MINUTES OF PARISH COUNCIL (Virtual) MEETING 4 March 2021

PRESENT: Jane Mottershead (JM) Richard Littler (RL) Jean Simmonds (JS)

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Two

1. Apologies: None

2. Minutes of the last meeting: Meeting held on 4 February 2021, Proposed, Seconded and AGREED

3. Declaration of interest: Jean Simmonds - SDNP/21/00945/TCA - Tree in a Conservation Area

4. Public Questions: None

5. Planning Applications / Decisions

i. Week 6 a. CDC Application Case No: FU/20/03306/FUL Case Officer: William Price Applicant: Mr. Smith Location: Land to the West of Newells lane Proposal: Stationing of caravans for residential purposes, 3 pitches each one with static caravan, mobile caravan, day room and parking.

• A previous site on Newells lane was won on appeal and a further three appeals are pending. • The land although previously agricultural now looks like brownfield as there are now piles of hardcore. • There were Enforcements in place which are now on hold because of the planning application. • It is likely to be refused as all other applications at this location were but it will then go to appeal.

FPC Objects to this Application • Gypsy and Traveller accommodation has been disproportionately met within the village of West Ashling, where there are 192 households in the settled community, and we now estimate over 90 Travellers pitches spread over six plots, to the south, east and west of the village of West Ashling. • Supplementary Planning Document ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ issued by Department for Communities and Local Government says: ‘When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi- rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community’. • Funtington Parish Council feel that the scale of these Traveller/Gypsy sites in West Ashling now dominate the nearest settled community. • SPPD states: ‘Local planning authorities should very strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate, the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.’ • The Application site does not have access to existing bus routes that provide a regular service to local villages, neither does the proposed site have access to necessary services including shops, schools and Medicare

• There is no regular bus service in West Ashling, the nearest Bus service is 2.9 miles away in Funtington, the route to the bus stop is along narrow country roads with no pavements, no street lighting or grass verges, so it is not a safe pedestrian route. The service from Funtington going to has just 5 buses a day, 7:56, 10:31, 12:31, 15:01 and 17:31, the bus from Funtington to Petersfield has buses at 6.15, 08:40, 11:40, 13:05 and 16:15. ➢ The nearest school is an infants and primary school in West Ashling, there is no safe walking route to the school from Newells Lane, parents and children would need to walk along un-lit narrow country road, with no pavements, children outside the confines of the village, or anywhere west of the village Mill Pond in the village centre are not encouraged to walk to school, as the pedestrian route is so hazardous. ➢ The nearest senior schools are in Southbourne (3 miles away) and Kingsham Road, Chichester (6.5 miles away). ➢ The nearest shops are at Railway station (1.7 miles), but it would not be advisable to walk to these shops as the road is a fast, un-lit road with no pavements or grass verges. ➢ The nearest medical centre is at Southbourne, which is 2.5 miles away, so not within easy access of the village. ➢ In a recent Appeal Statement for another site in the village of West Ashling the Inspector stated: West Ashling is a small village within the National Park. The pattern of the settlement is nucleated, with development mainly clustered east of the junction of Down Street with Southbrook Road, and around the Mill Pond further to the east. The historic core is a designated Conservation Area.

The result of all this is that the character and appearance of the appeal site have fundamentally changed. Having previously been part of the pastoral landscape leading up to the edge of the village, this area of land has been thoroughly domesticated, and is now very clearly perceived as residential. • The Supplementary planning Documents states: ➢ That plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development ➢ reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions ➢ promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community • As a result of recent Appeals that have allowed more Gypsy sites in the village of West Ashling, the settled community are feeling more and more angry that these sites are getting larger and that more and more of the surrounding countryside is being developed and eroded, the settled community are also angry that some of these sites are being used for monetary gain, with pitches being applied for and then sub-let to anyone who wants to rent them, hence it is felt that there is no established need and these applications are actually big business for a few, unfortunately most of the settled community feel too intimidated to object. • A Travellers site in Newells Lane, adjacent to this application site, that has been given permission at Appeal, remains unoccupied and is now strewn with rubbish, rubble and what appears to be commercial waste. • Many of the Travellers speed through the village with total disregard to pedestrians, dog walkers, horse riders or wildlife, there have been minor incidents, like the Traveller children riding motor bikes and quad bikes across the village green, the traveller/Gypsy population often show aggressive behaviour when asked to slow down when seen speeding through the village, all of these incidents add up to the tension now experienced between the settled community and the Traveller/Gypsy community in the village of West Ashling. • The village of West Ashling has no shops, no bus service and no local medical service, the local Gypsies and Travellers do not integrate themselves in with the local settled community, they shut themselves away behind high walls and fences and act as a separate community. • The Parish Council understands that many of the mobile homes and static caravans on the Gypsy site’s in Scant Road East and West Ashling Road are being sub-let to people who do not qualify as Gypsies or travellers, the same situation also exists in neighbouring Westbourne. • There is no identified additional need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in West Ashling.

