PLANNING COMMITTEE 14 October 2015 Report of Head of Planning Services SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPEALS, COURT AND POLICY MATTERS This report updates Committee Members on current appeals and other matters. It would be of assistance if specific questions on individual cases could be directed to officers in advance of the meeting. Note for public viewing via Chichester District Council web site: To read each file in detail, including the full appeal decision when it is issued, click on the reference number (NB certain enforcement cases are not open for public inspection, but you will be able to see the key papers via the automatic link to the Planning Inspectorate). WR – Written Representation Appeal H – Hearing I – Inquiry ( ) – Case Officer initials * – Committee level decision 1. NEW APPEALS Reference/Procedure Proposal SDNP/15/00336/COU Land North of Junction With B2138, Bury Road, Bury, West I (R Hawks) Sussex - Stationing of 2 caravans for human habitation. In progress Linked to BI/15/01288/FUL, BI/15/01287/FUL and BI/15/00194/CONTRV CC/15/01245/DOM 30 Brandy Hole Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 5RY WR (M Tomlinson) - Garage conversion with bay window and new open bay In progress garage with first floor gym and shower. SDNP/15/02367/HOUS Sparkes Farm, Ebernoe Road, Balls Cross, Ebernoe, WR (R Grosso GU28 9JU - Proposed demolition of various extensions to Macpherson) the rear and east sides of the house and their replacement In progress with new extensions. SDNP/15/00299/ADV A286 Kings Drive to Henley Old Road, Easebourne, WR (C Cranmer) West Sussex - To erect and keep for the Licence Period two In progress signs of a similar size and style to that shown on the attached illustration in positions shown on the attached location plan, on Kings Drive. EWB/14/03986/FUL Stables North East Of Marula Cottage Church Farm Lane, WR (N McKellar) East Wittering, West Sussex - Change of use from stables to In progress small holiday let. SDNP/15/01301/HOUS 32 Vann Road , Fernhurst, West Sussex, GU27 3JN - Single WR (R Grosso storey and first floor extension. Macpherson) In progress Reference/Procedure Proposal PS/14/04100/FUL Little Springfield Farm, Plaistow Road, Ifold, Loxwood, H ( F Steven) Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0TS - Demolition of In progress existing industrial buildings and erection of 3 no. detached dwelling houses with associated landscaping, surfacing, car parking provision and access works. 2. DECISIONS RECEIVED Reference/Decision CC/14/02551/FUL Land Adjacent To 1 Kings Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex WR (C Boddy) PO19 8EA - Proposed 2 bedroom detached house. DISMISSED "...The appeal is dismissed The current scheme is an amendment to a previous proposal, which was dismissed at appeal, Ref: PP/L3815/A/12/2171563 The scheme before me differs in so far as the design of the proposed dwelling has been changed from a square footprint with a simple pitched roof, to an L-shape building with a front facing gable... My colleague previously concluded that the site was simply too narrow and too shallow to accommodate a dwelling in a visually acceptable way. The changes to the proposed design do not address this fundamental issue, since the dimensions of the site remain unchanged... The introduction of a dwelling, that would occupy almost the full width of this highly constrained site, would appear to be an excessively cramped and incongruous form of development... For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies 33 and 47 of the recently adopted Chichester Local Plan... The proposed dwelling would be constructed in close proximity to secondary windows on the first floor in the flank elevation of No 1... the changes to the design have not overcome my colleague's concern and I share his conclusion that the proposal would be un- neighbourly... I conclude that the proposed dwelling would be harmful to the living conditions of occupants of the adjoining properties... The appeal site lies within Flood Zone 2... it is therefore necessary to apply the sequential test. The Council contends that given the size of the district and the extent of land that does not fall within areas at risk of flooding, there are likely to be more suitable sites to accommodate a single dwelling than the appeal site. I see no reason to disagree with this assessment...For these reasons I conclude that the appeal site would be unsuitable for the development of a new dwelling, due to its location within Flood Zone 2. It would be contrary to the advice of the Framework and PPG in relation to flood risk... the proposed dwelling would not be a sustainable form of development..." Reference/Decision EWB/15/00917/DOM Somerswood House, 144 Stocks Lane, East Wittering, West WR (C Boddy) Sussex, PO20 8NT - Revised dormers and roof alterations. DISMISSED “ The appeal is dismissed. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, and (ii) the effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of Nos. 142 and 146 as regards outlook. … The appeal scheme seeks to increase the ridge height of the approved two-storey rear extension to create a habitable second floor, with consequential changes to the proposed dormers in the side roof slopes and the width of the extension. … The thrust of the appellant’s argument is that given the existing approvals, these alterations now proposed would be ‘minimal’. Whether dimensions such as 0.9m for the increase in main ridge and eaves heights and 1.3m for the increase in dormer ridge heights can in themselves be reasonably described as ‘minimal’ is arguable. However to my mind it is their effect in this particular context that is more significant. The ridge height of the rear extension would become the same as that of the host dwelling, thereby removing the previous element of subservience. Without this, the proposal amounts to a ‘step change’ in the appearance of the building because the rearward extension would be perceived as part of the dwelling’s original design. As such, and bearing in mind that the property is one half of a semi-detached pair next to another semi-detached pair, an addition of this type and scale would make the dwelling appear disproportionately and incongruously large compared to its neighbours. Furthermore, the larger dormers in their higher position than approved would add bulk and mass to the extension, whilst the fact that three of the dormer windows are to a bedroom and need to be obscure glazed to avoid the overlooking of neighbours also illustrates their incongruity. As well as being harmful to the dwelling itself, I consider that the extension would be clearly visible in views from Stocks Lane in the gap between the building and No. 142. This would result in it becoming apparent that the development is harmfully out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. The Council’s Design Guidelines for Alterations to Dwellings & Extensions 2009 require extensions to be visually integrated with the existing building; to be sympathetic to its surrounding and adjoining properties, and to be subservient in mass, bulk and form to the existing property. Whilst the appellant argues that the already approved development as now amended by the appeal scheme would be compliant with these requirements, I agree with the Council’s assessment that the proposal fails on all three. Turning briefly to the second issue, I am satisfied that because of the rear extension’s scale and bulk and the visual impact of the dormers, the proposed development would appear as overbearing and oppressive in the outlook from both Nos. 142 and 146. This strengthens the Council’s case for its refusal. Overall, I conclude that the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area and the adverse effect on the living conditions for the neighbours as regards outlook would be unacceptable. As such it would conflict with Policy 33 of the adopted Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2027, and the core planning principles and Section 7: ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. In reaching this conclusion I acknowledge that the appeal scheme would improve the usefulness of the extensions for the appellant but this does not outweigh the disadvantages of the proposal as outlined. As regards the scale of the proposed redevelopment of the nearby factory building as a retirement home, because of the different immediate context I do not regard this as being comparable with an extension to a semi-detached dwelling.” Reference/Decision SDNP/14/03765/FUL Fairleads, Wheatsheaf Enclosure, Liphook, Hampshire WR (M Mew) GU30 7EJ - Replacement dwelling substituting existing 4 bed Milland house to create a 5 bed home. In progress DISMISSED "...Within the estate there are a variety of ages and styles of dwellings, constructed of a mix of materials, and given this, the use of slate and render would not be unacceptably different with the estate. However, in addition to occupying much of the footprint of the existing bungalow, the proposed house would extend along much of the width of the garden. even with the angled plan form and the varying ridge heights, the proposed house would be a very long, deep and tall building that would be a dominant feature both within its plot and in the surrounding area. ... Despite the variation in plot sizes, a distinctive feature of the estate is the generous gardens, with many of the dwellings being approximately centrally positioned in them.