Lane was refused in 2003.  The change of use will create extra traffic levels at one of the narrowest parts of West End Lane.  This part of West End Lane is a single track road which is known for traffic problems and flooding. APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4.

 The proposed holiday let will generate extra traffic especially at weekends.  Loss of general amenity  Site is outside of the village envelope  This site has already had an extra dwelling through the barn conversion.  There is no need for a holiday home in this location.  Amount of development allowed along West End Lane is well in excess of what it is capable of coping with.  There is no call for further development in this area.

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.3 The Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser has no objection to this proposal and states that “The existing building is a single storey outbuilding that has previously been converted to domestic accommodation, although beforehand it is likely to have been in storage/outbuilding use associated with agriculture and the main house, Lancasters. There does not appear to be any planning history for the outbuilding and therefore possibly its existing domestic fit out does not benefit from listed building consent. However, the proposed plans would improve some of the lost character to the property by returning the inappropriate UPVC windows to timber, removing the ceilings to allow views of timbers above, as well as rationalise some of the more domestic features on the property such as the removal of one pair of French doors and side louver window.” She believes that the proposed extension is modest and subservient and overall does not detract from the character of the building. The raising of the roof to accommodate insulation is also minor, and the proposed proportions would not be unduly prominent in the overall appearance of the building. In her view the distance and subservience of the existing building and the proposals will not compete with Lancasters and essentially the relationship between the two properties as historic farm house and outbuilding remains unchanged. She notes that the outlook from, and the views of Lancasters Barn from Lancasters are affected by the proposals; however, it is her view that the proposed extension is minor in character and due to the proposed use of traditional materials, it would not unduly detract from the setting of the historic barn. It would therefore be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal based on the setting of either Lancasters or Lancasters Barn.

3.4 The Councils Equalities Officer has stated that he would like confirmation there is level access into this venue for people who have mobility issues. 3.5 The County Surveyor has been consulted and has stated that West End Lane is an unclassified no-through road and that West Sussex County Council would not anticipate that the change of use of this building would increase vehicle movements to the point where a highway safety issue would arise, and therefore he would raise no objections.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 No representations have been received.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issues are the scale and form of the development, the effect of the development on the character and setting of the Listed Building, the effect of the development upon the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, and the impact upon this countryside location.

6.2 The main dwelling of Lancasters is a Grade II listed semi-detached dwelling. The existing ancillary building is not listed in its own right but is considered listed due to it being within the curtilage of the listed building prior to 1948. The Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser has commented on this proposal and stated that she has no objections to the proposals as they meet the criteria in DC13 and PPS5.

6.3 The supporting documents for this application state that the existing building is currently used to provide ancillary accommodation for visiting family and friends, and has an area used as a home office. The existing building comprises of a bedroom, shower room, living room and has drainage connections from an earlier kitchen area which has subsequently been removed. This proposal seeks planning and listed building consent for the conversion of this building to a 1 bedroom unit for holiday accommodation, alterations and extensions. The unit would have a kitchen, living/dining room, bedroom and en-suite bathroom. 6.4 The proposed conversion would require an extension in order to provide a kitchen for the proposed holiday let. The existing building measures approximately 37m² and the proposed extension would measure 6m², being 2.75m in width, 2.7m in width. The proposed roof would be set down from the roof height of the existing building, measuring 2.2m to the eaves and 3.3m to the ridge, and as such is considered to be a subservient element. The Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser considers that the proposed extension is modest and subservient and overall does not detract from the character of the building, nor from the setting of Lancasters and Lancasters Barn. 6.5 The existing building is located approximately 18.5m to the north of the main dwelling of Lancasters and shares the same access as the main dwelling. A car parking space is proposed adjacent to the west elevation of the barn to provide parking for the proposed holiday let. The building to be converted is not considered to be in an isolated position; there is a public footpath which runs north-south to the APPENDIX A/ 8 - 6.

east of this site and the proposed building would be located approximately 1000m from the defined built-up-area boundary of Henfield. The building is also not considered to be derelict and would be capable of the proposed conversion without any significant changes to the building, whilst it is noted that an extension is proposed, it is nonetheless considered to be subservient and in keeping with the existing character of the building. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the objectives of policy DC24. 6.6 The building is of a traditional rural style and construction with a slate roof, and brick and flint elevations. It is considered that the proposed change of use would not markedly alter the external appearance of the building, in addition to the proposed extension, the proposed alterations would comprise the removal of the existing unsympathetic uPVC windows and doors and replacement with white painted timber frames. The proposal also comprises the change of a door to a window and the repositioning of an existing door on the South West elevation. The Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser considers that these alterations would improve some of the lost character to the property by returning the inappropriate UPVC windows to timber, removing the ceilings to allow views of timbers above, as well as rationalise some of the more domestic features on the property such as the removal of one pair of French doors and side louver window. 6.7 The nearest neighbouring dwelling known as Lancasters Barn is located approximately 8.5m to the east of the proposed holiday let. This neighbouring dwelling is a former agricultural barn which has been converted to a residential property. There is a boundary wall between these properties and the proposed extension would be sited approximately 500mm from the boundary wall. The boundary wall is a brick built wall measuring approximately 2m in height, this wall is built up to the eaves of the existing ancillary building and as such only the roof would be visible over this wall.