• Caravans and new hardstanding and driveways have already been installed on this site without any Planning Approval. • Funtington Parish would like to see the land to the west of Newells Lane returned to open fields and countryside, as it was before the land was purchased by the existing owners.

b. SDNP Decision Case No: SDNP/20/04949/HOUS Case Officer: Louise Kent Applicant: Mr Hatef Mansoubi Location: 3 Funtington Hall , Common Road, Funtington, PO18 9LL Proposal: Replacement of modern conservatory with a ground floor masonry extension and other minor works. Decision: Approved

FPC made no comment on this application ii. Week 7

a. CDC Decision Case No: FU/20/03052/DOM Applicant: Mr Andrew Foyle Location: Saxon Chase, The Bridle Lane, Hambrook, Funtington, PO18 8UG Proposal: Erection of two storey and single storey front, side and rear extension and installation 2no. dormers to front elevation. internal alterations to create integral annexe. Decision: PERMIT

FPC supported this application

b. SDNP Application Case No: SDNP/21/00264/FUL Type: Full Application Case Officer: Rebecca Perris Applicant: Mr Richard Watney Location: Little Quinnings, Malthouse Lane, West Ashling, PO18 8DZ Proposal: Replacement of 1 no. dwelling house with landscaping and associated works.

• This already has Permitted Development (PD) permission for an extension. Because it is a long fronted bungalow and the PD application also included a loft conversion and outhouses in the garden, the permitted development loophole allowed for an extension of 127%. • This application has therefore been submitted as an alternative to that large extension, on the grounds that this rebuild would result in a smaller property than the extended one. • The proposed property is to move 5m closer to the neighbour’s property and will cause extensive loss of light to that property. • There is some proposed change of use from agricultural land to garden, this could not be included on the PD application but also has not been included in this application. • If this application is refused it is assumed that it would go to appeal which will challenge the SDNP Policy SD31 (To reduce the loss of small homes in the National Park through significant extension or replacement by substantially larger homes).

FPC Objects to this Application • The proposed replacement dwelling has been moved closer to the adjacent property (Magnolia Cottage) from 8 – 9.5 m to between 3.4 and 5m, and will extend 14.5 m beyond the back wall of the existing dwelling and down the full length of the garden of Magnolia Cottage, giving the residents of Magnolia Cottage a view from within their property, and from their garden, of a blank wall and roof

14.5m long and 4.8m high. The proposed building will block light and sunlight from the house and the garden of Magnolia Cottage with a loss of the amenities currently enjoyed by Magnolia Cottage. • The proposed dwelling is adjacent to a Listed Building, there is a public footpath running to the east of the property, The proposed dwelling proposes to extend the edge of the build line of the village out by 14m. • The proposed replacement dwelling will also be seen from the wider view, there will be clear views gained of the proposed dwelling, from Mill Road and Southbrook Road. • The proposed building is within a ‘Dark Sky Area’ (Bronze) and yet it proposes a wall of glass on the South Elevation which will cause light spillage out into the dark sky area, and into an area that is alive with Bats, Owls, Door mice and Deer. • The design of the proposed dwelling is out of keeping with the neighbouring 18th and 19th Century Cottages and is of a design that will dominate the site and is not consistent with local landscape character and does not respect the local character of the area. • The proposed dwelling does not contribute to the local distinctiveness or have any regard for the relationship with the adjoining properties, spaces and landscape features. • The proposed landscape treatment is not consistent with local character. • The architectural design of the proposed is not appropriate to its setting and is not sympathetic in terms of height, massing, density, roof form, materials, night and day visibility, elevational or vernacular detailing. • The proposed dwelling will have an impact on the adjacent Listed Building and its setting and it will dominate and diminish the importance of the adjacent Listed Building and its setting. This proposed dwelling will harm the setting of a Listed Building. • The proposed dwelling will affect the views from within the Conservation Area of West Ashling. • The proposed dwelling exceeds the 30% net increase of the existing dwelling and so the proposal does not satisfy Policy 31. • The proposed replacement dwelling does not satisfy Policies: SD1, SD4, SD5, SD12, SD13, SD30 and SD31 of the SDNP Adopted Plan and under these Policies this application should be refused.

c. SDNP Application Case No: SDNP/21/00584/HOUS Type: Householder Case Officer: Louise Kent Applicant: Mr J Moore Location: Watery Lodge , Watery Lane, Funtington, PO18 9LF Proposal: Roof alterations and dormers to create first floor accommodation. Renovation and re- fenestration

Withdrawn Week 8 iii. Week 8

a. CDC Decision Case No: FU/20/03240/FUL Applicant: Mr & Mrs Hayes Location: The Osiers Clay Lane, Funtington, Chichester, West , PO18 8DJ Proposal: External alterations to windows and doors to 2 no. tourist units. Decision: PERMIT

FPC made no comment on this Application

b. SDNP Application Case No: SDNP/21/00568/TCA Type: Tree in a Conservation Area

Case Officer: Henry Whitby Applicant: Mr Giles Elliot Location: The Walled Garden, Common Road, Funtington, PO18 9LJ Proposal: Notification of intention to reduce height by approx. 4-5m and width by up to 1-2m on 2 no. Ash trees (T2, T3), 1 no. Poplar tree (T4) and 1 no. Acer tree (T5) and fell 1 no. Pittosporum tree (T6).

FPC has no objection to this Application

c. SDNP Decision Case No: SDNP/21/00584/HOUS Case Officer: Louise Kent Applicant: Mr J Moore Location: Watery Lodge, Watery Lane, Funtington, PO18 9LF Proposal: Roof alterations and dormers to create first floor accommodation. Renovation and re- fenestration. Decision: Application Withdrawn iv. Week 9 a. CDC Application Case No: FU/20/02813/FUL Case Officer: William Price Applicant: Medlam Location: Bramley Barn, Scant Road, Hambrook Proposal: Retrospective extensions with associated roof works, various alterations and additional and removal of store building

• This property had permission to convert an existing building. Instead the original building was virtually demolished and a new building built to replace it. • This is therefore a retrospective application, for the building now in place. The site was under enforcement action due to not building as permitted and for the caravan that remained on the site. • The new building is considerably bigger than the conversion that was granted permission.

FPC Objects to this Application • The Parish Council feel that the proposed conversion of the old farm building should have been built in accordance with the plans as approved. Any variation to these approved plans should have been the subject of a new application and the applicant should not have just built what has now been built on-site, without first seeking Planning approval. • The Parish Council feel that this amended proposal for the conversion of this redundant farm building is of very poor design. • The Parish Council also have concerns on the increase in the footprint, from what was originally proposed and approved. The Parish Council feel that this new proposal dominates the site and is an overdevelopment of the site.

b. CDC Application Case No: FU/21/00445/DOM Case Officer: Alicia Snook Applicant: Mr Richard Williscroft Location: Wellington House, Southbrook Road, West Ashling Proposal: Erection of a Greenhouse

FPC has no objection to this Application

c. SDNP Application Case No: SDNP/21/00953/BBPN Type: Broadband Prior Notification Case Officer: Rebecca Perris Applicant: Julie Calladine Location: Land South of Heron Cottage, Southbrook Road, West Ashling, Chichester, , PO18 8DN Proposal: Regulation 5 notification for the installation of fixed-line broadband apparatus - to install 1 x 9m wooden pole (7.2m above ground) (reference - SD8GCP57)

• Brief discussion over the impact of the pole, for which no plans are available.

FPC has no objection to this Application

d. SDNP Application Case No: SDNP/21/00945/TCA Type: Tree in a Conservation Area Case Officer: Henry Whitby Applicant: Mr Simmonds Location: Dalkeith , B2178 Southbrook Road To Moutheys Lane, East Ashling, PO18 9AS Proposal: Notification of intention to crown reduce by 20% and crown thin by 20% on 2 no. Beech trees.

FPC has no objection to this Application

d. SDNP Decision Case No: SDNP/20/05345/LIS Case Officer: Rebecca Perris Applicant: Dr Charlotte Dawber Location: Birch Cottage, 5 Malthouse Lane, West Ashling, PO18 8DZ Proposal: Repair to leaking roof. Replacement of damaged tiles and new underfelt. Decision: Approved

6. Enforcements Breach of Condition Notice FU79

This refers to Planning Permission FU/08/00611, which had numerous Conditions attached to it and so far only one Condition has been approved, we don’t get any clues which Condition that has not been met is the subject of this B of C notice, so it could be all or any of them. Some of the Conditions were to make it quite clear that no more than 6 caravans were permitted on the site – 3 static and 3 travelling, and no commercial activity was permitted and no storage of materials was allowed on the site – I have an idea this maybe the Condition’s referred too. Other Conditions not so far met are: no external lighting and the approval of a landscape and planting plan and visibility splays and entrance to be submitted and approved

This is also adjacent to this site another site which has an Enforcement Notice for the stone walls, gates and entrance, which CDC now have permission to take to Court to ask to have demolished, and this site is also the site, that lost their Appeal two weeks ago for two chalet houses that had been built on the site, to replace mobile homes, so we should get Enforcement Action on this adjacent site as well to demolish the two chalet houses on it.

7. AOB None

8. Date of Next Meeting – 6.00pm Thursday 8 April 2021