6.8 There are no windows proposed on the facing elevation or on the rear of the proposed extension, a garden area is indicated on the plans, part of this is currently used as a garden for the main dwelling of Lancasters and there is a patio area on the rear elevation of the ancillary building. The occupier of the neighbouring dwelling is concerned that the use of this patio would impact upon his privacy as there would be direct views from the patio to the private garden area of Lancasters Barn. It is your officers view that as the majority of the patio area would be screened by the proposed extension there would be very limited views to the garden area and patio area at Lancasters Barn, therefore the residential amenities of the neighbouring property would not be adversely affected.

6.9 The existing ancillary building is visible from West End Lane, the elevation of this building which faces onto the Lane is not proposed to change and the proposed alterations and extension are not considered to be visibly intrusive in this locality. Given that the proposed building would not be visually intrusive in this locality, would not adversely affect the existing residential amenties of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling, and would not have an adverse affect upon the setting of the listed building of Lancasters or Lancasters Barn. It is therefore considered that the proposed holiday let complies with the objectives of policies DC24, DC39 & CP18, and it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions to APPENDIX A/ 8 - 7.

control the use of the building and to ensure it is only occupied/operated ancillary to the adjoining dwelling of Lancasters.

7 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to the following conditions: DC/11/0538 Permit A2 Full Planning M1 Approval of Materials 03. The accommodation hereby permitted shall only be occupied as holiday accommodation and shall not be occupied by an individual, family or group for more than 4 consecutive weeks in any 8 weeks commencing with the first day of letting to that individual family or group or by an individual, family or group for more than 4 weeks in any 26 week period commencing with the date of the first letting to that individual family or group. Reason: Planning permission would not normally be granted for residential accommodation in this location however it is considered reasonable to make an exception in this instance to allow for holiday accommodation in accordance with policy DC24 and DC39 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. 04. The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall only be occupied/operated ancillary to the adjoining dwelling of Lancasters and shall not be occupied/operated independently there from. Reason: The use of this accommodation as an independent unit would be contrary to Policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping G6 Recycling DC/11/0549 Permit LB1 Listed Building 3 Year Time Limit M1 Approval of Materials LB5 Remedial Works 04. Non-standard condition: No development shall be carried out until further plans to 1:20 scale have been submitted of the proposed windows and doors, and these have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in accordance with such approved details. APPENDIX A/ 8 - 8.

Reason: To preserve the special character of the building for the future and in accordance with policy DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

8. REASONS

DC/11/0538

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. ICTN1 The proposal would not be obtrusive in the landscape or harmful to the visual quality of the area.

DC/11/0549 ILBC1A The proposal would preserve the setting of the Listed Building.

Background Papers: DC/11/0538 & DC/11/0549 Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 19th July 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Retention of equestrian barn comprising three foaling boxes at ground floor and ancillary office, staff rest room/changing room and wash facilities SITE: Peppers Farm, Peppers Lane, Ashurst WARD: Steyning APPLICATION: DC/11/0736 APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs W G Woods

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Agent’s request.

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the retention of an equestrian barn comprising three foaling boxes at ground floor level and ancillary office, staff rest/changing room and wash facilities at first floor level. The barn measures 18.4 metres by 7.4 metres and 7.3 metres in height. The barn is of traditional appearance with a brick and flint cladding at ground floor level and timber boarding at first floor level.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The application site is accessed via a track leading from Peppers Lane to the south-west. The barn the subject of this application is located approximately 190 metres from the road to the north-east. The equestrian holding comprises approximately 44.51 hectares and specialises in the breeding of Hanoverian dressage horses. The application barn is the furthest northerly building within this group of equestrian related buildings which comprise stable buildings, an indoor riding school and hay barn.

Contact: Rebecca Tier Extension: 5382 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2.

1.3 The surrounding area is rural in nature with fields surrounding the site to the north, post and rail fencing encloses a grassed area immediately to the north of the barn. The nearest neighbouring property Peppers Farm House is located to the north- east of the application site and falls under separate ownership to Peppers Farm.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2007) – CP1 &CP3.

2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies (2007) – DC1, DC2, DC3, DC9 & DC29.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/10/2275- In 2010 an application for retrospective planning permission for the retention of equestrian building comprising 3 No. stables with two-bed stud managers flat above was withdrawn. DC/10/1734 – In 2010 Planning permission was granted for the removal of agricultural occupancy condition from application WG/32/86 (condition No. 2). DC/10/1541 – In 2010 a Lawful Development Certificate for existing use was granted for Occupation of dwelling in non compliance with agricultural occupancy condition (condition number 2) of WG/32/86. DC/05/1442 – In 2006 Planning permission was granted for the erection of 3 foaling stables for Hanoverian stud with office and staff accommodation over. DC/05/0685 – In 2005 Planning permission was refused for erection of a building comprising 3 foaling stables with staff accommodation over.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 West Sussex County Council have raised no highways objection to this application as they consider that the retention of the structure would not be anticipated to increase vehicle movements at this site to the point where a highway safety issue would arise. 3.2 The Council’s Public Health & Licensing department have raised no objection to this application on the basis that the staff areas on the first floor of the building are ancillary to the equestrian activities within the barn. APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3.

3.3 Ashurst Parish Council have strongly objected to this application on the basis of the following points:  The original planning application DC/05/1442 was for three stables with a staff rest room above. The overall dimensions of the building were 15.5 metres by 7 metres. It was allowed on the condition it would only be used for equestrian purposes and not as an independent unit of accommodation. The applicants have ignored the original planning permission and built a much larger building. The current building is 18.5 metres long by 7.5 metres wide; this is an increase in area of nearly 30% over two floors.  The current building has an external staircase and balcony on the north side which has no permission and overlooks the neighbours. A large area around the building has been converted into garden again with no planning permission.  Ideally the building should be removed or altered to match the original planning application. If this is not possible the northern staircase should be removed along with some of the flood lighting, the garden should revert to agricultural land and the original conditions should be adhered to.  Condition 3 of original permission states “in the event of the building hereby ceasing to be used for equestrian purposes, it shall be demolished and all resultant materials removed from the site and the land reinstated to a condition to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority within 3 months”. We believe that this condition along with condition 6 of the original planning permission are very important and must be retained, with enforcement action taken if necessary. We believe that this condition along with conditions 6 of the original planning permission are very important and must be retained, with enforcement action taken if necessary. We believe the building of this property is an attempt to ignore planning regulations to obtain an independent unit of accommodation where one would not be allowed under planning policy.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 One letter of objection has been received from the neighbouring occupier of Peppers Farm House who has raised the following concerns:

 The staircase and balcony overlook their property and infringe on our privacy.

 The building has been enlarged by over 30%, is not in keeping with the required needs of the business and dominates the landscape.

 External lighting which is visible from the road has been added to the building.

 A large garden has been added to the rear of the building using agricultural land, no mention of this appears in the application and no prior permission was granted.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4.

application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issues are the effect of the development on the character of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

6.2 The application originally sought retrospective planning permission for the retention of the barn building which incorporates a larger footprint than that approved under previous application DC/05/1442 and a staircase and raised seating platform which has been added to the north-easterly elevation of the building. The staircase to the rear of the building enables people to sit out on the raised platform and overlook the garden and sand school of the neighbouring property Peppers Farm House to the north-east. Following discussions regarding the overlooking of the neighbouring land with the agent, the external staircase to the rear of the building has now been deleted from this application and the agent has advised that it will be demolished and replaced with a dormer window as per the amended plans. It is considered that the removal of the staircase and balcony area ensures that there is no loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers at Peppers Farm House. 6.3 The barn remains of traditional design, incorporates a plain tiled roof with bonnet hips and external walls constructed of flint panels and timber boarding as per the original consent. Internally the ground floor continues to incorporate three stables and two tack rooms. At the first floor level the internal configurations of bathrooms and storage rooms have altered slightly from the original plans permitted, however the floor plans continue to incorporate a central staff rest room, office, changing room, records store. The staircase to the south-west of the building also extends further than the original plans permitted. 6.4 The barn approved under DC/05/1442 measured 15.5 metres by 7 metres and 7 metres in height. The barn as now built measures 18.4 metres by 7.4 metres and 7.3 metres in height. When measuring both floor areas of the barn including the south-westerly staircase the difference between the approved and built barns equates to 50 square metres. It is considered that the barn as approved under DC/05/1442 provided adequate space for the needs of the equestrian business and that the increased scale of the building is unjustified. It is also considered that the barn comprises a building of excessive scale which is not essential to its countryside location. 6.5 The Parish Council have raised a strong objection to this application and have also raised concerns regarding the occupancy of the first floor area as a separate unit of accommodation and the use of the grassed area which has been enclosed to the rear of the building. The barn is the furthest northerly building within this group of equestrian related buildings and due to its relatively isolated location in relation to neighbouring properties there is a concern that the barn building could be used as APPENDIX A/ 9 - 5.

a separate unit of accommodation. However, the Council has permitted the original application DC/05/1442 with a condition specifying that the barn cannot be used as a separate unit of accommodation. Directly to the north of the barn a grassed area of land has been enclosed with 1.5 metre high post and rail fencing, this is not however included on this application. 6.6 The agent has confirmed that the building has been substantially completed more than four years ago and is therefore immune from enforcement action. The agent has therefore been advised to submit a certificate of lawfulness for existing use with evidence to prove the barn has been constructed for four years or more.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that permission be refused for the following reason:

The barn is considered to be excessive in terms of scale and is not considered to be essential to its countryside location. The barn therefore conflicts with policy DC1 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/11/0736 & DC/05/1442 Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier