Planning Committee 23rd November 2011
Agenda Item 4
Ward: ALL
Key Decision: Yes / No
Report by the Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing
Planning Applications
The Committee is requested to consider the following planning applications in accordance with the power contained within section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which states:-
(1) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission:-
(a) subject to sections 91 and 92 (time limits), they may grant planning permission, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit; or
(b) they may refuse planning permission.
(2) In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.
1 Page 6 Application Number:- Recommendation:- Approve AWDM/0656/11 Site:- 20 Woodland Avenue
Ward: SALVINGTON Proposal:- Proposed new dwelling with garage and parking space in garden land rear of 20 Woodland Avenue.
2 Page 22 Application No: Recommendation - Approve AWDM/0680/11 Site: Goods Yard, Goring Street
Ward: GORING Proposal: Redevelopment of former car sales business site for 29 dwellings, including 11 affordable flats in the form of three storey gateway block of flats; four storey block of flats behind; two terraces of 3 storey townhouses and rear three storey terrace of townhouses together with open space and landscaping and provision for 47 cars and new internal access road and alterations to access.
3 Page 47 Application No: Recommendation - Approve AWDM/0243/11 Site: 1 Highdown Avenue
Ward: TARRING Proposal: Conversion of doctors’ surgery into 1 No 2 bed and 1 No 3 bed maisonettes utilising existing access with 4 parking spaces on site.
4 Page 63 Application No: Recommendation - Approve AWDM/0509/11 & AWDM/0510/11 Site: Mayfair Hotel, 11-12 Heene Terrace
Ward: HEENE Proposal: Restoration and alteration to the former Mayfair Hotel to form 11 residential apartments (Applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent).
5 Page 83 Application No: Recommendation - Approve AWDM/0354/11 Site: 276 Goring Road
Ward: GORING Proposal: Change of use to A5 (takeaway) and erection of a single storey rear extension, including a new shop front and erection of air compressors and extract duct to the rear.
6 Page 97 Application No: Recommendation – Split Decision AWDM/0558/11 Site: 8 South Street
Ward: CENTRAL Proposal: Installation of four sets of non-illuminated letters on front elevation (one set on sub- fascia, one set on fascia panel, one set above the first floor windows and one set above second floor windows)(Retrospective).
7 Page 104 Application No: Recommendation – Approve on behalf of the WB/11/0238/FULL South Downs National Park Authority
Site: Worthing Golf Club, Links Road
Ward: OFFINGTON Proposal: Erection of 2 no. buildings on existing compound for the storage of green keeping and agricultural land management machinery and staff facilities and extension of existing hard surfaced area to allow for onsite turning of material delivery vehicles.
1
Mr Phil Rowe AWDM/0656/11 Mr Patrick Oliver SAL MAPO Location : 20 Woodland Avenue
Proposal: Proposed new dwelling with garage and parking space in garden land rear of 20 Woodland Avenue.
Not to Scale
Reproduced from OS mapping with the permission of HMSO (c) Crown Copyright Licence No LA100024321
1. THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE
The application site is part of the rear garden of No. 20 Woodland Avenue in a low density residential area towards the northern edge of town. It gently slopes down north to south.
The proposal is for a 3 / 4-bedroom bungalow with its own garden at the back of No. 20, a chalet bungalow. No. 20 has a 45 metre deep rear garden with mature trees and shrubs and the new bungalow would reduce
it to 18 metres deep. The new bungalow’s garden would be 11 metres by 18 metres.
The site is to be accessed by a shared drive between No. 20 and No. 22 Woodland Avenue, also serving the bungalow (No. 22A) at the back of No. 22 (WB/07/1411/FULL). A free standing garage would be built between the new bungalow and No. 20.
The new hipped roof bungalow is L-shaped and to be built with piled foundations. Where the bungalow footprint intrudes upon root protection areas of protected trees on the site, the existing ground level will be maintained. Therefore, the floor slab in these areas must be constructed at a level on or above the existing ground level. As intrusion on the root protection areas coincides with some of the highest ground levels under the building, the floor should be raised to a structural slab level of approximately 72.8m. The current slab level is approximately 72.42m and therefore the whole building requires raising by 400mm. An additional increase in slab level may also be required to provide a void (in the order of 225mm) under the slab should soil be susceptible to heave. In all, the potential maximum increase in height of the bungalow building compared to the previous scheme is 625mm.
AMENDED PLAN
Following concerns by local residents and consultations, the Planning Officer has negotiated with the applicant changes to the proposal. These are:-
• Bungalow building shown with site levels and to be built with agreed piled foundations, and not “cut into” garden to form terrace. Introduction of chimney and kitchen bay window and other external finishes to bungalow building; • Removal of terrace with small area of timber decking instead; • Boundary retaining wall replaced with fence at point of Holm Oak RPA; • Reposition of free standing garage off from boundary to No. 20 and reduction in its length; and • Replacement of all trees to be felled (protected or not).
2. PLANNING HISTORY
A proposal to develop the site for a new dwelling with garage was refused and dismissed at appeal (WB/10/0558/FULL). The Inspector concluded the proposal would potentially threaten the future health and well being of protected (and other) trees on and around the site. This was the only reason for dismissal.
The bungalow (No. 22A) to the immediate west was permitted in 2008 (WB/07/1411/FULL).
The bungalow (No. 16A) to the east was permitted in 2009 (WB/09/0368/FULL).
3. APPLICANT’S DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT (SUMMARISED)
The Application is supported by a detailed tree constraints plan, tree retention and protection plan, and arboricultural assessment with accompanying foundation assessment report.
“Background Previous application dismissed on appeal for same development as currently proposed. Inspector’s sole concern was uncertainty as to whether proposed dwelling could be constructed so as not to prejudice protected (and other) trees on and around site.
To this end a tree constraints plan, tree retention and protection plan and an arboriculturist assessment has been prepared by Lizard Landscape Design together with an accompanying Foundation assessment report by Hemsley Orrell Partnership Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers. Both reports conclude that with a slight increase in height to the ground floor slab that the potential threat to the future health and well being of protected (and other) trees on and around the site would be satisfactorily mitigated.
Arboricultural assessment by Lizard Landscape Design concludes: All Existing Tree and Ground Protective Measures and Tree Protective Fencing shall be laid out in accordance with the drawing (LLD273/02 – Tree Retention and Protection). The specialised foundation design, as specified by the appointed Structural Engineer, shall reduce the impact upon valuable trees within the proposed development area.
With consideration and inclusion of a detailed landscape scheme, to include planting of additional native tree species to mitigate the loss of tree cover, the impact upon the existing trees considered mitigated within proposed Woodland Avenue development scheme, and in accordance with BS 5837; 2005 – Trees in Relation to Construction.
The foundation assessment by Hemsley Orrell Partnership concludes:
The strip foundation option will be more onerous on the trees, causing greater damage and disruption to the roofs than the piled foundation scheme. It is our recommendation that strip foundation not be used within
root protection areas of trees under tree protection orders. Would recommend piled foundation is preferred as it should cause minimum disruption to tree roots. Shallower foundation requirements should also lead to reduced damage of tree roots. Piles need to be sleeved to minimise damager of roots. Piled foundation option appears to be most economic in terms of quantities of concrete used. Suggest structural slab level of new ground floor slab needs to be raised to approx. 72.8 m. Following recommendation to raise floor slab, need to excavate within root protection areas to form garden terrace to north of building negated. This terraced area should not be cut into the site as it impinges on root protection areas. Garage does not impinge on root protection areas and traditional strip foundations suitable.
Extract from appeal decision
Conclusion Although I have concluded that the scheme would not harm the character or appearance of the area or the living conditions of nearby occupiers.
Amount Additional dwelling in rear garden of existing property. In line with several of other properties in area, all with substantial rear gardens.
Layout Site accessed from driveway provided to similar dwelling to 22 Woodland Avenue, with consent of owner. New entry doors, and ground floor doors and windows of ‘Secured by Design’ type for maximum security.
Scale Maximum overall dimensions of the proposal will be as follows: Height: - 4.7m at highest point Width: - 11.3m (Max) Depth: - 12Cm (‘V shaped building).
Landscaping Existing landscaping retained apart from 5 Silver Birch trees and several shrub plantings (which will be removed),and tidied up as required Silver birches protected under preservation order, so removal dealt with under separate application. New planting of at least 5 mature Silver Birches provided in garden of 20. Garden grassed, except for small patio area.
Appearance Face brickwork, with plain tiled roof with small barn ends. Garage finished in similar materials. New fencing to boundary with no. 20, in larch lap panels 1.8m high, off brick retaining wall.
Use Residential
Access Accessed from driveway on 22 Woodland Avenue by vehicles and pedestrians. Main A24 is south of site for access into Worthing Town Centre. Also bus route a short walk away along Hayling Rise to west, which also goes to town centre.
Background Previous application dismissed on appeal for same development as currently proposed. Inspector’s sole concern was uncertainty as to whether proposed dwelling could be constructed so as not to prejudice future health and well being of protected (and other) trees on and around site.
To this end a tree constraints plan, tree retention and protection plan and an arboricultural assessment has been prepared by Lizard Landscape Design together with accompanying Foundation assessment report by Hemsley Orrell Partnership Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers. Both reports conclude that with a slight increase in height to ground floor slab that potential threat to future health and well being of protected (and other) trees on and around site would be satisfactorily mitigated.”
4. CONSULTATIONS
The Borough Arboriculturist comments as follows:-
“New dwelling acceptable with piled foundations recommended in Helmsley Orrell Partnership foundation assessment (August 2011) accompanying application. Recommend avoid tree root damage, house constructed above existing ground level with floor supported on small diameter piles. Details need to be agreed by condition which will require method statement detailing how achieved so no roots over 5cm in diameter are cut when piles constructed.
No levels survey to assess height of new building but lowest level of new foundation at existing ground level at north east corner and this may increase height in relation to surrounding levels. Drawing 3308/11 shows building cut into garden to form terrace and this carried eastward into Root protection area of protected Eucalyptus T6 ( TPO 23/04) is potentially damaging and at odds with foundation report. Previous Appeal decision in paragraph 14 states information on ground levels is not available and this appears to remain case.
Tree protection plan (LLD 273/02) and Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report (LLD273/KM/08.11) is acceptable and agreed by Condition together with details of how this will be monitored by Applicants Arboriculturist.
A further Condition so no materials stored within root protection areas is required. Construction details of no dig permeable pathways within root protection areas will need to be agreed. Landscape scheme will need to be agreed to include levels survey and details of terracing. Details, routes and construction methods of proposed drainage, soak-away and service runs are not shown and will need to be agreed so not to damage tree roots or become damaged by the same after construction in accordance with Table 3 BS 5837:2005.”
He further commented after re-consultation as follows:-
“Omission of terrace good and clarifies things. Ok with regard to garage as only slightly impinges on Holm oak RPA. Retaining wall should finish at RPA and fence which does not require a strip foundation used for remaining distance to boundary. Construction details of cycle store need to be agreed by Condition. It is possible to require planting within number 20 and perhaps this is best identified with a special condition to agree replacements for felled TPO trees. With regard to drainage, this could be done by Condition. With regard to hard surface car parking, dry jointed block paving, washed gravel or resin bonded gravel would be suitably permeable to water.”
The Borough Engineer comments as follows:-
“In absence of ground investigation detail, approval should be conditioned such that "no development approved by this permission shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of surface water has been approved by the Planning Authority. Satisfactory soakage tests in accordance with BRE Digest 365 (1991) being the criteria for proof of this condition. Note applicant intends to use soakaways, with prolific number of trees around site, question whether they can achieve required 5m distance from property without affecting tree root zones.”
The Highway Authority comments on WB/10/0558/FULL are summarised below:-
“West Sussex County Council consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application under WB/176/10 to which no highway objections were raised. This proposal considered by means of a desktop study, using information and plans submitted with application, in conjunction with available WSCC map information. Site visit can be arranged on request. As previously, WSCC would not raise any objections to scheme subject to an access width of 4.5m being secured by condition.
From inspection of plans alone, does not appear there are safety issues regarding visibility form this access point. Applicant advised access drive should be 4.5 metres in width for its entire length in order two vehicles pass each other safely.”
The Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety request precautionary contamination condition be imposed.
5. REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection received from occupiers of nos.16, 16a, 18, and La Rochelle of Woodland Avenue, no. 17 Hayling Rise, and nos. 17 and 18 Hayling Gardens raising the following concerns which have been summarised:-
i) Note owner of property not filled in application form, could it be 20 Woodland Avenue is not his family home but just an investment? ii) Refused in past, see no reason why should be allowed now. Little has changed. Government policy surely is now opposed to infill. The site is too small to support the proposed development. Two properties on this plot would not be in keeping with appearance and spacing of properties iii) Loss of a number of mature trees and vegetation. These are a salient feature of local environment enjoyed by number of homeowners. Invaluable sanctuary for wildlife (woodpeckers, squirrels, owls and many others), their removal is deprivation of local wildlife especially our native birds. Do not believe marginal contribution to Worthing’s need or additional housing warrants inevitable damage to valuable local environment. iv) Continual traffic congestion, noise and pollution from building works. Enough is enough! v) Time has come to call a halt to all this infill development before High Salvington changes from an area of select properties to an estate vi) Permission granted for bungalow in grounds of 22, building works commenced as neighbours have been blighted with dust and continuous noise from this site. First earth moving equipment followed by months of cement mixers and cutting machinery. Even today as we sit in our garden we hear the continuous hammering. vii) If trend continues complete row of new properties subject residents to 5, 10, 15 years of disruption! viii) Noticed increase in parked cars and delivery Lorries. At times had difficulty to see oncoming vehicles on leaving our property.
ix) No effective assurances in place to ensure trees are not ‘accidentally’ damaged. x) Loss of open space. Back-land development in Woodland Avenue has achieved saturation. xi) Undoubted loss of privacy.
High Salvington Residents’ Association objection received, content summarised below:-
Studied application and Inspector’s decision on earlier appeal and despite that decision concerned about certain aspects as follows:-
i) As our policy, object to all back garden developments on grounds they damage character of area and create dangerous precedents for over-development. ii) Existing back garden development in Woodland Avenue approved under previous regime before government declared more rational approach. ‘Precedent’ cannot used to support this application. iii) Three other back garden development adjoin and concerned this proposal is contributing to undesirable “parallel street”. iv) Concerned about narrow single vehicle access shared by proposed property and new bungalow behind 22 Woodland Avenue. Too narrow to allow two vehicles to pass each other. If emergency vehicles called would have trouble reaching them. v) Design identical except for suggested foundation amendment to preserve roots of protected trees. According to assessment attached to application, raising of the foundations would raise proposed house by between 0.4 metres and 0.625 metres above previous proposal, which would significantly increase amount of property visible to occupiers of 18 Hayling Gardens to rear, to overlook. vi) With proposed dwelling so close to rear boundary (11 metres) increase in height would deprive 18 Hayling Gardens of reasonable privacy, particularly in winter months when deciduous trees along boundary are bare.
If consideration given to approve, ask following conditions be applied:-
i) Access road to two properties be widened to more suitable width, possible by using strip of No. 20s land for purpose ii) Coniferous or evergreen screening of suitable height (2.5 – 3 metres) be planted along rear boundary before any building commences to provide 18 Hayling Gardens with reasonable privacy.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Introduction
The relevant planning issues raised by this application are:
i) Principle ii) Character and appearance of area iii) Neighbours iv) Parking and highway safety v) Trees, protected species, and other environmental considerations
As such the proposal should be considered against Core Strategy Policies 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, saved Local Plan Policies RES7, H18, and TR9, and South East Plan Policies SP3, C2, CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC6, H1, H2, H4, H5, H6, T4, NRM10, NRM11, W2, W6, BE1, BE2, BE3, S5, SCT1 and SCT5.
Government guidance is also relevant in form of Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development and Climate Change Supplement; Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing; PPG13: Transport and PPG24.
Also, the Local Planning Authority is in the process of adopting a Supplementary Planning Document relating to Space Standards in new residential development. But the consultation response to this is unknown at the time of writing so its draft status remains of limited weight.
Finally, the draft National Planning Policy Framework is a material planning consideration. But its draft status ensures the present Development Plan carries the greater weight in the determination of this proposal.
Principle
The previous appeal decision is a material consideration when determining this proposal. This is because there should be consistency in the application process. And there needs to be adequate and proper reasons to depart from a previous decision.
At appeal the Inspector judged the proposal consistent with the up to date version of PPS3, and the site suitable in principle for a single bungalow. He reasoned the plot sizes would be compatible with the area, and the bungalow similar to other new properties locally with adequate outdoor space.
The Worthing Core Strategy has been adopted since then. But no planning policy within it warrants an alternative judgement. The site falls within the Built-Up Area and the Development Plan does not preclude development on garden land, but requires an assessment of its impact on local character. The task of ensuring efficient use of land remains.
Firstly, while the site is undeveloped its contribution to the wider character of its surroundings is marginal. This is because of its enclosed position, at the back and side of properties. So too is the site’s contributing value as Green Infrastructure (it is private land) and as wildlife refuge, the provision of which would not be materially diminished by its loss.
Secondly, there is a reasonable context to successfully assimilate this new bungalow into its surroundings. Its design and layout would not be jarring when compared with those properties around it. For these reasons the development would add an acceptable new element to the street scene and cause no harm, and is compatible with local character.
Thirdly, the proposal would contribute toward meeting the housing targets set out in the Core Strategy. Bringing forward such a home would contribute to increasing the range of family housing choice in the town where there is a recognised shortfall, even if not offered on the market as affordable.
Taking account of the Inspector’s conclusions on the previous appeal and the above policies, it has to be conceded that the site is capable of accommodating the new dwelling in principle, and bringing forward a new family home would contribute to meeting the town’s housing need.
Visual impact
The Inspector concluded the earlier scheme would not harm the character or appearance of the area, and that its design was acceptable. He judged it would contribute little to public perception of back-land development being consolidated along Woodland Avenue.
Despite this, improvements to the building’s design have been agreed. These include the introduction of a chimney and bay window, and part render finish to the walls. Because of the piled foundations the bungalow would be somewhat more visible and perceivable to neighbours than the earlier scheme. However this additional height is relatively slight, and would not readily alter the building’s visibility from the road.
Planning officers are satisfied this amended scheme meets the design criteria set out in Worthing Core Strategy Policy 16, which replaced saved Policy BE1 under which the appeal decision was judged.
Neighbours
The Inspector concluded that there would be no material harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers (existing and future), and the new bungalow would not be cramped or overbearing.
He judged that despite the slope of the site, the proposed bungalow would be far enough away from the rear of no. 20 to avoid an adverse impact in terms of overbearing effect and loss of outlook, overshadowing and loss of light, and overlooking and loss of privacy. Similar conclusions were drawn in relation to Nos. 18 and 22, either side of no. 20, and to those properties backing onto the site along Hayling Gardens. He was satisfied use of the driveway and turning area would cause limited noise/disturbance, and that, with appropriate boundary treatment, future occupiers would not suffer unacceptable overlooking.
There has not been a material planning change in the application site circumstance and/or the circumstance of neighbours since the appeal to warrant a different judgement. Even so, the garage is now taken off the shared boundary with no. 20 with its length reduced, so reducing its effect. The new bungalow’s amended design involves change to the roof size and position of windows and doors. But none of these would substantially alter the impact upon neighbours to be materially harmful.
Because of the foundation design the bungalow would be slightly higher than the earlier scheme but this increase is not to such a degree as to have any impact on neighbours (at most some 625mm). Given the distances from the neighbouring dwelling houses, no unduly overbearing or overshadowing effect would occur.
It is concluded that withholding permission on grounds of neighbour impact cannot be justified, provided appropriate boundary treatment is secured by condition as noted by the Inspector.
Parking and highway safety
The Highways Authority raised no objection if the width of the shared driveway is at least 4.5 metres to allow two vehicles to pass. This can be secured by condition. Adequate turning space would allow vehicles to exit the site in forward gear. The Inspector concluded these arrangements were capable of safely accommodating traffic generated by a single bungalow, and the property boundary alongside would limit impact onto no. 20.
He was also satisfied with the amount of parking for the new bungalow. This remains 2 spaces (one is a garage). According to the West Sussex Parking Demand Calculator tool there is a short fall of 0.40 of a parking space. This slight shortfall is unlikely to materially worsen on-street parking experienced already. The garage has the potential to accommodate at least one bike.
Provisions covering reduced parking for housing in PPG13 have been superseded by PPS3 which advises a design-led approach is taken to parking provision. In this particular case, more parking would diminish the amount of garden land available to future occupiers, worsening their living conditions.
It is important adequate provision of parking and turning space on site for both the new and existing dwellings is retained, so both should be secured by condition.
For these reasons the parking provision is satisfactory, and no material conflict would occur with national policy and policy T4 of The South East Plan and Worthing Core Strategy Policy 19.
Trees
Tree Preservation Order 23/2004 applies to trees on the plot and others on neighbouring land. It is on the impact of trees, and for this reason alone, that the Inspector dismissed the earlier appeal. He concluded there was a potential threat to the future health and well being of protected (and other) trees on and around the site.
The gap from the new bungalow to a TPO tree (T6 - Cider Gum) in good condition overhanging the site would be about 3 metres. But the recommendation in BS 5837:2005 is 5.5 metres. There are three other healthy TPO trees in the rear garden of no. 18 (two Holm Oaks and a Deodar). In his judgement, given the likelihood of shallow chalk soil in this elevated location, there was a clear risk of significant root damage to the Cider Gum tree and others nearby that might cause instability and/or harm to their long term health.
To avoid harm to those trees it is proposed to build the new bungalow with piled foundations. The free standing garage would be built with strip foundations. Subject to details, the Council’s Aboriculturalist is satisfied both these construction methods would avoid undue harm to the root protected areas of the affected trees. He is also satisfied with the measures detailed in the Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report concerning trees throughout the site (protected or not) would be sufficient avoid harm to their long term health. To further
reduce impact on root protected areas it is recommended the suggested cycle store is removed (the bikes being placed in the garage instead).
In addition two groups of trees exist on the plot are protected; G4 (a line of two Black Poplar, one Beech, and one Sweet Chestnut on the plot’s northern boundary) and G3 (three Silver Birch). The trees of G4 are to be retained. The Silver Birch of G3, more centrally located, would be lost to make way for the new bungalow. The applicant suggests a row of replacement Silver Birches to mitigate their loss.
The Inspector considered the new bungalow would not justify severe pruning or future removal of the G4 trees as they would not have a significant effect on the sunlight reaching its garden or rear elevation. Because of the piled foundations the bungalow would be higher than the earlier scheme. But this additional height would not likely result additional pruning and removal of those trees. Both the Inspector and the Council’s Aboriculturalist judged that none of the G3 Silver Birches are in particularly good condition, and their loss would not detrimentally affect the area as they are only seen by the public against a backdrop of other specimens nearby.
Lastly, three unprotected trees are to be removed (an Elder from the western boundary, a Horse Chestnut from the northern boundary, and a Holm Oak centrally position in the back garden). All these are not outstanding specimens and not that visible to the public. All would be replaced by native specimens planted in the plot of No. 20. Shrubbery and hedging will also be removed but this can be replaced.
So subject to imposing the conditions requested by the Council’s Arboriculturist, the inclusion of soft/hard landscape scheme to include planting of additional native tree species to mitigate loss of tree cover, the impact upon existing trees is mitigated so according with BS 5837: 2005 — Trees in Relation to Construction.
Protected Species and Other Environmental Considerations
The Inspector raised no ecological objection to the principle of this site. All trees to be felled will be replaced with native specimens, which would help safeguard the wildlife value of the site generally and protect the verdant character of the site and townscape. This may be secured by condition.
At the time of writing a bat survey is to be undertaken to obtain further information that is required to allow a suitable determination. If this survey were to find evidence of the presence of bats, a method statement would be required prior to determination of the application
under relevant wildlife legislation. If necessary, replacement bat roosting facilities maybe secured by condition. Members will be updated.
Planning Officers have secured the new bungalow meets Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, and inclusion of a Sustainable Drainage System. Such sustainable construction would satisfy Core Strategy Policy 17 and the Borough Engineers request for disposal of surface water details.
The site is not one at risk from contamination, so an informative would be sufficient to raise the applicant’s awareness of the risk identified by Environmental Health.
7. CONCLUSION
The Inspector’s judgement on the previous appeal should be given due weight in determination of this application.
The proposal makes more efficient use this plot in a residential locality within the built-up area. The new development is sympathetically designed and would meet an acknowledged need for family housing in the town and contribute toward meeting housing targets. No unacceptable harm to neighbour amenity should result due to its design and siting. Access and parking arrangements are satisfactory. Subject to receipt of the required method statement, wildlife interest can be satisfactorily safeguarded and sustainable design has been sought.
As such, and subject to the receipt of the method statement and the imposition of the recommended conditions, the proposal should be supported.
8. RECOMMENDATION
SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF ANY NECESSARY SUITABLE METHOD STATEMENT TO PREVENT HARM TO BATS, PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:-
1. Standard 5 year time limit. 2. Plans as approved. 3. Dwelling to meet Level 3 of Code for Sustainable Homes. 4. No development until details of piled foundation construction agreed, including method statement detailing how no roots over 5cm in diameter cut when piles constructed.
5. No development until details of materials and finishes of all buildings. 6. No development until construction method statement submitted, including agree and implement dust suppression scheme. 7. Restriction on construction and demolition hours. 8. No development until soft/hard landscaping scheme and details of replacement planting to replace all felled trees (including land edged red and blue) permitted and approved. 9. No development unless in full accordance with submitted tree protection measures and Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report plus requirement to submit details as to how this will be monitored. 10. No materials stored within root protected areas of all trees and no burning of materials within 6 metres of any tree canopy. 11. Construction details of no dig permeable pathways within root protected areas to be agreed. 12. Details, routes and construction methods of proposed drainage, soak-away and service runs to be agreed. 13. No occupation until sustainable drainage system detail agreed and constructed out. 14. No occupation until boundary fence/wall detail agreed and constructed out. 15. Notwithstanding plans, cycle store and window in east elevation of garage not approved and to be omitted. 16. Notwithstanding “pd” no windows/openings in roof slopes or south/west/east wall of bungalow or south elevation of garage without permission of Local Planning Authority. 17. Notwithstanding “pd” no extensions to bungalow or outbuildings without prior permission of Local Planning Authority. 18. Notwithstanding “pd” no gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure forward of the adjoining dwellinghouses which front the highway. 19. En-suite and bathroom window be top hung and obscure glazed. 20. Garage used only for vehicle and cycle parking and incidental storage. 21. No occupation until details of parking and turning space provided for both new and existing dwelling to standard of at least 2 car parking spaces per dwelling and retained thereafter. 22. No occupation until shared access, with width of not less than 4.5 metres constructed and retained thereafter. 23. No occupation until refuse and recycling facilities provided to land edged red and blue and retained thereafter.
9. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Wildlife and Countryside Act
Bat Protection Pre-cautionary contamination informative Observations of the Highway Authority Observations of the Borough Aboriculturalist Observations of the Borough Engineer Observations of the Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety Letters of Representation from Members of the Public
23rd November 2011
2
ECE Architecture AWDM/0680/11 Mr T Wheele GOR PEDE Location : Goods Yard, Goring Street
Proposal: Redevelopment of former car sales business site for 29 dwellings, including 11 affordable flats in the form of three-storey gateway block of flats; four-storey block of flats behind; two terraces of 3-storey townhouses and rear three-storey terrace of townhouses together with open space and landscaping and provision for 47 cars and new internal access road and alterations to access.
Not to Scale
Not to Scale
Reproduced from OS mapping with the permission of HMSO © Crown Copyright Licence No LA100024321
1. THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE
This proposal for the residential development of this site follows the granting of outline planning permission (WB/07/0324/OUT) for residential development in 2007 (renewed in 2010), except the current application focuses on the provision of family housing (18 townhouses and 11 flats) rather than exclusively flats (49).
The site and surroundings
Located on the outskirts of Goring, the site is a relatively long and narrow strip on the south side of the railway, just to the west of Goring station and footbridge. It is around 110 metres long and some 35 metres wide at it broadest point which is at its Goring Street frontage. This frontage provides its sole vehicular access and is adjacent to the level crossing. The site is 0.57 hectares in size and entirely flat and tapers down to 15 metres in the west.
The site was originally laid out as goods yard/sidings. Apart from some use as a commuter car park (WB/405/67), actual subsequent uses are not entirely clear. Certainly, various permissions have been granted in modern times including commercial/storage (WB/54/66); B1 office development (WB/1147/89); development for use as a gun club (WB/1307/80); sale of garden plants and sheds (WB/1050/80); car valeting (WB/723/86); model car racing (WB/1217/80) and caravan sales (WB/414/82).
However, the principal use in recent years appears to have been car sales on open land with ancillary offices in the form of modest portakabins and caravan. These uses ceased over two years ago and the site has lain vacant since.
Apart from being within the defined Built up Area Boundary, the site is not subject to any other designations in the Core Strategy.
To the south west and bounded by a line of trees and bushes are the grounds of the Chatsmore Catholic High School. The grounds are laid out as playing fields which are accessed by a passageway running immediately adjacent to the application site. Beyond the passageway and facing Goring Street is a large textiles factory, some two storeys high. On the east side of Goring Street, opposite the site, is assorted traditionally styled two storey, post-war housing but with a church and more modern 3 storey block of flats, to the north of the level crossing. The railway bounds the north of the site and is screened from the western part of the site by a group of trees. Beyond the railway stretches, flat, mainly open countryside which forms part of the Goring Gap. This is bisected by the A259.
The Proposal
The current application is a full application. It is supported by separate Design and Access Statements, Railway and Industrial Noise Assessments (including October 2011 update), Access and Traffic Statement, including Designer’s response to Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (Stage 1 Audit submitted previously in 2007) and Contaminated Land Appraisal.
The submitted plans show a scheme of 29 dwellings arranged in four blocks. These comprise firstly, block A - a three storey “gatehouse” building at the front (east), located adjacent to the level crossing which provides 3 x two bed affordable flats. Two blocks are located to the west (and slightly to the south) - block B - incorporating a four storey tower at the front, provides 7 x two-bedroom and 1 x 1-bedroom affordable flats before stepping down to a three-storey terrace of 7 x 3-bedroom townhouses. A companion block (block C) sits to the west and consists of three-storey terraced townhouses, accommodating 6 x 3-bedroom houses and 2 x four-bedroom houses. A three-storey rear block at the far west of the site (block D), in the form of a terrace of 3 x 3-bedroom townhouses, completes the composition.
Vehicular and pedestrian access is from Goring Street at the central part of the frontage. Submitted drawings show a bellmouth access and new pedestrian path provided on the site frontage, with existing school keep clear markings modified accordingly An internal access road with adjacent footway turns to the north to run parallel with the railway and terminates in a turning head and surface car park in front of the rear block. Parking for forty seven cars is provided, sixteen in the form of integral garages to the town houses; two in the form of garages for the two west most town houses in block C; fifteen in private drives of the town houses; and eleven in two open communal car parks at the front of the site serving the two blocks of affordable flats.
The development is set in a soft landscaped surround with an extensive green frontage in the form of a public open space, and, separate, communal garden to block A; semi private forecourts in front of the town houses; private back gardens to the rears of the town houses; and communal garden to the four storey affordable flats (block B). The centrepiece is a larger public park sited between the two main terraces of town houses (blocks B and C) serving as the focus for the development. Supplementary screen planting is also proposed on the railway boundary to the north and adjacent to part of the school playfields, to the south west, although some trees are lost on the far west of the site adjacent to the railway to accommodate block D .
The architectural style is distinctly contemporary and contrasts with the current array of styles, form and scale in the vicinity. The four blocks are designed as a family group in a cohesive style in a mainly symmetrical and balanced composition, using a palette of white render, timber boarding, blue engineering brickwork and single ply roofs, with timber and stainless steel elements for balconies and aluminium windows. Extensive glazing also features prominently. The architectural centrepiece of the development is the four storey block of flats (block B) with its distinctive angled roof, projecting balconies and curved column. Subdued echoes of this feature – smaller roof overhang and less sharply angled roof, prominent angled balconies are incorporated in a number of the other buildings.
The proposal includes various noise mitigation measures such as double glazing, acoustically treated trickle vents/whole house mechanical ventilation in Block A adjacent to the railway and acoustic fencing adjacent to block D.
2. DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT
The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement summarised as follows:-
“Overall, the Planning Application provides a significant opportunity for Worthing to ensure that new housing is created to meet local family needs. The design process resulting in this application has been rigorous and carefully considered to create the optimum design solution, and consultation with Worthing Borough Council has been carried out throughout.
As a result, a scheme has been created that establishes a high quality and site specific architectural solution, creating a mixture of high quality and thoughtfully designed residential units and providing a substantial community benefit through the inclusion of 11 affordable dwellings.”
The conclusions of the Noise Assessment are as follows:-
“The rail noise survey and assessment shows that the nearest façade to the railway falls into Noise Exposure Category (NEC) “B”.
Other areas of the development that are further away or shielded from the railway will fall into NEC “A”.
For most affected facades World Health Organisation target internal noise levels will be achieved if windows are closed and normal double glazing is installed. For other facades it is likely that the target noise levels will not be
exceeded if windows are left open. WHO state that an open window will attenuate external noise by approximately 15dB(A).
The World Health Organisation also state target external noise levels for outdoor living areas. The noise model demonstrates that noise levels in private amenity areas will be below the “moderate annoyance level” of 50dB(A)
It is understood that there is little or no freight train activity on this railway line. There may well be an occasional leaf clearing or maintenance trains that operate during the day or night-time period. These trains will be seasonal and it is very unlikely that there would be one a week let alone more than one in any night time hour.
If the noise mitigation measures detailed in section 10 are completed it is considered that the planning application will not be refused on noise grounds.”
The conclusions of the Transport Assessment are as follows:-
“On the basis of the above, we consider that the proposed site access junction as shown on drawing number 60702/01 Rev C is suitable to serve a residential development on the site.
In addition, the extension of the footway across the site frontage and to the north would provide a benefit not only to the users of the site but to the wider community. It is clear that there will not be a traffic impact and moving the site access further south would significantly improve upon the existing situation for access to the site. Finally, the site is located in a sustainable location where there is a real alternative choice to the use of the private car.
We therefore consider that there is no highway and traffic reason why this development should not be allowed.”
3. CONSULTATIONS
The Planning Policy Manager raises no objections but indicates a development contribution sum of £50,717 is required towards outdoor recreation facilities.
Network Rail makes no comment.
The Environment Agency comments that:-
“It will be necessary to ensure that the limitations in the report are explored prior to commencement of development to protect and improve
groundwater and surface water quality in line with our guidance document ‘Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice’ (GP3).
Environment Agency position
We consider that planning permission should only be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the following four planning conditions are imposed as set out below. Without these planning conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would wish to object to the application.
Planning Condition 1
Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority (LPA)), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the LPA:
1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: • all previous uses
• potential contaminants associated with those uses
• a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors
• potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the LPA. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: The historic and current site activities have led to a degree of contamination at the site
This planning condition is necessary for the development to comply with Planning Policy Statement 23 – “Planning and Pollution Control” (PPS23).
Note for applicant
We acknowledge the investigation and assessment previously completed, and that sections 1 and 2 of the above planning condition have been partly fulfilled. The results of the previous contamination investigations are limited by the current on-site activities and further site characterisation and risk assessment is required to ensure the protection of the underlying principal aquifer from the proposed development.
It is unclear where de-polluting and liquid waste storage associated with the car breaking activity occurred; these should be identified and investigated. Additionally, it is unknown if there is any historic fuel sales relating to the vehicle sales area.
The contamination results indicate elevated levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), however the sample depths are relatively shallow and it is required that the vertical extent of the contamination be further delineated. It is noted that the Final Geo-Environmental Report, dated April 2007, states in section 10.2 ‘Analysis of Soils’, point 4, that "The top 150mm of the car breakers yard was, however, found to be particularly oily, and in our opinion, it would test way above of the acceptable level", however the description of the oil discolouration is missing from the borehole logs. It is therefore unclear if other evidence of contamination observed on site have also been omitted from the borehole logs.
Planning Condition 2
A verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the LPA. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the LPA.
Reason: To ensure that any remediation is satisfactorily completed, if deemed necessary.
This planning condition is necessary for the development to comply with PPS23.
Planning Condition 3
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Reason: To ensure that any contamination not previously identified due to limitations and constraints during the intrusive investigation are fully characterised and assessed.
This planning condition is necessary for the development to comply with PPS23
Planning Condition 4
No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the LPA, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.
Reasons: To ensure that potentially contaminated surface water does not cause pollution to controlled water or result in mobilisation of existing contamination.
This planning condition is necessary for the development to comply with PPS23.
Planning Advice
Flood Risk
The applicant states that the surface water is to be disposed of to soakaway. No design data has been incorporated with the soakaway details so we cannot comment specifically upon whether they will be acceptable at this location. Generally we would recommend that infiltration rates for soakaways to be based on permeability tests undertaken over the winter period and not those done during the drier months. The design needs to be based upon BRE365 and cater for the 1 in 10 year storm between the invert of the entry pipe to the soakaway and the highest recorded water table. It must also have provision to ensure there is capacity in the system to contain below lowest ground level the 1 in 100 year event plus 30% on stored volumes. Therefore the local geological and hydro geological characteristics of the site will dictate whether soakaways will be applicable and an investigation would be required.
Your LPA’s own Technical Services should be satisfied with the proposed method of surface water disposal.
Pollution Prevention
All surface water from roofs should be piped direct to an approved surface water system using sealed down pipes. Open gullies should not be used.
Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings should be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.
Soakaways are for the disposal of clean uncontaminated surface water only and must not be constructed in land affected by contamination as this could mobilise contaminants to the aquifer.
When carrying out construction and demolition activities, potential sources of pollution from site activities will need to be identified so that appropriate pollution prevention measures are taken to avoid any contamination of surface waters (bodies of water that are above ground, such as rivers, lakes, and streams) coastal waters and groundwater.
There should be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters whether direct or via soakaways during and after the proposed works. Any surface water drains will lead directly to a watercourse and as such no liquid other than clean surface water (for example roof run-off) should be allowed to discharge to a surface water drain.
The risk of pollution at construction and demolition sites can be significantly reduced by providing secondary containment measures for storage tanks. Oil tanks must comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution (England) (Oil Storage) Regulations 2001.”
The finalised comments of the Highway Authority are awaited but have given interim comments as follows:-
“It does not appear that too much has changed since the previous applications. There are a reduced number of dwellings/number of parking spaces and the access is as previously agreed (with the exception of reduced sight lines. However, the Safety Audit is now over 3 years old which, coupled with the change to the extent of the visibility splay, requires a new Road Safety Audit be undertaken. I would recommend the applicant's consultant contacts the original auditor to undertake an update.
I note, the internal roads are not proposed for adoption, therefore the internal layout does not required auditing. In addition, there are proposals to close the level crossing and am waiting on information regarding this. Although, unlikely to be detrimental to the application, some tweaks may be needed to incorporated. Given our previous responses, it is unlikely an objection will be raised, however we do need to ensure that the Road Safety Audits are to standard.”
Previously, in relation to a similar application in 2010 (WB/10/0044/OUT) it is noted that the Highway Authority raised no objections subject to the imposition of several conditions to secure compliance with the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and provision of road markings adjacent to the level crossing; provision of satisfactory sight lines, closure of any existing access points, provision of the parking (including cycle parking), provision of a Travel Plan, satisfactory surface water drainage, and control of construction traffic, material storage and wheel cleaning. The applicant was asked to be mindful of the proposed closure of the level crossing and consequent replacement of the existing footbridge and design accordingly and advised that road junction works will require a S278 Agreement. Access works should be completed prior to any occupation taking place. A Section 59 Agreement and Routing Agreement should also be provided and agreed prior to works commencing.
The County Archaeologist’s comments that he has read the (submitted archaeological) report and consider that this completely discharges the condition relating to archaeological monitoring and no further action is necessary in this respect on the developer's part.
Previously he had commented that:-
"The application site lies within an area of the West Sussex Coastal Plain that is rich in buried archaeological remains, particularly of the of the later prehistoric and Roman periods...the possibility that such remains may exist on a site of this size should be anticipated...it would be prudent to secure investigation prior to the start of development to ensure compliance with policy CH7.
Although the large scale historic Ordnance Survey maps (25 inch to one mile scale) from 1875 to the early 1930s show that the application site was used as a railway goods yard to Goring Station the degree of disturbance to the ground caused by this and subsequent uses may be relatively minor. I recommend that a condition should be attached to the consent to provide for an archaeological investigation prior to development using the model negative condition in PPG16 para 30 or Circular 11/95. App A condition 55.”
The County Planning Officer’s comments are awaited but previously supplied the following table summarising the development contributions required.
Summary of Contributions
S106 type Monies Due Education – First £12,695 Education – Middle £14,304 Education – Secondary £19,130 Education - 6th Form No contributions required Libraries No contributions required Waste No contributions required Fire & Rescue £723 No. of Hydrants 1 TAD £47,880
Total Contributions £94,732
Further to the monetary contributions The County Fire Officer advises that the proposed development may need to include the provision of 1 fire hydrant connected to adequate supplies of water for fire fighting.
The Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety comments as follows:-
“Land contamination
With regard to the above site, a Southern Testing report was received on 15th February 2011, which highlighted 'significantly elevated concentration of arsenic, lead and benzo(a)pyrene...within the shallow made ground soils encountered across the site'.
It was therefore advised that the shallow made ground be removed and disposed of appropriately, with a further round of samples being taken to ensure that the contaminated land has been removed.
To date, I have not seen any evidence (such as receipts or documentation) of the soil removal so this and secondary testing will need to be provided before the condition can be removed.
Noise
I broadly accept the conclusions detailed in section 10 (Noise Assessment Study) based on the 2006 assessment, although confirmation that the
freight train numbers etc are the same as 5 years ago would be reassuring. I accept the recommendations based on achieving the WHO Community Guideline values both internally and externally. Therefore the specified glazing, acoustically treated trickle vents/whole house mechanical ventilation and acoustic fencing will all need to be employed as specified to achieve this end.”
UK Power Networks raises no objection.
Southern Water comments as follows:-
“The exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the app lica nt before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Plea se note:
- No development or new tree planting should be located within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewers. - 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.’
Our initial investigations indicate that Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public 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, SO23 9EH (Tel 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk.
The Council’s Building Control officers/technical staff or Environment Agency should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.
The planning application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).
Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system.
Thus, where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the Local Planning Authority should:
- Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SUDS scheme. - Specify a timetable for implementation. - Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.
This should include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following condition is attached to the consent: ‘Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.’”
The South Downs National Park Authority: No objections.
4. REPRESENTATIONS
At the time of writing, representations have been received from Flat 11, Dairy Farm Flats Goring Street, Nos. 1 and 9 Chatsmore House Goring Street, Flat 3 Salisbury House Goring Street, Chatsmore Court Ltd on behalf of 44 residents of Chatsmore Crescent; another local resident of unspecified address and Worthing Astronomical Society raising the following concerns and objections:-
i) Degeneration of highway safety, traffic and parking due to increased traffic flow in congested Goring Street and level crossing area. ii) Goring Street already accommodates solid parking on both sides from commuters due to the railway station; nearby factories and
leisure facilities; school and this would be added to by the new residents. iii) Regeneration of design , appearance and materials and character due to increase in number of 3 to 4 storey buildings in the residential area of predominantly 2 storeys. iv) All external lighting should be pointed downwards and intensity and duration limited to that necessary to prevent light pollution and minimised use of fossil fuels. v) Overall mass and scale constitutes over development as immediate surrounding properties are two storey and maximum height of existing flats is 3 storey and will be overlooked and suffer major loss of amenity. vi) Number of units will cause traffic chaos in Goring St and current road network and proximity of the access to the level crossing makes the scale of development unsatisfactory. vii) Scale of development will mean visible from the National park. viii) Pollution and noise as development will have to use the busy A259. ix) Safety risk to pedestrian as close to school and area has high proportion of elderly. x) Lack of amenities and infrastructure locally to cope with development. xi) Lack of thought for environment. xii) Congestion in Goring Street from existing parking caused by commuters and aggravated from time to time by access needed by railway replacement buses. Access to Chatsmore Court which contains many elderly residents is accordingly constrained, including necessary ambulance access, and the development will add to this. xiii) Noise and disturbance from lorries during construction. xiv) Access should be away from the school. xv) More parking for Goring residents is needed. xvi) No intrinsic objection to this development, but several other improvements to the infrastructure and transport would be essential should this development go ahead. xvii) Concerned about the cumulative impact of other proposed housing developments in West Durrington which will lead to additional traffic, noise, parking, and highway safety issues. xviii) The proposed West Durrington development could lead to substantial flooding problems which will affect the properties proposed at Goods Yard. xix) Increase in already significant traffic volumes in Goring Street, The Strand, Littlehampton Road, Titnore Lane and the immediate locality. This is also likely to significantly worsen with the completion of the proposed garden centre along the Littlehampton Road, which is being trailed as ‘the largest garden centre in West Sussex.
xx) Increase in noise levels together with disturbance during peak hours especially. It is already almost impossible to turn right from The Strand into Goring Street given existing traffic volumes. Perhaps the council should consider making this junction traffic light controlled or constructing a mini roundabout. Indeed perhaps the council could also consider installing speed cameras along the south and north side of Littlehampton Road, from the Southern Water roundabout to Titnore Lane to moderate the often excessive speeds that motor bikes and cars reach on this stretch of road. xxi) Increase in pollution, smells with damage to trees and fauna. xxii) Increase difficulty in parking. Parking in Goring Street is already difficult due to people parking their cars because there is insufficient car parking space at the station. This will push the problem further afield into The Strand and other areas leading to an increased possibility of accidents, particularly amongst young children attempting to cross the road. xxiii) The decision concerning Goods Yare, Goring Street must take account of the broader context in the area. Traffic and road safety has already been impacted by the Tesco Express at the foot of Goring railway bridge where frankly the exit arrangements for vehicles mean it is an accident waiting to happen. The proximity of the Tesco Extra store in West Durrington has also contributed to significant increases in traffic volume, noise and pollution. The proximity of Northbrook College will also add to transport issues. The biggest impact would result from the proposed development in West Durrington, which without improvements to the roads, pedestrian safety and traffic management, would be catastrophic.
5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The main issues raised by this proposal are the principle of residential redevelopment, the impact on living conditions of neighbouring and future occupiers and viability of the neighbouring factory, density, form quality of design and layout and impact on the character of the area, including countryside; pollution and environmental resources including Archaeology, access and parking, and adequacy of development contributions and affordable housing.
As such, the application should be principally assessed against Worthing Local Plan policies, RES7, TR9, and H18, Core Strategy Policies 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,11.12,13 .4, 15, 16 17,18 and 19, South East Plan Policies C2, SP3, CC1, CC2, CC3,CC4, RE3, H1, , H3, H4, H5, T2, T4, NRM1, NRM2, NRM3, NRM10, M1, ASCT1, SCT2, and SCT 5. Government Policy in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, PPS22:
Renewable Energy, PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control, PPG13: Transport and PPG 24: Planning and Noise is also particularly relevant as well as the statutory objectives of the National Park set out in the 1949 Act. The draft National Planning Framework is considered to be a material factor in planning decisions by the Government but has little weight here.
The principle of residential redevelopment
The principle of residential redevelopment was accepted in 2007 (WB/07/0324/OUT) when planning permission was granted for a similar development, albeit for 49 flats with substantial underground car parking, rather than the family house-orientated, surface parking current scheme. This planning permission was renewed in 2010 when the application was re-assessed against the prevailing policy framework (WB/10/0044/OUT) and the scheme found similarly acceptable.
Whilst it is noted that outline permission was refused (WB/89/275) in 1989 to redevelop the site for 22 sheltered one-bedroom flats; 14 x 2-bedroom houses; 5 x one-bedroom flats and 2 x two-bedroom flats and 57 car parking spaces on grounds of unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupiers; need for employment land and visual impact on Goring Gap, this is in effect superseded by the recent planning permissions which reflect up to date planning policy.
Judged in terms of the current policies and, particularly, the Core Strategy which was only adopted in April 2011, loss of former employment land the entailed in the current application continues to be acceptable. Policy 4 of the Core Strategy does not protect sui generis uses such as the previous car sales businesses and coupled with the site’s marginal employment history; limited employment use potential and history of vacancy any loss of employment use here would have minimal impact on the economic strategy for the town.
The principle of residential development also remains acceptable. Over the years Government policy has placed an increasing premium on recycling of brownfield sites in urban areas which are reasonably sustainably located. As previously developed land within the urban area which is located directly outside a railway station and close to school, college and various community facilities, including local shops and Tesco Express, the site scores satisfactorily in these terms. The site is identified in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and would contribute towards the South East Plan and Core Strategy housing targets. The dwelling mix has been specifically rebalanced to meet the Core Strategy’s (supported by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment) requirements in Policy 9 for suburban residential redevelopment infill sites to consist of predominantly family houses, whilst still providing for the
required affordable housing. Indeed, the 11 affordable flats exceed the minimum requirements.
However, whilst the principle may be acceptable, this is a sensitive and constrained site and the acceptability of a particular scheme depends upon its specific circumstances. These are examined below.
Impact on living conditions of neighbouring and future occupiers and viability of neighbouring factory
The previously approved schemes were assessed in relation to the above and found to be satisfactory. Whilst the new proposal is very similar in use, form and layout, apart from the dwelling mix, the proposal is re- appraised accordingly, below.
Close to a factory, railway, rail station and level crossing and road, future occupiers would be exposed to the noise and activity associated with these.
The adjacent clothes factory is substantial in size and long established and operates 6 days a week and into the evenings. Certainly, it generates some noise during the day from it operations, with open windows facing the application site and servicing close by but there is no significant record level of complaints received from existing local residents over its operation, hitherto.
The railway runs the length of the site and the station is just across the road and the level crossing adjoins the site. All these generate noise e.g. from station announcements, train horns, trains themselves, passengers, beeps from level-crossing, noise from road traffic revving/starting engines whilst queuing/waiting for trains to pass. The area is also popular for commuters to “park and ride” close to the station.
Detailed noise studies to assess the impact of the factory and railway and associated activities have been resubmitted and updated and rigorously re-appraised by The Executive Head of Housing, Health and Community Safety. The studies concluded that the current principal sources of ambient noise during the evening at the application site were from the railway and the A259 (500 metres to the north).
In respect of the study’s examination of railway and allied noise, surveys of day time noise and predictions of night time noise were undertaken by the applicants, taking into account sirens from the level crossing and station announcements. Calculations indicate that the site would fall into Noise Exposure Categories A and B as defined by Government guidance in PPG24 (Noise). Category A is the second least sensitive category (D is most where applications should normally be refused). PPG 24 indicates
that for residential sites falling within Category B, “Noise should be taken into account when determining applications and where appropriate conditions imposed to ensure adequate levels of protection against noise”.
The Executive Head of Housing, Health and Community Safety was previously satisfied that the approved outline schemes could be acceptable. This was subject to the provision of suitable acoustic glazing and allied measures, and, the detailed siting of the residential blocks (if necessary, requiring changes to internal layouts and block positioning) to meet the relevant World Health Organisation (WHO) standards of maximum of 30 dB(A) at night in bedrooms required to avoid sleep disturbance and 35 in living rooms during the day. Whilst layout issues were reserved in these outline planning permissions, appropriate safeguarding conditions were duly imposed.
The new application is in full and, although very similar in layout and form to the previous outline illustrative schemes does place block D 5 metres from the railway track and retains a bedroom close to the railway in each of the three affordable flats in block A. Following negotiations and revised noise assessment. The Executive Head of Housing, Health and Community Safety is now satisfied that the latest design refinements set out in the study (including glazing, acoustically treated trickle vents/whole house mechanical ventilation and acoustic fencing) can meet the relevant WHO standards. Details may be reserved by condition.
Turning to factory noise, the resubmitted surveys undertaken by the applicants predicted in a worst case scenario (i.e. with workshop doors open), the closest windows in the proposed development (on the south elevation some 22 metres from the factory building) would be exposed, on the outside, to a noise levels from the factory which met the relevant WHO standards for daytime and night times noise for all rooms and given the directionality of the noise and the greater separation distance of other bedrooms and habitable rooms, noise levels elsewhere in the development would be significantly less. As the new application is very similar in layout to the previously assessed scheme with bedrooms relatively remote from the factory, a similar outcome would result.
Future occupiers would benefit from a reasonable standard of amenity in many other respects with excellent views to the Downs to the north and possibly to the coast from the upper floors. All the houses enjoy rear gardens of between 5 and 10 metres deep but these fall short of the draft overall spaces standards set out in the current draft Supplementary Planning Document. Only six of the 11 flats benefit from private balconies and though all are 3 sq metres or more, these also undershoot the relevant standards. However, the layout also shows extensive soft landscaping and the substantial central public park and companion,
smaller frontage public open space. In addition, the flats are set in enclosed communal soft landscaped surrounds. In view of this, the overall space provision is considered acceptable.
The quality of the living accommodation itself is high with good stacking and ample sized rooms and dwellings which meet the current draft Supplementary Planning Document standards.
Quite apart from the above, is the potential impact of a residential development on the viability of the existing neighbouring factory. This was considered previously, however, given the relatively low levels of disturbance historically associated with the factory and with the careful layout proposed, together with proposed acoustic glazing and allied measures, it was concluded that the development was unlikely to give rise to any legitimate complaints from future occupiers over the operation of the factory. Similar conclusions apply to the current application.
Apart from the dwellings to the east, the development is relatively remote from other residential dwellings and the direct impacts of the buildings on the immediate neighbours is likely to be limited with the large open frontage and the taller blocks set well back from the street. Some loss of views across the countryside to the Downs by some residents to the south and east would occur but the layout allows for significant views between the blocks and the existing factory already compromise views.
Pollution and environmental resources including archaeology
The applicants have re-submitted the previous land contamination report and undertaken some further investigations. With provisos, these were considered generally satisfactory at that time and subject to suitable conditions and informatives, no objections are raised by the Environment Agency and The Executive Head of Housing, Health and Community Safety over the risk of pollution to the current application. Sustainable drainage may also be secured by condition.
The applicants have committed to achieve Level 3 of the Code For Sustainable Homes. Whilst Level 4 is now more commonly sought as a suitably challenging standard, the applicants willingness to meet at least 10% of energy demands by on site micro renewal energy regeneration in line with the South East Plan is welcomed and provides acceptable mitigation.
External lighting to prevent light pollution may be addressed by condition.
The retention of the existing trees is welcome but additional planting will be necessary to screen the railway. A commitment to nature conservation
and enhancement will also be required. However, these may also be dealt with by conditions.
The site has known archaeological potential but the details of recent trials submitted in relation to the archaeological protection condition imposed on the previous planning permissions Highway Authority satisfied the County Archaeologist that the site has low to nil potential.
Density, form and quality of design and layout and impact on the character of the area and countryside/Goring Gap
The density is at 51 dwelling per hectare significantly less than the previously approved scheme of 86 dph. However, this still makes efficient use of the land and meets minimum standard advocated in the South East Plan. Certainly, it is appropriate given the change in dwelling mix and the character of the area and accessibility of the site, bearing in mind the proximity of Goring station, the 3 storey height of nearby flats and massing of adjacent factory, the urban design concept adopted and generous landscaping achieved. Measured in terms of site coverage and habitable rooms per hectare, it is comparable with the approved scheme.
The new scheme is very similar to that illustrated in the outline planning permission. It, likewise, responds well to the site constraints. It provides landscaped buffers between the residential blocks and the railway to the north and factory to the south and presents its most dramatic and interesting elevations to the north where it would be seen from the railway and, perhaps more importantly, at a distance from the A259. The feature four storey tower with its angled and oversailing roof, shaped balconies and curved column is the critical and most prominent element in this composition. To this extent, the tower and development as a whole, would serve as a gateway feature to the borough, signalling the town’s emerging commitment to modernity and rejuvenation. The elevation to the street with the landscaped frontage and curved access road allows interesting and changing views from the station and Goring Street of the feature tower and, likewise, establishes the scheme’s identity. At the same time, the front block harmonises with the scale of the buildings in the immediate vicinity and creates an active street frontage.
The massing layout and illustrative layout of the scheme, coupled with the generous landscaped surround create a pleasing and considered composition which has integrity, legibility and purpose. The four blocks create a cohesive but differentiated family with the scale and richness of form evolving in a logical and pleasing manner across the site. This starts with the three storey front block serving as a “gatehouse” and setting the architectural tone and ascends to the more flamboyant feature, four storey tower. The third block steps down in scale to three storeys and is less dramatic but is complementary. The end block provides a visual stop that
completes and balances the composition and the bookends of the blocks enclose and define the central park. The landscaping is sensitively and successfully integrated into the scheme through landscaped forecourts, curtilages and buffer screening and the central park is a fitting and attractive focus of the development. Supplementary boundary planting will however be necessary,
The architectural style is intentionally modern, urban and distinctive and lends the development a clear identity and sense of place. This is an appropriate approach here because of the lack of any positive local vernacular style and the blandness and mediocrity of the surrounding development and function of the site in townscape terms. Moreover, the site has been vacant for some time and marrs the streetscene. The scheme’s contemporary architectural style is less dramatic than the previously approved flatted scheme but remains of a high quality, using a cohesive palate of features and materials. In this regard, its massing is well articulated and the roofline is interesting and varied - critical for important views from the north and the elevations are all animated. A previous proposal for public art sculpture in the frontage pubic open space is not shown but would enhance the scheme quality and may be secured by condition.
The development would help define the urban edge of the town and would not detract from the prime function of the adjacent Goring Gap as a buffer between settlements or the quality of the countryside. The National Park boundary lies over 500 metres to the north of the site, across flat, largely open farmland. However, no discernible harm to the setting of the National Park should occur given this distance, presence of some tree screening and required supplementary planting, presence of three storey buildings nearby and quality of the design.
Access and parking
The site is in an accessible and generally sustainable location adjacent to a railway station and close to other facilities and has an existing vehicular access abutting the level crossing.
Traffic generation is not expected to be excessive, especially against the background of its former car sales uses.
Overall, the access arrangements are very similar to the previously approved scheme and the Highway Authority lends its interim support. Subject to the finalised comments of the Highway Authority on the requested updated Road Safety Audit and re-assessment of the impact on the level crossing, the current application appears to be similarly satisfactory and should not pose a hazard for the level crossing, school, factory or nearby residents.
The new vehicular access is sited centrally to achieve optimum distance between the factory and school entrances to the south and level crossing to the north, given the constraints. It is just to the south of that shown in the approved schemes (WB/07/0324/OUT and WB/10/0044/OUT) to meet the requirements of the updated Stage 1 Safety Audit Designer’s Response and so allows for two cars to queue outside of the level crossing “cage”. Other requirements of the Designer’s Response have also been incorporated. This includes provision of an extension to the footway north of the school access; bellmouth design junction and updated sightlines to take account of Manual For Streets.
The closure of the level crossing is expected at some time in the future creating a cul de sac. The applicants report that the design of the new vehicular access allows for vehicles to turn at this point if required.
The 47 car parking spaces are considered adequate for the 29 dwellings proposed, bearing in mind the dwelling mix, tenure and location, wit two car spaces for each of the town houses. Overspill parking onto the surrounding road network should therefore not arise.
The design of the internal access road and allied parking, circulation space and pedestrian routes will require careful consideration to achieve a good quality of environment which reinforces the sense of place, as well as meets functional access and safety requirements. The approach set out in the Government’s Manual for Streets of integral and informal traffic calming and pedestrian priority with generous landscaping should be pursued and may be controlled by condition. Cycle parking and car parking for the disabled is provided for but details need to be controlled by condition.
Adequacy of development contributions and affordable housing
The scale of the development will attract the need for development contributions to mitigate the additional pressure placed on local infrastructure as a result of the development. Likewise, the proposal is required to secure the 11 on-site affordable dwellings. Previously, contributions towards outdoor recreation, education, fire hydrants and transport were required. The Policy Manager has indicated a sum of £50,717 is required towards outdoor recreation facilities but details of the other revised sums are awaited and the Committee will be updated.
The developers have indicated their willingness in principle to meet these development contributions and secure these in a new legal agreement. They have also indicated their willingness to provide the affordable housing units proposed through the same mechanism, most likely using Worthing Homes.
6. CONCLUSION
The principle of residential development on this site is established by the previous planning permission of 2007 and subsequent renewal in 2010. The current proposal is very similar in form, layout and design and has been preceded by extensive pre-application negotiations. The site is now vacant but the loss of the former car sales businesses is acceptable in relation to the Core Strategy and limited employment history and potential. The scheme would contribute significantly to meeting housing requirements and need in the town through the provision of family houses with gardens and affordable flats. It achieves an appropriate density in this generally sustainable location.
It is a constrained site but the scheme has been carefully designed to avoid exposing future occupiers to unacceptable disturbance from the adjacent railway and factory and to prejudice the future operation of the factory. Potential pollution issues are addressed. The scheme design is of a high standard and will contribute positively to the character of the area and town and not significantly detract from the surrounding countryside. Subject to the finalised comments of West Sussex County Council, access and parking are satisfactory. There is a commitment by the developer to provide the required development contributions and the affordable housing.
Subject to the above finalised comments and the recommended conditions and receipt of legal agreement to secure the required development contributions and affordable housing, the proposal should be supported.
7. RECOMMENDATION
SUBJECT TO THE FINALISED COMMENTS OF THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, THE DECISION, IN THIS CASE, BE DELEGATED TO THE EXECUTIVE HEAD OF PLANNING, REGENERATION AND WELLBEING TO AWAIT THE COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT TO SECURE THE REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH A VIEW TO PLANNING PERMISSION BEING GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:-
1. Implement within 5 years of planning permission. 2. Implement in accordance with approved plans and other conditions. 3. Agree and provide a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise from the adjacent railway (including station and level crossing), road (Goring Street) and industrial premises.
4. Agree and provide a scheme for communal aerial for each block of flats. 5. Provide facilities for refuse storage, domestic waste recycling and composting before occupation. 6. Agree and provide Travel Plan. 7. Provide amenity space shown on the submitted plans. 8. Investigate and verify land contamination and remediate as required by Environment Agency 9. Prevent pollution of groundwater from surface water drainage as required by Environment Agency. 10. Agree details of the access onto Goring Street and all highway circulation, parking and turning space and implement. 11. Build dwellings to Code For Sustainable Homes Level 3 and provide on site micro generation of renewable energy. 12. Provide cycle and vehicular parking facilities and retain. 13. Stop up existing access. 14. Agree and implement arrangements during construction for parking, and loading/unloading of associated vehicles and stationing of temporary contractor's buildings, plant and stacks of materials associated with the development. 15. Agree and implement a scheme for the suppression of dust during demolition and construction. 16. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. On all other days such work shall only be implemented between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. inclusive. 17. Agree and provide scheme for surface water drainage, incorporating suitable sustainable drainage measures, and means of disposal and foul drainage and means of disposal. 18. Implement the recommendations set out in the approved Designer’s Response to the submitted Stage 1 Safety Audit. 19. Agree and provide display of public art on front park. 20. Agree architectural details including balcony details and facing materials. 21. Agree and provide scheme for landscaping and boundary treatment and nature conservation. 22. Agree and provide scheme for external lighting. 23. Agree and provide obscure glazing to specified windows.
AND THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE LEGAL AGREEMENT NOT BEING SATISFACTORILY CONCLUDED WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD , THAT AUTHORITY BE DELEGATED TO THE EXECUTIVE HEAD OF PLANNING, REGENERATION AND WELLBEING TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS.
8. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Observations of the Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety Letters of Representation from Members of the Public Observations of the Environment Agency Observations of the Planning Policy Manager Observations of Network Rail Observations of Highway Authority Observations of the County Archaeologist Observations of UK Power Networks Observations of Southern Water Observ a tions o f the N ational Park Authority
23rd November 2011
3
Jon Andrews AWDM/0243/11 Dr Nicholas McCarthy TAR MAPO
Location : 1 Highdown Avenue
Proposal: Conversion of doctor’s surgery into 1 No. 2-bedroom and 1 No. 3- bedroom maisonettes utilising existing access with 4 parking spaces on site.
Not to Scale
Reproduced from OS mapping with the permission of HMSO (c) Crown Copyright Licence No LA100024321
1. THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE
The application site is a corner plot comprising an end of terrace Edwardian building on the west side of Rectory Road. The building fronts Rectory Road with a car park at the rear accessed from Highdown Avenue. The ground floor of the building has been in use as a doctor’s
surgery since 1969, with the first floor used as ancillary accommodation in connection with the surgery permitted in 1987.
The surrounding area is residential in character, with two-storey Edwardian houses. Many are faced brick with pebbledash upper floors. Although there are flats nearby in Rectory Road the housing type is predominantly single family homes. The Thomas A’Becket local shopping parade and Public House are nearby.
The proposal is to convert the existing doctor’s surgery into two residential maisonettes (one two-bedroom and one three-bedroom).
The front flat would be a 3-bedroom maisonette with its third bedroom accommodated within the gabled roof space. The rear flat would be a 2- bedroom maisonette with the second bedroom at ground floor off the main living space.
Amended Plan
As originally submitted, the car park to the rear of the building was not included within the application site, and the new flats were to share a parking space accessed by a new opening in the boundary wall.
Amended plans show the car park area is now included and each flat would be provided with 2 car parking spaces. These utilise the existing car park access. Both maisonettes are now to be provided its own private garden with individual access from Highdown Avenue.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
An earlier application to develop the surgery’s car park for a three-storey block of flats was refused and dismissed at appeal (WB/10/0110/OUT).
In his dismissal, the Inspector concluded the proposal did not balance the supply and demand for car parking arising from the development, unacceptably affected the living conditions of neighbours, and did not achieve high quality housing due to the little amenity space for future occupants.
3. APPLICANT’S DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT (SUMMARISED).
“Use Conversion of existing doctors surgery into two self contained maisonettes with associated parking spaces.
Amount Proposals provide two bedroom ground/first floor maisonette of approximately 87.0 sq.m of gross internal floor area and ground/first/second floor maisonette of approx. 108 sq.m of gross internal floor area together with two car parking spaces.
Layout Involve staggered vertical split dividing existing property into front and rear dwellings. However due to corner location of property, both dwellings have street frontage and clearly visible street entrances. Once inside dwellings will have traditional internal central hallway with stairs rising to upper floors. Each habitable room will have natural light and ventilation with open outlook onto street scene. Only rooms without windows are two internal bathrooms which will have artificial lighting and ventilation. In addition to external garden areas rear maisonette will have access to existing first floor large balcony directly off the living room.
Scale Proposals all internal and will have no impact upon the scale of building
Landscaping & Appearance External areas, partially currently gardens retained as amenity space for maisonettes. Two immediately accessible parking spaces provided with surface of porous block paving. Existing boundary wall adjacent to parking spaces open and terminated with brick piers to match existing wall. Only minor elevational changes, around entrance to rear flat proposed.
Context Existing medical practice which presently occupies site is in process of merging with nearby St. Lawrence surgery and building will become vacant. All surrounding properties have residential use including houses, purpose built flats and converted flats. Present use as surgery has significant impact and demand upon on-street parking and proposed use will significantly enhance environment for nearby occupiers. Proposals make good use of existing built environment and raises no new issues in respect of overlooking, overshadowing or overdevelopment.
Access Site stands in highly sustainable location short walk from all facilities and local transport services. Internally, upper floors are served by existing and new stairs suitable for use by ambulant disabled.”
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED
“Clear from Dr. McCarthy’s experience and knowledge of health care system led him to conclude existing building not viable and, consequently, building not marketed as such.
Conversion subject to requirements of Building Regulations Approved Document L which require existing fabric of building upgraded to equivalent of Level 3 of Code for Sustainable Homes and comply with CS Policy 17.
Note observations in respect of room ‘stacking’ clear that rooms forming upper maisonette already in existence and within control of occupants. Building Regulations require sound insulation be provided in floor of maisonette. Existing balcony will provide attractive amenity space for occupants and not create overlooking.
I (Dr. McCarthy) am approaching retirement. I would wish to dispose of premises in as advantageous a manner as possible. Ideally, would be disposed of as going concern. No advertising undertaken because only use for these premises (apart from residential) would be doctors’ surgery. It is now impracticable for any doctors to take an interest in the premises. It is pertinent to point out that I am a senior member of the Local Medical Committee and an advisor to the Primary Care Trust (NHS West Sussex). I am therefore in a position to be fully aware of the situation regarding health care strategy in the area.
Building brought into use as single-handed doctor’s surgery in l970s. Up until late I980s upper part has been residential flat. At time, health service encouraged use of dwelling conversion for doctors’ surgeries. Over last 10 years or so move away from the smaller practice, to units of at least four doctors and often up to seven or eight. This is because expansion of general practice has encouraged services such as outreach consultant clinics, minor surgery and additional treatment services which were traditionally provided by hospital. Do not have facilities to provide these here.
When took practice over in 1986 list size was 3500 patients. It is now 2500, and continues to fall. Realistically, this type of small practice is no longer viable.
As part of integrated strategy and after consultation with, and agreement of, Primary Care Trust, have made arrangements for remaining partner in practice (Dr Crutchley) to enter into partnership with doctors at St Lawrence surgery, which as you are aware is approximately 500 metres to south of these premises. This is evidenced by:
I) St Lawrence surgery has undergone additional expansion (planning WB/09/0623).
2) A formal partnership agreement has been drawn up (with significant legal fees) for Dr Crutchley to join St Lawrence partnership where he will provide services for those patients now registered at Highdown surgery, ensuring continuity of care in more suitable premises.
3) Lloyd’s pharmacy which originally served this practice from 100 metres to north now relocated to within premises of St Lawrence surgery.
Please note these arrangements have not yet been made public because quite understandably many patients, particularly elderly patients in Worthing, who come to rely upon their doctor and who find change very disturbing. Any period of uncertainty adds to this anxiety and we wish to have all arrangements in place so as to plan a smooth transition for the patients with the minimum of disruption to services
Regarding the possibility of other community use there does of course remain the theoretical possibility for use as a dental surgery or other related healthcare professionals such as physiotherapists. As you may imagine, I have carefully considered these and made informal enquiries to potential interested parties. This has elicited no interest whatsoever, and I am sure that this is because of the move away from converted residential premises to purpose-built professional premises. No advertising as such has been undertaken because advertising would not likely reach parties other than those already approved and because of patient considerations.
With this in mind, suggest current community use of these premises is indeed no longer viable. Respectfully point out that already degree of uncertainty in the minds of our patients.”
4. CONSULTATIONS
The Highway Authority comment as follows:-
“Consulted previously under planning application no. WB/823/09. Highway objection raised due to absence of parking strategy, as proposal had potential to leave doctor’s surgery with no parking. Further application submitted for 2 no. 1 bed flats and 2 no. 2 bed maisonettes and this refused for similar reasons. Subsequent appeal dismissed.
This proposal considered by means of desktop study, using information and plans submitted, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information.
Most recently available verified accident records reveal no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of point of access.
As this proposal is to convert the doctor’s surgery instead of car park, the previous reasons for refusal do not apply. Will remove one on-street parking space from Highdown Avenue. However, resultant access arrangement is no worse than other situations that exist along unclassified Highdown Avenue. Existing front boundary wall is splayed back to provide pedestrian visibility at proposed new crossover.
It does appear intention is to allocate parking spaces. Under WSCC parking demand calculator, it should be noted if spaces are to be allocated then development of this scale should provide adequate visitor space. Otherwise, this proposal is difficult to resist from highway point of view. A minimum of one cycle parking space for each maisonette should be provided and these spaces should be secure and covered. If LPA minded to approve this application, a condition securing cycle parking should be included.”
The Planning Policy Manager comments as follows:-
“Loss of community use Policy 11 in Core Strategy wants to protect loss of community uses. Surgery is relocating to an existing surgery. Surgery needs to elaborate on their statement the surgery is merging with St Lawrence surgery. Statement does not address that there is no loss of the existing community use and that replacement facility is in an adequate alternative location as accessible to local community in line with policy.
Housing Adding 2 housing units to housing supply supported from policy point of view.
Design, Outside Space and Parking Detailed design and parking issues need to be addressed at Development Management level. For parking WSCC need to be contacted for advice.
Conclusion Clarification on the loss of community use needs to be sought.”
The Planning Policy Manager comments further following re- consultation:-
“Thank you for forwarding additional evidence provided by Dr N McCarthy, his letter dated 26 September. This deals with our request for clarification with regards to the loss of community use and the replacement facility. Having read the additional evidence we have no objection to this planning application from a strategic planning policy point of view.”
The Borough Engineer comments that:-
“As roof area will not change no comments to raise regarding roof water disposal, however, would like to see a formal design with named materials / products for the Concrete Block Permeable Paving.
In absence of any formal drainage details relating to paving in support of application, request that should approval for this conversion be granted it be conditional such that ‘no development approved by this permission shall commence until full details for the disposal of surface water via the permeable paving has been approved by the Planning Authority.”
The Borough Arboriculturist comments as follows:-
“Comments are as per previous application with regard to trees at rear except bay tree has now been topped. Of trees in front garden and along side there are a Laburnum, holly and sycamore which could be protected; the rest are too close to and damaging the old flint retaining wall. Would recommend landscape scheme at earliest opportunity so we agree removal and replanting because of its prominence located on a corner.”
He previous commented that:-
“Cherry tree has significant areas of decay at crown break makes it unsuitable for protection. Bay tree has three good stems and is significant large tree feature however the wall close by is being slightly disrupted by the tree and reservations about protecting this species which tends to be of shrubby rather than tree form.”
The Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety asks for a pre-cautionary contamination condition to be imposed.
5. REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection have been received from Nos. 1, 3, and 18 Northfield Road, Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 29 Highdown Avenue and No. 114 Rectory Road, raising following concerns (summarised):-
i) Callous and blatant attempt to cash in with no regard for local community who provided his patients (and therefore income) for decades. When GP Surgery Practice Manager showed plans she’d been lied to. Timing of application chosen when objectors on holiday. Why no notifications placed in public view? Request extension of time for comments. ii) Well-tried developer’s ploy creating false ‘necessity’ to building two more parking spaces when ample off-road parking exists. Off street parking for 2 cars inadequate for size of flats. Could add additional 5 cars. Drop kerb effectively only provides parking for 1 car. Parking already restricted. Already heavily congested. Many times during peak times and overnight would be unable to park anywhere near our house. There are double yellow lines. Dismayed conversion did not include parking to rear; leaves area as wasteland. Planning already refused and vehemently opposed. iii) Unnecessary demolition and despoiling destruction of attractive (100 years old) flint/brick wall for quick buck. Will change street scene. iv) New entrance too close to junction with Rectory Road, adds to existing hazard. Poor visibility. Very busy area during school runs and rush-hour times. Used as cut through by motorists. When WSCC installed Thomas A’Becket traffic light sequence exacerbated traffic rat run. Frequently witness impatient speeding motorists taking risks. Several accidents and from personal experience many near misses. v) Parking outside bedroom window cannot be very pleasant for occupants. Provides very little outdoor space for flats and will not be pleasant for occupiers. Cannot be good for wellbeing. Drying washing and outdoor activities carried on in small front garden. Seen properties in Goring where impossible to have a wardrobe and clothes hang in hallway. Puzzles me why planning will allow properties to be divided in such a way.
The Becket Residents’ Association objection raises the following points (summarised):-
i) Surgery already subject to two failed planning applications. Present application should be considered in context. ii) Application received on 8th June but not valid until 14th July, Neighbour consultation expiry dated 5th August. No site notices posted. iii) No objection to internal conversion of surgery to flats. iv) Limited off-road car parking in proposal. Two off-road parking spaces plus access equals a net gain of one parking space. Would result in requirement for three net new parking spaces. When taken in conjunction with implied closure of existing
surgery car park, effect is net reduction in parking spaces of six or seven. v) Stands on Rectory Road/Highdown Avenue junction that local residents know to be dangerous due to parked cars, restricted sightlines and use of Highdown Avenue as rat-run. Object to new off-road parking so close to junction. vi) Destruction of flint wall degrades appearance of street. vii) Amenity of potential occupants appears substantially compromised. New off street parking immediately next to bedroom. Amenity space consists of small lawns on frontage. At most one small L-shaped private area. viii) Creation of a small, orphaned plot to the west of the surgery. Quite clear this proposal forms only part one of a two-part development that has simply been decoupled form the two previous rejected applications. Second application will be made to development the now derelict and useless ex-car park. Very difficult to devise an acceptable development of this area which is similar in width to adjacent houses but half its depth. ix) Area best served by having current car park revert to amenity space when surgery closes to be converted into maisonettes
Responses received following re-consultation (summarised):-
Occupiers of Nos. 5 and 6 Highdown Avenue:
i) Remain neutral provided commitment to existing access and four parking spaces is condition of grant. Can this be stipulated? ii) So relieved with change of plan re car parking. Now won’t loose any existing off-road space. Hopefully a permanent arrangement? iii) Saddens me to see substantial family house divided into two. However hasn’t been used as residential for many years. iv) Sensible way to divide property - both maisonettes having ground and first floors and 2 separate front doors. v) Pleased with outcome and thank planning officer for listening and taking our concerns into consideration.
The Becket Residents’ Association comment further that:-
i) Register our support on behalf of members. ii) Significant alterations to original application, including conversion of existing surgery car park to four off-street parking spaces for residents of proposed maisonettes. iii) In the main, members welcome changes to application, which particularly address the points raised in our earlier letter of
objection dated 29/07/11 regarding overdevelopment and creation of a vacant lot on the car park. iv) Would welcome covenant or condition preventing any future build on the car park. v) Recognise owners have scaled back their original plans significantly, and thank them for finally taking wishes of community into account.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The most relevant planning issues raised by this application are:-
i) Principle of the development including loss of a community facility and introduction of residential use; ii) its effect on the character and appearance of the area; iii) its effect on neighbours and living conditions of future occupiers; iv) parking and highway safety; and v) trees and other environmental considerations.
As such the proposal should be mainly considered against Worthing Core Strategy Policies 7, 8, 9, 13, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 19, saved Worthing Local Plan Policies RES7, TR9, and H18 and most relevant South East Plan Policies SP3, SP4, CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC6, H1, H2, H4, H5, H6, T4, NRM10, NRM11, W2, W6, BE1, BE2, BE3, S1, S2, S6, SCT1 and SCT5.
Government guidance is also relevant in the form of Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development and Climate Change Supplement; Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing and PPG13: Transport and PPG24.
Also, the Local Planning Authority is in the process of adopting a Supplementary Planning Document relating to Space Standards in new residential development, but, since the consultation response to this is unknown at the time of writing, its draft status remains of limited material weight.
Finally, the draft National Planning Policy Framework is a material planning consideration, but its draft status ensures the present Development Plan carries the greater weight in the determination of this proposal.
Principle
Worthing Core Strategy Policy 11 Protecting and Enhancing Recreation and Community Uses states:-
Development will not be permitted which would lead to the loss of, or prejudice the use of, premises used for community purposes unless:-
• the premises or their location are unsuitable for such uses; • adequate alternative accommodation is available locally that is as accessible and at least equivalent in terms of quality; • replacement facilities are proposed; or • it has been demonstrated that there is no need for the existing use and that potential to deliver an alternative community use where there is an identified need has been explored.
Highdown Surgery is a small practice with two doctors, one of which is to retire. The remaining partner will join the nearby St. Lawrence Surgery where he will provide services for those patients now registered at Highdown Surgery. This surgery has been recently expanded to offer specialised services that Highdown Surgery cannot as it does not have the facilities for these health care initiatives. Given the restricted internal layout and limited size of Highdown Surgery, it is unlikely such initiatives could be provided to an equivalent standard of care through the building’s refurbishment. St. Lawrence Surgery is some 594 metres south of Highdown Surgery along an easily accessible wide main road, which is relatively level along its length and well served by bus stops. It also has a reasonably well sized car park.
With this evidence, the applicant has demonstrated adequate alternative accommodation is available locally that is as accessible and at least equivalent in terms of quality. So the requirement of Core Strategy Policy 11 is met. Additional marketing to canvas the interest of other community bodies in occupying the premises is therefore unnecessary.
There may be merit to keeping this building’s use as non-residential (for instance an office) due to its attached car park. However commercial units within the nearby Thomas A’Beckett shopping parade are vacant. It is important for the vitality of that parade that commercial uses locate there rather than other sites. Moreover the character of surrounding streets is residential, so the suggested use of this building would be in keeping.
Moreover the size and layout of the two new maisonettes allows for their use as family accommodation. So the proposal would bring forward two new starter family homes – a type of housing of which the town has a recognised shortfall. This would comply with Core Strategy Policies 7 and 8.
Future Occupiers
The proposal does not fully meet some of the emerging standards of the draft SPD on Space Standards. This is unfortunate but reflects the inherent difficulties of converting a period property with a former commercial use.
Overall, the 2 new maisonettes would offer future occupiers reasonably sized internal spaces in a logical layout that would provide satisfactory living conditions. For instance, the size of the living space indicates areas for general storage. Each new maisonette has a dual aspect with the sensitive bedrooms away from the highway. Each has its own private outdoor space in the form of a “cottage” garden. Noise transfer between the new maisonettes would not be overly intrusive due to their layouts, individual entrances, and parking space allocation.
Neighbours
The residents principally affected by this development are the attached house to the south (No. 97 Rectory Road). The other neighbours surrounding the site are further away (Nos. 3/3A to the rear) or on the opposite side of the roads (Nos. 2/2A to the north and 114 and 116 to the east).
Removal of the rear balcony would benefit the attached property by reducing overlooking. Any remaining views from the new flat occupiers onto this neighbour would be oblique and largely screened by existing boundary treatment.
Transfer of noise between the party wall of the new maisonettes and the attached neighbour is a relevant concern but the maisonette layouts ensure the quieter bedrooms and bathrooms occupy the first floor and above. Adequate control exists under Building Regulations in relation to sound insulation.
Domestic occupation of the building would be less intrusive than its present use because comings and goings would be reduced.
Visual
External changes to the building and its land are modest. The existing rear balcony is to be removed and the first floor rear bay reinstated, which would improve the back face of the building. The now incongruous gabled front entrance to the surgery would be replaced with a three- panel timber window and door. The windows to be blocked up are minor ones, and the cycle stores are domestic in their design.
The existing boundary wall and vehicular access is to be left intact. New pedestrian gates are to be secured onto it which led up garden paths to the individual entrances of the new maisonettes.
The materials and finishes of the cycle stores, the new doors, windows, and gates can all be secured by condition. A discreet parapet wall to the flat roof extension would finish off the back face of the building to a high standard and this can be secured by condition also.
Parking and highway safety
Local residents are concerned over the potential exacerbation of on- street parking as a result of the proposal. To reflect their concerns the provision of parking has been amended by negotiation with the applicant.
Now the existing surgery car park will be used as parking for the new flats. Each flat would be provided with 2 spaces each (one for the occupiers, one for their visitors). The West Sussex Parking Demand Calculator indicates that with this provision, there is a slight shortfall of some 0.64 of a parking space.
On-street parking is heavy and there is limited capacity for the street to accommodate additional vehicles. However closure of the surgery would free up some pressure on parking in the street as no patient vehicles would overspill onto the street. So the marginal parking shortfall of the new flats is unlikely to materially impinge upon parking congestion in the street to an extent that is detrimental to highway safety or to the convenience of local residents. Also each flat would be provided with its own cycle store to accommodate one bike.
It is not feasible to impose a covenant through this application process as asked for by the nearby Resident’s Association. However a planning condition will be imposed ensuring the parking spaces and turning space is retained at all times, with their respective allocations.
Using the existing car park allows vehicles to turn and manoeuvre on the site so these can enter and exit the highway in first gear. Safety of the highway would be unchanged as this is the present circumstance in which patients now arrive at and depart from the surgery. Indeed the number of traffic movements is likely to be significantly reduced with a residential use compared to a surgery with patient vehicles no longer parked on the street to obscure road user visibility.
Trees and other environmental considerations
Established trees exist along the road frontages of the site, forming a pleasant feature in the street. The Council’s Arboriculturist states a Laburnum, Holly, Sycamore, and Bay are all good specimens. Some thinning of these would likely occur to give future occupiers better enjoyment of their gardens. But those occupiers are going to want privacy, so this would moderate the extent of works. The rest of the trees are undermining the boundary wall.
Imposing a condition offers an opportunity to safeguard the boundary wall by securing appropriate replanting of those problem trees/shrubs, and to control the extent of works to the good specimens so their value is not lost.
The plans indicate outdoor drying, composters, rainwater butts, and vegetable patches will all be provided. A condition requiring details of other sustainable design measures (in particular encouraging low water usage) can be imposed to ensure full compliance with Core Strategy Policy 17.
The existing tarmac car park would be taken up and a sustainable drainage system installed. Subject to agreement of its details as requested by the Borough Engineers, this would mean surface water does not run off into the street and thereby reduces flood risk. So compliance with Core Strategy Policy 15 is ensured.
The site is not identified as at risk from contamination so the applicant would be sufficiently aware of the risk by way of an informative rather than condition.
7. CONCLUSION
It has been demonstrated the loss of the surgery would not diminish services provided to the local community.
For the reasons set out in the paragraphs above, the proposal would not unacceptably impact upon identified amenities, and for this reason the granting of permission should not be withheld.
8. RECOMMENDATION
Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1. Standard 5 yr time limit. 2. Plans as approved. 3. No development, including demolition, until Construction Method Statement submitted and agreed. 4. No work undertaken on Sundays or on Public Holidays. On all other days only implemented between 8am and 6pm. 5. External materials and finishes of blocked up windows to match existing. 6. Details of materials/finishes of new doors and fenestration (to be timber) to be agreed with 1:20 drawings. 7. Soft/hard landscaping scheme be agreed including tree survey/report identifying retention of/works to Laburnum, Holly, Sycamore, and Bay and measures for their protection during construction and replacement planting of remaining trees identified as undermining boundary wall. 8. No occupation of rear flat until roof balcony structure and front entrance gable of north elevation removed and new bay and parapet wall built out. 9. No occupation of front flat until first and ground floor windows facing west blocked up. 10. No occupation of flats until cycle stores details (including materials/finishes) agreed and provided out on site and retained thereafter. 11. No occupation of flats until parking spaces and turning space provided on site with respective allocations and retained thereafter. 12. No occupation of flats until refuse and recycling facilities provided on site with respective allocations and retained thereafter. 13. No occupation of flats until details of boundary treatment (including front entrance gates) agreed and installed on site and retained thereafter. 14. No occupation of flats until details of lighting of communal parking and individual front entrances. Otherwise no external lighting unless agreed. 15. Details of sustainable design measures in addition to those shown on the plan be agreed and provided prior to occupation of flats. 16. First floor en-suite window of rear flat be obscure glazed at all times.
9. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Precautionary contamination Wildlife and Countryside Act, Protection of Birds and Bats Observations of the Highway Authority
Observations of the Planning Policy Manager Observations of the Borough Engineer Observations of the Borough Arboriculturist Letters of representation from Members of the Public
23rd November 2011
4
DMH Stallard AWDM/0509/11 & AWDM/0510/11 Mr Adrian Marmont HEENE MAOK Location : Mayfair Hotel, 11-12 Heene Terrace
Proposal: Restoration and alteration to the former Mayfair Hotel to form 11 residential apartments (Applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent.)
Not to Scale
Reproduced from OS mapping with the permission of HMSO (c) Crown Copyright Licence No LA100024321
1. THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE
The Mayfair Hotel, Nos. 11 and 12 Heene Terrace, is located on the Seafront within the Marine Parade and Hinterland conservation area and faces directly onto Heene Gardens. Marine Parade is to the front and South. The whole terrace and many of the surrounding properties are Grade 11 listed. Arranged over five floors, including basement, these properties were originally built as houses. Currently vacant the site last
traded as a hostel for 10 years up until 2007 and prior to that as a Hotel for nearly 90 years.
Heene Terrace is a long run of prominent Victorian houses finished with a combination of mansard roof and dormered third floors with full brick third floors to the middle and end sections. The second floors are buff coloured facing brick with lead canopy roof set below. From the first floor down is stucco render. Stucco render, corbels and mouldings embellish the frontage throughout. The cast iron balconies are ornate and supported in part by entablatures spanning across the entrance doorways. The chimneys would have been a prominent feature but diminished over the years through partial removal and poor repair. A number of the buildings have had additional apartments added within the roof space thus creating a fourth floor.
All the houses in Heene Terrace have been converted into flats. The Mayfair Hotel, right in the middle of the terrace remains the abnormality. The Hotel has been closed for over 4 years and due to a lack of investment over many more years the building has suffered significantly. Following a fire at No. 13 three years ago very significant water damage from the Fire Rescue Service hoses exacerbated problems on site. The building is in a very poor state of repair and has been the subject of enforcement action by the council in an attempt to secure the long term future of the building and visual amenities of the locality.
In summary full planning permission and listed building consent is sought to convert the building into 10 high quality two bedroom apartments and to add an eleventh apartment to the roofspace by adding two flat roofed dormers to each of the rear roofslopes, together with roof lights. In addition the front steps and front door at No. 12 are to be reinstated. Internally the intended layout is little altered with original features retained and restored throughout. The existing staircases and lobbies have been altered, removed and sub divided and it is intended to create a single central staircase using what remains of the originals to serve the combined building. The existing lift is to be removed from this central area and a new lift, serving all but the loft floor, added to the rear wing of the building.
2. APPLICANT’S DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT
The applications are accompanied by a number of statements including a Planning Statement. Also submitted is a Heritage Statement, a Hotel performance appraisal and a detailed financial assessment of the costs to achieve the proposed development. The Planning Statement covers the history of the building, the intended future use and policy framework for the scheme and details the full extent of the restoration and extension
works involved and the likely `impacts on parking, amenity and access. The appraisal/conclusion sections of the report are as follows:
“Appraisal
The proposed repair and restoration of the Mayfair Hotel meets an urgent need, both in terms of halting the rapid decline in the condition of a Grade II listed building and ensuring its future upkeep and maintenance. There will be community benefits through improvement of both an eyesore and an environmental detractor.
The significance of the listed building lies principally in the exterior form of the front elevation of 11 and 12 Heene Terrace facing onto Marine Parade. The external works and repairs will provide significant enhancements to this heritage asset particularly through the reinstatement of features such as the front entrance steps and front door to 12 Heene Terrace. The repair of brickwork, railings, post supports and mouldings, sash windows, front facing dormer windows and removal of unsympathetic awnings and hotel fittings will be of significant benefit to this heritage asset.
The works such as the entire replacement of the roof, repair and reinstatement of traditional windows, rear ground floor doors and iron goods will be of considerable benefit to the rear of Heene Terrace, the setting of other listed buildings and the wider Conservation Area.
In terms of the internal works these are aimed at restoration and conservation of the considerable amount of period features remaining in the property. There are some more significant internal alterations proposed in order to facilitate the restoration and conversion including the removal of a staircase and part staircase/part lift shaft that has been the subject of previous alterations. The balustrade and usable elements of this staircase will be re-used in the new proposed central staircase location that will allow appropriate conversion of many of the main rooms of the building without otherwise significant alteration.
The main rooms are proposed to be altered as little as possible aside from repair and refurbishment back to their original condition. In order to avoid insensitive subdivision of rooms kitchens are added in an open plan style and bathrooms proposed to be accommodated as lightweight ‘pods’ that respect the proportions of the original rooms. The repair or refurbishment of internal joinery and architectural detailing is described in the Design Statement and demonstrated on the application drawings.
The proposals would result in two high quality, spacious residential apartments on each of the existing five floors of the building with the restoration works carried out to the highest standards.
Crucial to the viability of this scheme is a single residential apartment which is proposed within the mansard roofspace of the building. Four well detailed dormer windows are proposed to the rear roofslope of the building. The proposed dormers are narrow, well proportioned and visually balanced with two on either side of the party wall at the rear. They are high quality in terms of design and use of materials. Low profile cast rooflights are also proposed to replace larger more visible existing rooflights. These will be barely visible features on the rear and will improve the current untidy appearance.
The proposals will sustain the visual quality of the listed building and significantly contribute towards the enhancement of 11 and 12 Heene Terrace. The apartment within the roofspace makes a significant contribution towards the financial viability of the overall scheme which would otherwise be unviable. This has been demonstrated through cost appraisal work which demonstrates the non-viability of a 10 unit apartment scheme alongside other alternatives.
It is important to note the contrast between the high quality proposals and the variety of poorly designed and constructed roof extensions and rooflight additions to the rear of Heene Terrace. To the west of the site is a large box shaped roof extension that significantly detracts from the listed building and various other dormer windows that are either unbalanced or inappropriately designed and constructed. A number of recently permitted dormer windows are currently being constructed at West Mansions which entirely dominate the original roof on all sides and feature thick, visually heavy dormer cheeks. The various additions detract from the uniformity of the rear of the listed buildings and also the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The scheme proposals on the other hand are highly respectful of the original listed building, the rear roof slope of which is noted as having less significance than the front elevation in terms of the overall significance of the heritage asset. The high quality and complimentary design will help to sustain and enhance the listed building and surrounding Conservation Area.
Change of Use of Hotel
The Mayfair Hotel closed in 2007 and for a number of years prior to closure had been running at either a financial loss or low profit without the means to invest in the upkeep ad repair of the building. In comparison to the nearby listed Burlington Hotel which maintains a high standard of upkeep and therefore a good level of occupancy, the Mayfair has been unable to compete for some time as a hotel and tourism destination. It was run as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for around 10 years with both long term and homeless residents, before its closure (as shown in
correspondence from Worthing Borough Council in 1999). The investment required to bring the hotel back to such a use would make such an enterprise demonstrably unviable.
As set out in the accompanying Hotel Performance Appraisal there is a good range of hotels, guesthouses and service accommodation in Worthing at present which any refurbished Mayfair Hotel would need to compete against. Market trends indicate that through increased use of internet bookings and organised group discounting there is an extremely competitive market in Worthing. The Appraisal finds that, for example, since the introduction of the nearby Travel Lodge and aggressive competition through high volumes and low rates other hoteliers in the area have seen reduced occupancies.
An annual report by the Tourist Information Centre shows that average nightly stay (nights) in Worthing has reduced from 3.87 nights in 2006 to 3.52 nights per traveller in 2009. The Appraisal also finds that occupancy and ARR has declined in recent years with studies and reports undertaken in 2006 and 2008 showing a low occupancy of 60% and a general downward motion. Furthermore, in contrast with nearby Brighton, the Worthing market remains budget driven with no current hotels embracing the concept of the boutique style’ hotel, possibly due to lack of confidence in demand. The Beach Hotel development will challenge this trend but significantly would be in direct competition with the Mayfair should any boutique offering be sought. Aside from the proposed Beach Hotel development new or improved budget accommodation and an otherwise general downward trend, including the closure of many small hotels and guesthouses, has continued to define the market. As noted through Core Strategy planning policy many hotels in Worthing have been converted to residential including two previous larger hotels, the Eardley and the Warnes.
The submitted information has robustly demonstrated that refurbishment of a hotel is not viable and also addressed alternatives including serviced accommodation. The restoration costs of the dilapidated listed building are considerable and supported by expert advice on future returns and projections of such use, it has been demonstrated that this could not be made viable.
The loss of the previous hotel operation and proposed conversion to residential apartments has met the requirements of both Core Strategy policy and is considered acceptable as the only viable option to ensure the restoration and refurbishment of this national asset.
Viability
The Design Statement and supporting Cost Appraisals demonstrate that this proposed scheme is the optimum viable to ensure a future for the listed building. The submitted reports further demonstrate that the margins are extremely tight with various compromises being made through pre- application discussions to accommodate the wishes of the Council, including the removal of proposed front dormers to the rooftop apartment, and the need to carry out a high quality development. The 11th apartment within the roofspace is crucial to the viability of this scheme.
As the proposed scheme exceeds 6 residential units, affordable housing and other financial contributions become relevant in line with Core Strategy and development plan policy. However, the considerable investment required in restoring the listed building and maintaining the high quality approach being taken to the works, means that financial contributions cannot be made in relation to affordable housing, education and other contributions normally required.
As set out in the accompanying Practice Guidance to PPS5, “finding optimum viable use for an asset may require the local planning authority to apply other development control policies flexibly and imaginatively to achieve long term conservation”. (Para 77).
This is demonstrably the optimum viable solution for this building as demonstrated by the period of unsuccessful marketing, lack of interest from other parties, considerable investment in the cost of restoration and repair works coupled with the ability of the applicant to offer build costs below normal levels.
The current building is in urgent need of restoration. It has been vacant since 2007 with no viable opportunity of return as a functioning hotel or other tourism use. There are considerable benefits to be delivered through the proposed scheme that will enable its sensitive restoration and safeguard the future of this national asset. The proposed scheme is clearly in line with planning policy at local and national level.”
3. CONSULTATIONS
The Planning Policy Manager comments as follows:-
“Main policies (Worthing Core Strategy): Policy 7 Meeting Housing Need Policy 8 Getting the right mix of homes Policy 10 Affordable Housing Policy 12 New Infrastructure Policy 16 Built Environment and Design
The proposal provides housing accommodation in line with Policy 7 and the type of accommodation is suitable for a town centre location (Policy 8). The Mayfair Hotel is a listed building and the conversion from hotel to residential prevents the hotel from falling into further disrepair. It is a dangerous structure at the moment and has been vacant for some time. The property is part of Heene Terrace which is a long run of prominent Victorian houses on the seafront. The conversion returns the building to its former residential use. The loss of tourist accommodation is currently being considered by the Tourism Development and Marketing Officer.
Leisure and Recreation contributions A broad approach to development contributions to meet the infrastructure needs of the occupier/users of the new development is set out in Policy 12 of the Worthing Core Strategy 2011.
Total number of units is 11 two-bedroom flats
The Mayfair Hotel is in the Heene Ward. There are three areas of outdoor recreation provision that require contributions in Heene Ward: • Equipped children’s play areas • Casual/Informal play space • Adult/Youth outdoor sport
Occupancy 11 x 3 persons (2 bed flats) = 66
Total occupancy 66 occupants
Leisure classifications Contribution per resident Equipped Children’s Play equipment £234.00 Casual / Informal Play Space £39.37 Adult/Youth Outdoor Sport £248.88
Total Leisure Contributions
Equipped Children’s Play £ equipment 66 x £234 15,444 Casual / Informal Play Space 66 X 39.37 £ 2,598 Adult/Youth Outdoor Sport 66 x £248.88 £16,426 Total Contribution £34,468
Affordable Housing contributions Total area of 2 bed flats = 11 x 66 sq m. = 726 sq. m. 20% = 145.2 sq m
145.2 x £760 = £110,352
Total required contributions for affordable housing = £110,352
A financial report has been submitted dealing with the financial contributions and whether they are viable given the cost of the restoration work of the building. This is currently being assessed by the Estates section of the Council.”
The Tourism Development and Marketing Manager comments that:-
“The Performance Appraisal Report does appear to have taken my first comments on board and explored the outcome of increased occupancy and average room rates. However at the same time their development costs appear to have increased so the prospect of any sort of visitor accommodation would appear to be unviable. I do believe there is demand for serviced apartments (which seems to have been confused with self catering in the report – not quite the same thing) however the cost of any sort of redevelopment looks to be just too great. My personal opinion is that there hasn’t been any quality accommodation on this site for a long, long time so it’s not really a case of us trying to save any loss. Simply bringing the building back to life and improving the look of the seafront at that end would be of great benefit to the town and would I’m sure have a positive impact on the visitor economy.”
The Estates Department has seen the applicant’s full submission and in particular the Cost Appraisal. Following a desk study they are comfortable that the build costs quoted are appropriate for this type of refurbishment. In terms of the post development sale prices referred to they see them as if not somewhat optimistic, then very much at the upper end of what might be expected at this location in the current market. In conclusion the viability of the scheme does seem very borderline.
The Highway Authority comments as follows:-
“Sustainability
The site is located within walking distance of a range of services including restaurants, shops and entertainment facilities, and cycle parking is provided for residents to the rear. Furthermore, the 9 and 700 bus services operate along this part of the seafront, and a bus stop is located approximately 90m from the development site.
Parking
Heene Terrace is subject to local parking restrictions, specifically on-street parking is only available to permit holders from 0900-1800 Mon-Sat (excl. Bank holidays). Further to this, parking in the surrounding roads is also restricted, and therefore residents of the new flats would not be able to park in close proximity to the development without a permit.
Summary
In summary, residents would not be reliant on the use of a private vehicle, and would find it difficult to operate one at the site due to parking restrictions in the area. WSCC would therefore raise no highway objections to the proposed conversion.”
Natural England raises no objection but comments that:-
“This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 14 of PPS9. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities.”
The Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety advises that a precautionary contamination condition is recommended.
4. REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of concern received and comments as follows:-
i) Parking for residents is difficult at weekends/Bank Holidays. Consideration should be given to making Heene Terrace permit holders only.
30 letters of support have been received from residents who are keen to see the building rescued and restored as proposed.
The Worthing Society comment as follows:-
“The Mayfair Hotel has been on The Worthing Society’s ‘Listed Buildings at Risk’ register for some time as we have, with increasing alarm, watched it literally fall into disrepair.
Thus when, earlier in the month, the Agent (Adrian Marmont for DMH Stallard) provided me with an information pack of the proposals for the re- development of the Hotel we were pleased that a ‘rescue package’ was on the horizon. I read the pack and circulated it to Society colleagues, thus giving us the opportunity to familiarise ourselves with the plans.
Several members of The Worthing Society Executive Committee accompanied chairman David Sumner and me on 24th September to a presentation (on-site) of the proposals to convert the hotel into apartments. The preview was held for Councillors and other interested parties such as The Worthing Society in advance of a preview for the public. The Agent, Mr. Marmont, and a colleague were on hand to answer any questions and to explain the plans in person.
We are pleased that the frontage of what was the Mayfair Hotel will be renovated to what we believe to be an acceptable design. We are also confident that it could never be a viable proposition as a hotel in the foreseeable future and consequently we are very pleased to see plans for it to take on a new life as quality apartments.
Having seen the dreadful condition of the interior of what once was a graceful period building, we are happy that it will be restored to good condition, utilizing its best surviving assets (there are, for example, some fine marble fireplaces and graceful plasterwork) in the form of spacious apartments.
Dormers are often a contentious issue, but the plans show a well-balanced design for the rear dormer design and we are content to accept them.
We are pleased to support this application.”
The Conservation Area Advisory Committee raises no objection. They comment as follows:-
“The rear dormers and staircase alterations are considered acceptable if it results in a well maintained important period structure.”
5. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
WB/06/1410/LBC – Application for Listed Building Consent for fire damage re-instatement works, including like for like replacement timber skirting, architraves and picture rails and replacement of various water damaged lath and plaster walls, fire damaged roof timbers and slate coverings and window repairs. Granted 5th March 2007.
WB/99/00567/LBC – Application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations to convert ground floor bar to two bedrooms with shower and wash basins, ground floor games room to bedroom with shower and wash basin and first floor lounge to bedroom with wash basin. Granted 24th August 1999.
WB/89/28/LB – Application for Listed Building Consent for the installation of en-suite bathrooms and shower rooms to certain bedrooms. Granted 21st February 1989.
WB/87/1120/LB and WB/87/1121/LB – Application for Listed Building Consent to dismantle rear main chimney between Nos. 12 and 13 Heene Terrace to roof level due to storm damage. Refused 26th January 1988.
WB/75/1057/LB – Alterations to provide exit doors to serve existing fire escape. Granted 30th December 1975.
WB/75/524/LB – Alterations to provide new cloak rooms in existing hotel. Granted 4th July 1975.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The main issues for consideration in this application relate to the rescue, restoration and extension of these buildings and the impacts of these changes on the historic integrity of these Grade II properties, the wider conservation area and neighbours. The proposed change of use from Hotel to 11 flats is also significant as the loss of tourism accommodation is generally resisted under policy 5 of the newly adopted Core Strategy. The likely impact on car parking and traffic movements generally in the area must be considered and finally, the application’s failure to make any provision for development contributions must also be explored. The applications should be considered against saved Local Plan policies RES7, CT3, TR9 and H18, South East Plan policies SP3, CC1, CC3, CC4, CC6, CC7, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, T4, BE1, BE2, BE3, BE6, TSR1, TSR5, SCT5 and SCT6, Core Strategy Policies 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 16 and 18. Also relevant are PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 3: Housing, PPS 5: Planning and the Historic Environment and PPS 13: Transport.
Loss of Hotel
Policy 5 of the recently adopted Core Strategy states that the existing stock of visitor accommodation will be safeguarded unless:
• It is demonstrated that the loss of some bed spaces is the only way of improving the standard of the existing accommodation; • Having undertaken an assessment of viability it is accepted that the current use is non-viable. If this is the case, alternative tourist / leisure / visitor uses would need to be considered before a non-tourism related use would be accepted. • Alternative uses will be considered on the basis of whether they enhance the role of the visitor / tourism economy and vitality of the seafront and town centre area.
It is believed that a Hotel first opened on this site in the 1920s. Evidence supplied by the applicant indicates that from the mid 1980s the hotel use began to fail and operated with low margins and occupancy rates. It is from this time also that the general state of the building began to decline. In the late 1990’s the hotel use ceased and the then owners began operating as a hostel/HMO taking in long term residents on benefits. This use is believed to have ceased in 2007. Since that time the building has remained empty.
The application is accompanied by a very detailed report which gives a full appraisal of the Mayfair Hotel’s performance prior to closure and then, in line with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy, assesses the real potential for another hotel being able to operate profitably from the site in the future. The starting point in each case being the considerable investment required to make the building usable again before any reoccupation takes place. The report looks at the current alternative Hotel offer in Worthing, including the recently opened Travel lodge and approved Boutique style Beach hotel redevelopment.
It then sets out a detailed financial forecast of income and expenditure for four different hotel types: a guest House, an upgraded Guest House, a boutique hotel and serviced accommodation (apartments for holiday lets). In every case the net capital loss after the first year is between £1.2 and £1.9 million. The report concludes as follows:
‘As the Mayfair requires a high level of investment it would never be able to compete within the local market. Even as a fully functioning Guest House, Boutique Hotel or Serviced Accommodation it would struggle with competition … and would require a subsidy of between 2-3 million pounds.
The competition from its competitors will be high and it will take a great deal of investment to get the property up to the level where it can even begin to compete and in its present condition The Mayfair is certainly not contributing to the accommodation offer or image that the town would like to portray with its closure and failure to attract investment over the last five years being testament to its lack of opportunity within tourism.
Within the SPG 2006 & 2008 Reports (xii & xiv) the need to release properties from tourism use is recognised, particularly ones such as the Mayfair Hotel which is a dilapidated Grade II listed building and beyond economical repair for use / retention within tourism. The high levels of investment needed to save the building dictate a change of use.’
The report has been revised since submitted at pre-application stage and now includes information to cover omissions identified by the Council’s Tourism officer at that time. Her advice is that a case has been proven as to why this building is no longer suitable for any tourist related use and that the restoration of these buildings will dramatically enhance the appearance of the area and will in themselves add to the general tourism offer in this part of Worthing.
It is considered that in these particular circumstances the requirements of Policy 5 have been satisfied. The re-use of these buildings as a hotel or for other tourism related activities is not financially achievable and is not critical to the town’s tourism offer.
Impact of development on Listed Buildings/Conservation Area
If the Council, as custodians, had a Buildings at Risk register for Grade II listed buildings these buildings would top its list. The general state of the buildings has declined significantly since the late 1990’s when they ceased trading as a hotel and even more so since last used in 2007. The extinguishing of a fire at No. 13 in October 2006 also resulted in significant water damage to No. 12. The buildings are in a very serious state of disrepair. The council has served one urgent works notice in the past and the situation has only deteriorated further since. The pavement immediately outside the building is cordoned off due to debris falling from the site. There is no question that these buildings are in very serious need of considerable investment in order to secure their survival not to mention historic restoration.
First and foremost the proposal to convert and extend these buildings to create 11 self contained apartments will safeguard these buildings from collapse. The works proposed would undo some of the damage caused by insensitive alterations in the past and the more contentious elements of the scheme, such as the rear dormers, are faithful to the original period.
In detail, the conversion works entail the reinstatement of the front steps and door to No. 12 and the reinstatement of the front three chimneys to their original specification. All windows are to be repaired or replaced exactly. On the rear elevation the non-original external fire escape staircase is to be removed from the east side as are the three doors exiting on to it, to be replaced with timber sash windows to new bathrooms. A small window at third floor level and two large rooflights are also to be removed. Otherwise externally between basement level and roof level the buildings are to be restored to their original form, including the reintroduction of finials to all dormers. At basement level the rear sunken patio area is to be extended by 2 metres in length into the garden and steps out of it to the shared garden are to be removed. A rear window is to be replaced with a door to allow access. At ground floor the original rear terraced access to the garden is to be reinstated and slightly enlarged with two sets of double width French doors out to a central staircase which leads down to a landscaped communal garden. All but the basement flats will use this access.
Internally the plan form of the main front and rear reception rooms is preserved retaining all original features such as decorative moulded plaster, joinery, fireplaces and chimneys as these are important architectural features of the building. Where kitchens are introduced this is achieved by using an open plan arrangement and en-suite bathrooms are pod like structures, built off site and erected within the rooms stopping short of ceilings and leaving cornices intact. This follows the advice of the Council’s Design and Conservation Architect at pre-application stage.
None of these changes are controversial and all safeguard the historic significance of the building.
One of two contentious areas of the proposal architecturally involves the removal of the two internal staircases and lift from the central hallways and their replacement with a single central staircase and new lift in the rear wing. The staircase at No. 12 is in its original form. The staircase at No.11 has been severely compromised by the insertion of the lift. It is intended to use as much of the original staircase as is possible for the new staircase, (handrail and stair treads) although it will be in a widened form and centrally positioned. The new lift in the rear wing will not involve the loss of any significant architectural features in this less significant part of the building.
The replacement of the staircase is critical to the successful conversion of this building into flats and to ensuring the original plan form of the reception rooms is retained. It is necessary to facilitate the linking within individual flats of the front and rear sections of the building. As such it is considered to be an acceptable compromise to facilitate the overall restoration of these heritage asset buildings.
The second contentious area is the proposed introduction of two dormers to each of the rear roofslopes. Originally planned for the front, south elevation, the applicant was asked to remove them from the proposal at pre-application stage. The applicant argues that the creation of an eleventh flat in the roof is critical to the financial viability of the entire restoration and conversion and so has switched them to the rear.
The dormers are identical. They are flat roofed and equally spaced across the roofslope with dimensions of 1.35 metres (H), 1.52 metres (W) and 2.65 metres (D) and sit well within the ridge and front edge of the pitch. They have been faithfully designed to reflect the detail of period dormers provided by English Heritage and following guidance from the applicant’s own Heritage adviser. They have traditional flat lead roofs with rolled joints, narrow front frames and thin lambs tongue glazing bars. The applicant argues that owing to the height and depth of the rear additions the dormers would only be visible from oblique angles or from a considerable distance.
Over the years, the introduction of dormers in the rear roofslope of these buildings has been opposed as they are not features of the original terrace. It has been considered in the past that the introduction of roof extensions above the mansard dormers would unbalance the composition and symmetry of the terrace as a whole. Roof extensions are visible on a small number of roofs at the rear, though these are believed to pre-date the terrace listing. The applicant refers to dormers recently erected at West Mansions, the western pavilion end of this terrace. The dormers erected are not as approved and discussions with the applicant have begun.
The proposed dormers are faithful reproductions from the period and in themselves faultless. Their introduction to this development is critical to the financial viability of this otherwise very borderline scheme. They will ‘enable’ the development. Given the very poor state of the buildings and the urgent need for restoration, it is considered that their introduction will not be so harmful to the original integrity of these buildings, the overall terrace or the wider conservation area.
Policy HE9 of PPS 5 places the presumption in favour of the conservation of designated assets and states clearly that any harmful impact must be robustly justified. The applicant argues that the internal staircase alteration and the proposed rear dormers, the two issues of contention architecturally, will result in only ‘minimal harm’ but are ‘necessary interventions to make the development functional and feasible.’ Policy HE9.4 states:
Where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated asset which is less than substantial harm, in all cases Local Planning Authorities should: i) weigh the public benefit of the proposal (i.e. does the development help to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of its long-term conservation) against harm; and ii) recognise that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset the greater the justification for any loss.
The proposed works have been fully considered in terms of their impacts on the significance of the designated heritage asset. The staircase alteration rationalises the internal layout whilst preserving the most significant rooms and features. The rear dormers are faithful reproductions from the period and are critical to the creation of an eleventh flat which makes the scheme financially viable, just. It is considered that the harm caused is minimal and that the benefits of the scheme to neighbours, the wider public and the borough generally outweigh this harm. The buildings are an eye sore at present and dangerous. Their restoration and re-use as flats will complete the terrace, all of which are flats apart from this property.
Quality of accommodation to be provided.
11 two-bedroom flats are to be provided. Each flat exceeds the minimum gross floorspace figure for two-bedroom flats referred to in the Council’s draft internal space standards SPD document except the eleventh flat to be created in the attic. All but one of the ground floor flats also meets the internal floor space figure for a 2 bed house. The overall gross floorspace in the attic meets the space standard for a two bedroom flat but the draft guidance asks that floorspace in areas of sloping ceilings below a height of 1.5 metres be excluded from the calculation. Excluding this space the floorspace drops to approximately 48 sqm. The failure of one flat to meet the internal space standard is not considered sufficient reason to withhold permission. The eleventh flat is critical to the financial viability of the scheme. The market price achieved will reflect the standard of accommodation to be created.
Each of the basement flats has their own extensive patio area well in excess of 20 square metres. The 240 sqm of communal garden area to be provided for the remaining nine flats comfortably exceeds the minimum standard expected of 180sqm. This does not include the garden summer house building proposed.
The garden building has a floor area of approximately 35 sqm. It will provide not only a south facing garden room for residents to enjoy but beyond this will also accommodate bike storage and bin storage. It has a
maximum height of 3.2 metres and is set off either side boundary by 4.5 metres. It will be visible above the rear garden wall but on the other side of this boundary is a footpath and roadway in the grounds of the office building behind. It is designed in timber in an Arts and Crafts style and will enhance the development.
Highways
The Highways Authority has not objected to the proposal. There is no scope to provide car parking but full cycle storage is shown. Heene Terrace is within a resident’s parking zone where parking is restricted to residents only between 9am and 6pm Monday to Saturday, excluding Bank Holidays. The one letter of concern received is in respect of car parking and, whilst it is not an objection to the application, it does raise the issue of difficulties with parking for residents, particularly at evenings and on Sundays. This neighbour would like to see the parking zone extended to cover all days/hours to prevent visitor parking.
If the likely parking demand of 11 two-bedroom flats in this sustainable location is compared to that of past traffic movements associated with the former hotel, or the likely movements associated with a fully restored 24 bedroom hotel, it is unlikely that they would be any greater.
Infrastructure Contributions
The applicant is unable to fund any of the normal contributions a development of this scale would trigger. The affordable housing contribution and contribution to improved leisure facilities alone are £145,000. No figure for any schools contribution has been received from the County Council but they have confirmed that they are not looking for any contribution towards transport improvements.
The applicant argues that any requirement for funding, of whatever size or in whichever area, would break the financial viability of this scheme. The applicant’s financial case has been submitted in full. In order to make the scheme work, the 11th flat in the roof is required and building costs can only be kept as low as proposed as the applicant intends to carry out the conversion works himself. The financial case also hangs on the developer achieving in excess of current market value for each of the flats, a situation he is confident in achieving because he intends to complete each of the flats to a very high specification. Nonetheless there appears to be very little profit to be made with this scheme. Requiring additional contributions would see it fail and is perhaps the main reason no other developer has been interested in the site in the last five years.
Paragraph 77 of PPS 5 states that ‘finding optimum viable use for an asset may require the local planning authority to apply other development
control policies flexibly and imaginatively to achieve long term conservation. For example to realise the benefits of bringing an abandoned listed building on the Heritage at Risk register back into viable use it may be necessary to make an exception to policy …….’
The advice from the Council’s Estates Manager is that the applicant’s submission in respect of costs is thorough. Restoration and conversion costs appear accurate. The achievement of the values stated for each of the proposed flats is optimistic though and as such the scheme appears to be only barely viable. The applicant’s argument that there is no margin to allow for infrastructure contributions is understood.
In this particular case it is recommended that an exceptional case should be made to set aside the requirements of policies 10, 11 and 12 of the recently adopted Core Strategy in relation to infrastructure contributions. The scheme will safeguard these heritage asset buildings and will secure their restoration to a high standard but is not viable if contributions are required. PPS5 asks local authorities to apply policies flexibly in the interests of conservation and to schemes in the wider public interests. It is considered that this recommendation is a prime example of such a ‘flexible and imaginative’ application of policy.
7. CONCLUSION
The Mayfair Hotel has been in a desperate state for many years and urgently in need of investment and restoration. The case has been adequately demonstrated that the level of investment required to enable re-use as a hotel and the likely return thereafter makes any form of tourist- related use of this building unviable in the future. The proposed alterations will lead to a degree of harm to the listed building but this is felt to be outweighed by the significant benefit that will result from its rescue and restoration. The applications have considerable local support. The proposed flats represent high quality accommodation and will increase the housing stock within the borough. The absence of any infrastructure contributions is regrettable but understood in this case. It is recommended that a special case be made in these very exceptional circumstances.
8. RECOMMENDATION
AWDM/0509/11
Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Time Limit – 5 years. 2. Approved Plans.
3. Details of front entrance door to No.12 and basements. 4. Details of front steps, handrail, finish. 5. Details of fire precaution works to existing doors. 6. Details of all new internal doors. 7. Details of relocated staircase. 8. Details of new windows. 9. Details of artificial/mechanical ventilation & soil pipe terminals. 10. Details of sizes and profiles of all new cast iron rainwater goods. 11. Details of all new structural beams. 12. Details of all wall removals and making good. 13. Details of new chimneys and dormer finials. 14. Details of rooflights. 15. Details of entrance column capitals. 16. Details of lift. 17. Details of lift. 18. Details of new retaining walls. 19. Details of rear access terrace, supports and steps. 20 Samples of materials for garden building. 21. Samples of main roof natural slate. 22. Details of Pergola. 23. Details of landscaping.
AWDM/0510/11
Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1. Time Limit – 5 years. 2. Approved Plans. 3. Details of front entrance door to No.12 and basements. 4. Details of front steps, handrail, finish. 5. Details of fire precaution works to existing doors. 6. Details of all new internal doors. 7. Details of relocated staircase. 8. Details of new windows. 9. Details of artificial/mechanical ventilation & soil pipe terminals. 10. Details of sizes and profiles of all new cast iron rainwater goods. 11. Details of all new structural beams. 12. Details of all wall removals and making good. 14. Details of new chimneys and dormer finials. 15. Details of rooflights. 16. Details of entrance column capitals. 17. Details of lift. 18. Details of new retaining walls. 19. Details of rear access terrace, supports and steps. 20 Samples of materials for garden building. 21. Samples of main roof natural slate.
22. Details of Pergola. 23. Details of landscaping. 24. C3D - Protect building during construction.
9. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Observations of the Planning Policy Manager Observations of the Highway Authority Observations of the Tourism Development and Marketing Manager Observations of the Council’s Estates Department Observations of Natural England Observations of the Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety Letters of Representation from Members of the Public Observations of the Worthing Society Observations of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee
23rd November 2011
5
Richard Unwin Chartered Surveyors AWDM/0354/11 Dominos Pizza Group Ltd GOR PEDE Location : 276 Goring Road
Proposal: Change of use to A5 (takeaway) and erection of a single storey rear extension, including a new shop front and erection of air compressors and extract duct to the rear.
Not to Scale
Reproduced from OS mapping with the permission of HMSO (c) Crown Copyright Licence No LA100024321
1. THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE
This is an application to change the use of the premises to a take away (Class A5) and allied changes including rear extension, new shopfront and plant.
The premises are located in the Core Zone of The Mulberry Neighbourhood shopping centre as designated in the saved Worthing
Local Plan. The Centre is based around Goring Road and the site sits on the north side of the road.
The premises occupy the penultimate ground floor unit on the east side of a purpose built 3 storey 1950s parade of shops with maisonettes above. The parade comprises ten shop units, including a post office, butchers, café and bakery and is set back from Goring Road. It is served by a front service road and rear access yard. The application premises are 62 sq metres in size but are vacant, the hairdressers (Class A1) which formerly occupied the premises, having closed in December 2010. Flanking the premises to the west is a pet shop and to the east, an Indian restaurant which also provides a take away and home deliveries service.
To the rear of the parade is a 35 space public car park with ingress to the west of the parade and egress on the east of the parade and incorporating business premises on an island site. To the west of the parade are more shops and commercial premises and to the east, separated by the car park egress service road, is a bank with flat on the two storeys above.
The ten maisonettes in the parade are accessed at the rear by external stairs and benefit from a modest terrace at first floor level. Their lounge and bedrooms have windows at the front.
Parking is available in the public car park and the service road. Goring Road (A259) is a busy main road and The Mulberry shopping Centre includes several other take-aways and restaurants such as Kentucky Fried chicken, Chinese take-aways, fish and chips and the Mulberry PH/restaurant.
The applicant is Dominos Pizza who plan to run a takeaway service. Initially the applicants forecast home deliveries would comprise up to 80% of orders but have revised this to around 50% but either way stress the bulk of customers would have pre-ordered pizzas to taste. The equivalent of 14 full time staff would be employed. Upon the basis of the 50/50 split, they indicate that up to 4 staff would be drivers making the home deliveries during the peak hour of 7pm to 8pm. On a worst case scenario (i.e. all trips by car) up to 120 trips (customers and staff making home deliveries) are predicted during the peak hour (7pm to 8pm) on Fridays. Overall trips are predicted at 270 on Fridays and 280 on Saturdays.
A small customer area would be provided at the front of the premises, the majority of the premises (including a proposed 3.59 metres deep single storey rear extension) given over to food preparation/storage and staff facilities. The proposed extension is 13 sq metres in size and aligns with the neighbouring commercial extension to the west and is flat roofed and finished in brick. Upon its roof would sit an air conditioning unit and
compressor. The extract grille and fresh air intake would be sited on the rear wall.
A new shopfront would follow the style of the existing modern shopfront but reposition the front entrance on the east side and include a slightly taller stall riser. A complementary application to replace the signage is undetermined (AWDM/0506/11).
The proposed operating hours are 9am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 11pm on Sundays and public Holidays.
Refuse storage is at the rear.
2. APPLICANT’S DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT
Besides, the Design and Access Statement which is reproduced below, the application is supported by a statement explaining the Dominos business model; technical details of the proposed ventilation and extraction system; Interim Noise Impact study and a Traffic statement.
Design and Access Statement
“SITE ANALYSIS
The site lies within a parade of shops on Goring Road which is the main thoroughfare across the town. The parade is made up of 9 units with a mix of 1, A2 and A5 operators.
There is residential accommodation on the first and second floors above all of the units.
There is parking available to the front of the unit and a free car park to the rear of the properties.
DESIGN COMPONENTS
The application is to provide a Dominos Pizza outlet which would create an additional service for local people.
The unit will incorporate a preparation and baking area, and a customer waiting area for those choosing not to use the home delivery option. Office and other ancillary facilities including staff area will also be located within the site.
There is no landscaping involved in the scheme.
The appearance of the building would be changed by the high level of investment brought to it by an internationally renowned company.
The introduction of Dominos into the unit would bring about a high level of investment into the building with quality finishes.
Dominos would introduce a high level of investment to the site by refurbishing the unit and creating an operation that would provide employment and a service locally.
ACCESS
The aim of the company is to provide units which are accessible to all. There is a call button adjacent to the entrance to the premises should help be required in accessing the unit as it is not possible to create a flat entrance.
The home delivery option allows those who are house bound the opportunity to order using the telephone or the internet. The company operate over 650 units in the UK and are proud of their record as an inclusive operator.
DESIGN SOLUTION
The highest quality finishes are used throughout and it is our aim to enhance all the units that we occupy. The fabric of the building will be well maintained and the visual impact of the building will be positive on the street scene.”
The Traffic Assessment’s conclusions are:-
“Having studied the ADL report on traffic generation and parking demand based on data relating to an existing store, it has been demonstrated through the use of the TRICS database that the results produced are robust.
A sensitivity assessment to vary the proportional split between customers collecting from the takeaway and deliveries has been considered and shown not to materially impact on overall traffic generation or parking demand.
Based on the predicted parking accumulation, the availability of parking of the site and also in the free public car park concluded as being sufficient to accommodate the par outlet. Based on the evidence produced in this report, it is concluded that the proposed development will not have a material parking impact and it is
therefore recommended that the application is approved on these grounds.”
The Interim Noise study awaits the completion of the background noise survey.
3. CONSULTATIONS
The Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety comments that no objections are raised to the proposed plant in terms of noise or odour, subject to imposition of the conditions below but notes that whilst the impact of the traffic will likely be noticeable, the extent will be only known once the use has started.
“Suitable ventilation and filtration equipment shall be installed to suppress and disperse fumes an odour from operations on the premises. Details of the equipment shall be submitted to and approved by, the Local Planning Authority and the equipment shall be installed and be in full working order to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of use”.
“The extraction equipment installed in pursuance to the above Condition shall be regularly maintained to ensure its continued satisfactory operation and the cooking process shall cease to operate if at any time the extraction equipment ceases to function to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority”.
“Prior to the commencement of the development, an acoustic assessment of the extract fans (intake/extract), compressor(s) and A/C unit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall have regard to the principles of BS4142:1997 and shall identify any mitigation measures to achieve a difference between the rating level and background noise level of at least -5dB. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and within one month of implementation a test shall be carried out and the result submitted to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the attenuation measures specified in the agreed scheme are effective and achieve the levels specified within the scheme. In the event that the specified noise levels have not been achieved, then notwithstanding the installation of the plant/equipment hereby approved a further scheme of attenuation works capable of achieving the levels as specified shall be installed within 3 months of the installation of the plant/equipment and thereafter retained.
I also request that all specified anti-vibration mountings be installed prior to operation and the specified works to the floor/ceiling divide to ensure protection of residential amenity above.
I request that details of hours of operation of all plant be considered in the acoustic consultant report.”
The Highway Authority comments as follows:-
“This application has been dealt with in accordance with the Development Control Scheme protocol for small scale proposals which include up to 5 residential units or extensions to single units accessed from roads that do not form part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). As such the comments provided by Local Development should be considered to be advice only, with respect to this planning application.
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.
WSCC would not be minded to raise any highway objections to the proposal, as it is not anticipated that an increase in vehicle trips associated with this COU would restrict the free flow of traffic on the public highway.”
The Planning Policy Manager comments as follows:-
“We still have saved policy S11 from the Local Plan which allows a CoU from A1 to A3 (clearly at the time of the Local Plan there was no A5 user class but A3 at the time was a use relating to hot food consumption. 338 Goring Road is in the core area of the Mulberry shopping centre, so S11 applies as the Core Strategy has not superseded this policy. Providing that the remaining clauses in S11 are adhered to – i.e. having no adverse effect on neighbouring properties, does not intensify car parking and does not result in a non retail frontage of more than 20 metres (which it should not do as No 340 is an A1 use) then there should be no policy issue with the CoU I believe one of the adjacent premises to 276 is still Shoreline Pet Supplies, which is an A1 use so the non retail 20 metre frontage is not an issue. Post script I can confirm that the 20 metre policy is not relevant for this application. Policy S11 relates to premises within the core area of the Mulberry neighbourhood shopping parade. The HSBC bank is outside of the core area i.e. it is non – core.
The application site therefore does not have a block of more than 20 metres of non retail use - as the adjacent premise is a trading pet supplies outlet. As regards the 35% aspect if you go back to 2002 from the retail surveys there has never been a time where non shop uses has been under 35%. It has always been over 35% since 2002, so I would suggest that applying the 35% rule is not a valid reason for refusal given the historic position of the parade in terms of its historically high non shop use.”
4. REPRESENTATIONS
At the time of writing 3 letters have been received from two of the maisonettes in the parade at Nos. 296 and 298 Goring Road and from the neighbouring pet supplies shop at No. 278 Goring Road. They object to the proposal on the following grounds:-
i) Previous hairdressers was a good neighbour and brought a good clientele to the parade whereas the takeaway would extend to the evening and could cause noise and a mess, like a previous take away in the parade which also attracted youths crime and vandalism. ii) Young family concerned over noise for customers at the front but also at rear from deliveries, vehicles and extractor fans. iii) There are several food outlets already in the parade and the litter and leftover foods attracts vermin to the rear of the car park and creates an undesirable environment to live in. iv) Do not want the mess, smell and noise associated with a pizza take away and the extractor fans would blow the smell into front patio. v) Extra traffic will mean competition for parking space. vi) There are already so many food places in the parade and there is another empty unit close by which has been granted planning permission for A5 use and we will be overrun. vii) The proposal will not benefit the parade and would jeopardize the existing food outlets. viii) The waste would attract vermin and already problems with KFC with rubbish blowing into front gardens. ix) Noise and odour and extra traffic generated.
A petition with 76 signatures has also been submitted with the following statement:-
“We do not believe that (the proposal) is beneficial to the parade and will have a negative impact on the current shops”
5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The main issues for consideration are:-
i) Consideration of the proposed change of use ii) The principle of loss of A1 use and impact of A5 take way use on the vitality and viability of the parade and Mulberry Neighbour shopping centre iii) The impact of on amenity including neighbouring residential occupiers iv) Impact on parking and access. v) Visual Impact
As such the proposal should be principally assessed against saved Worthing Local Plan Policies RES7, TR9, H18 and S11, Core Strategy Policies 6, 16 and 19, South East Plan Policies SP3, CC1, CC2, CC3, T2, T4, NRM10, BE1, TC1 and TC2 and Government Policy in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, PPG 24: Planning and Noise; PPG23: Planning and Pollution Control and PPG13: Transport. The draft National Planning Framework is material but has little weight.
Consideration of the proposed change of use
The characteristics of the applicant (i.e. Dominos Pizza with a large home delivery element) are relevant to the consideration of the application but are not determinative as the application is for an unrestricted, generic A5 (hot food takeaway use) and planning permission normally runs with the land rather than the user. In this sense, another A5 occupier may operate a different business model such as take away kebabs where customers normally order at the counter. However, features such as operating hours are particularly relevant.
The principle of loss of A1 use and impact of A5 take way use on the vitality and viability of the parade and Mulberry Neighbour shopping centre
Saved Worthing Local Plan Policy S11 seeks to protect the vitality and viability of such Neighbourhood Centres. However, whilst this normally involves resisting the loss of A1 retail uses in designated Core Zones, such as this, it does sanction changes of use to takeaways (A5), providing it does not create or extend a block of non- retail uses of 20 metres or more in the Core Zone and overall the proportion of non- retail to retail uses in the Core Zone does not exceed 35%. Here it must be borne in mind that, when this policy was adopted (2003), A5 uses fell into the A3 use class (sale of hot food) referred to in the Saved Worthing Local Plan policy. Following changes to planning regulations, the original A3 Use Class has been subdivided and A5 (sale of hot food for takeaway) is now
a separate use class but still falls within the ambit of the Saved Worthing Local Plan S11.
The approach of Core Strategy Policy 6 is also relevant. This is more up to date (April 2011) than the saved Worthing Local Plan policy S11. It is also more attuned to most recent Government policy in PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth which requires Local Planning Authorities to adopt a positive and constructive approach to planning application for economic development such as the current proposal. Core Strategy Policy 6 seeks to protect and enhance the existing retail hierarchy of vital and viable centres by requiring development to meet local needs and be of an appropriate scale and identifying primary and secondary zones. Necessary further work to review the existing zoning in the centres has yet to begin.
Judged against the specific tests of saved Worthing Local Plan Policy S11, it appears that no such excessive block of non-retail uses would be created as the premises adjoin an existing pet supplies shop to the west and the combined non- retail frontage of the application site and neighbouring Indian restaurant to the east would still only be 10 metres. Whilst there is a bank to the east of this, it is outside the designated Core Zone and so is discounted. As such the vitality of the core retail function of this part of the centre would not be harmed.
Overall, the proportion of non-retail uses in the designated Core Zone is currently around 43% and so the proposal would exacerbate the current breach of the 35% ceiling set in the Saved Worthing Local Plan Policy S11. It is recognised that a recent separate planning permission at No 338 Goring Rd would, if implemented, add to the breach still further and the unit appears to be in a state of being fitted out at this moment. Another live application to lose a shop elsewhere in the centre in Mulberry Lane is yet to be determined.
However, whilst the further loss of retail at the centre is regrettable, it may be difficult to resist on policy grounds for a number of reasons.
Firstly, as the Policy Manager notes, the 35% ceiling has been breached at this centre since 2002 and, to this extent, it is an established feature of the centre as well as the majority of the other Neighbourhood Centres in the town.
Secondly, the centre appears to be functioning adequately, nonetheless, with a post office, supermarket, pharmacy, butchers, bakers, newsagents, green grocers, bakers and two banks amongst its offer as well as more specialist shops and complementary services. Moreover, takeaways do generate significant activity, not only at night but during the day, attracting customers to the centre and adding to its offer (and therefore contributing
to the vitality and viability of Centres), a view which has been lent considerable support at appeal by The Planning Inspectorate on a number of occasions. That said, the significant reliance on home deliveries by the applicants does diminish this otherwise compensating benefit to some extent.
Thirdly, the changing function of and character of local retail centres is to a large degree a consequence of changing retailing patterns and consumer behaviour as shopping moves to the internet and larger centres and takeaways in all their forms gain popularity and local centres try to adapt to the changing climate and increasingly take on a more service role.
Finally, and allied to this, empty shops are a growing feature of such local centres. Whilst vacancies at the Mulberry centre are comparatively low (3 including the application premises), this is likely to rise as depressed economic conditions continue or worsen. The application premises themselves have been empty since December 2010 and actively marketed for retail and an inflexible approach to policy S11’s strictures could lengthen this vacancy and increase vacancy rates generally, to the wider detriment of the centre. It is noteworthy that the two vacant units in the centre besides the application premises are the subject of A5 proposals – one approved at No. 336 and one currently undetermined at No. 18 Mulberry Lane. To this extent, this diversification of the centre is helping keep overall vacancy levels right down with corresponding economic benefits. The 14 equivalent full time jobs created by the proposal will also be of significant value.
All this and the experience of the recent planning permission at No. 336 suggest a pragmatic and positive approach to the principle of the proposal can be justified.
The impact of on amenity including neighbouring residential occupiers
As the supporting evidence indicates, the proposal will generate significant levels of activity from customers arriving to collect pre-orders and from home deliveries by staff. The finalized noise assessment is still awaited but is unlikely to prove definitive. Customers arriving “cold” and waiting are reported to be relatively few as pizzas are cooked to order rather than pre-cooked and on display for carry-out. Deliveries of stock are no more than one per day. Across the whole working day up to 280 trips are likely on a Saturday, the busiest day.
During the daytime this is unlikely to be noticeable against the background of a busy centre and parade and busy A259 and contributes to the characteristic hustle and bustle of a shopping centre. The peak levels of activity (around 120 trips) are predicted to be during the early evening (7pm to 8pm on Fridays and Saturdays). They are high but would still not
be unacceptable at this time in the early evening, especially in a Neighbourhood shopping centre and bearing in mind the shops and maisonettes above were purpose built as such. Activity in the latter part of the evening appears to drop off significantly but, whilst certainly noticeable, again, it would need to be viewed in the context of broader activity in the parade and centre. This includes the Indian restaurant next door which has licensed hours up to midnight most days and provides a takeaway service. It must also be borne in mind that the previous unrestricted A1 use at the application premises could have extended its trading hours well into the evening. The applicants report that the modest numbers of customers arriving “cold” at the counter in their operation particularly reduces the amount of noise and anti social behaviour created at night from rowdy customers.
The home deliveries service is a key feature of the business model. As staff are under the control of the take away itself, their behaviour can be influenced by a suitable management plan to discourage unsocial parking at the rear (which could not only disturb the maisonettes above but also the flats above the adjacent bank), shouting or slamming of car doors etc. This can be secured by condition. In any event, there is no need for parking at the rear of the as the service road in the front provides ample space, as indicated by the submitted traffic (and parking) study.
The proposed operational hours of 9am/10am to 11pm are not excessive for a shopping centre and may be controlled by condition. The removal of waste from the building to the rear compound beyond 11pm may also be controlled by condition to minimise noise at unsocial hours.
The proposed plant at the rear is shown as some 7 metres from the rear of the maisonettes above the parade. However, it appears this could be re- sited further away and many of the maisonettes enjoy additional protection from noise by outbuildings on the rear terrace besides the rear fence itself and also noting the habitable rooms are located at the front of the property.
The Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety has concluded that the plant can be acceptable both in terms of noise and odour by suitable design and controls secured by conditions. Again, it is noted that the plant arrangements are not dissimilar to those existing in this parade and other nearby parades for restaurants and takeaways, including the restaurant next door. The plant will also be perceived against this background,
Litter can be a problem with takeaways but with relatively few pizzas consumed outside the premises or by the parade, should not be a major problem. Nonetheless, a requirement to provide a litter bin outside the premises may be secured by condition.
Refuse storage arrangements may be controlled by condition to minimise the risk of vermin but noting other environmental regulations are applicable here.
The rear extension itself is modest and away from the maisonettes above and nearest flats above the bank and the shopfront alterations are innocuous in amenity terms.
Impact on parking and access
The proposal may generate more motor traffic than many other types of takeaway due to its substantial reliance on home deliveries by staff and pre-ordered customer collections also typically arriving by car. However, the site benefits from ample parking in the front service road, away from Goring Road itself and thereby avoiding road congestion or safety problems. For the customers without access to a car, the home delivery service provides an alternative but the centre enjoys good accessibility by bus and is close to a large catchment area for pedestrians or cyclists. Use of the rear public car parks is to be discouraged to safeguard the flats above the banks. The Highway Authority raises no objections.
Visual Impact
The proposed rear extension is not visible from the street but merely infills an otherwise anomalous gap at the back of the parade. Its simple design is not inappropriate. The shopfront alterations are minor but retain the character of the building and are satisfactory.
6. CONCLUSION
The proposal involves the loss of retail use in a designated core zone of a Neighbourhood centre. However, the principle can, on balance, be justified, in view of the character of the centre, the economic benefits of returning empty premises to positive use and job creation, recent approvals and lack of demonstrable harm to the vitality and viability of centre. The proposal will generate significant activity but in view of the location within an established centre and background activity and the safeguards proposed and bearing in mind also the nature of the proposed business, the impact appears not to be unacceptable in amenity terms. Parking and access are satisfactory and the design of the physical works adequate. As such, subject to the conditions recommended, the proposal should be supported.
7. RECOMMENDATION
Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1. 3 year time for implementation. 2. Build in accordance with approved plans. 3. Suitable ventilation and filtration equipment shall be installed to suppress and disperse fumes an odour from operations on the premises. Details of the equipment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the equipment shall be installed and be in full working order prior to the commencement of use. 4. The extraction equipment installed in pursuance of the above Condition shall be regularly maintained to ensure its continued satisfactory operation and the cooking process shall cease to operate if at any time the extraction equipment ceases to function adequately. 5. Prior to the commencement of the development, an acoustic assessment of the extract fans (intake/extract), compressor(s) and A/C unit (which shall include consideration of the details of hours of operation of all plant) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall have regard to the principles of BS4142:1997 and shall identify any mitigation measures to achieve a difference between the rating level and background noise level of at least - 5dB. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and within one month of implementation a test shall be carried out and the result submitted to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the attenuation measures specified in the agreed scheme are effective and achieve the levels specified within the scheme. In the event that the specified noise levels have not been achieved, then notwithstanding the installation of the plant/equipment hereby approved a further scheme of attenuation works capable of achieving the levels as specified shall be installed within 3 months of the installation of the plant/equipment and thereafter retained. 6. All specified anti-vibration mountings shall be installed prior to operation and the specified works to the floor/ceiling divide to ensure protection of residential amenity above. 7. Trading hours restricted to 9am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 11pm on Sundays and public Holidays. 8. No commencement of use unless and until management plan has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority for the operation of the use by the first occupier and thereafter by all successive occupiers and the use shall not be operated other than in accordance with the approved plan unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority. This
shall include parking and access arrangements by all staff including those making home deliveries and allied behaviour in collecting and delivering orders. 9. Agree and provide litter bins prior to commencement of use and retain thereafter. 10. Agree and provide refuse arrangements prior to commencement of use and no deposit of waste at the rear of the premises after 11pm at night.
8. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Observations of the Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety Observations of the Highway Authority Observations of the Planning Policy Manager Letters of Representation from Members of the Public
23td November 2011
6
ARW Design AWDM/0558/11 Mr R John CEN HBM
Location : 8 South Street
Proposal: Installation of four sets of non-illuminated letters on front elevation (one set on sub-fascia, one set on fascia panel, one set above the first floor windows and one set above second floor windows). (Retrospective).
Not to Scale
Reproduced from OS mapping with the permission of HMSO (c) Crown Copyright Licence No LA100024321
1. THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE
No. 8 South Street is a three-storey building comprising a ground and first floor retail shop with ancillary accommodation at second floor level. It is situated on the east side of South Street opposite the junction of Montague Street with South Street.
The property is currently undergoing conversion into a hairdressing salon (Class A1 retail use), together with a new shop front, for which permission was granted in January 2011 (WB/10/1049/FULL).
The building is locally listed as a building of local architectural or historic interest, and it lies within the South Street Conservation Area.
The application seeks retrospective advertisement consent for the display of four sets of individually applied non-illuminated lettering on the front elevation of the building in connection with the proposed hairdressing salon; one set on the sub-fascia, one set on the main fascia, one set above the first floor windows and one set above the second floor windows.
The signs comprise sets of individually applied non-illuminating lettering, and are as follows:-
Sign 1: A set of 390 millimetres high by 50 millimetres deep brushed chrome acrylic letters (overall length 3.78 metres) on the sub-fascia of the shop front, reading ‘Centre Stage’, 2.6 metres above ground level.
Sign 2: A set of 280 millimetres high by 6 millimetres deep high black gloss acrylic letters (overall length 3.6 metres) on the main fascia to the shop front, reading ‘The Hair & Beauty Shop’, 3.4 metres above ground level.
Sign 3: A set of 370 millimetres high by 6 millimetres deep black gloss acrylic letters (overall length 3.08 metres) above the first floor windows, reading ‘The Salon’, in capital letters’, 6.1 metres above ground level.
Signs 4 and 5: A set of 600 millimetres high by 6 millimetres deep black gloss acrylic letters (overall length 3.43 metres), reading ‘ L’Orėal’ at a height of 9.32 metres above ground level (Sign 5), and a set of 300 millimetres high by 6 millimetres deep black gloss acrylic letters (overall length 2.29 metres) reading ‘Colour Studio’ (lower case lettering) at a height of 8.86 metres above ground level (Sign 4), both above the second floor windows.
The building forms part of a group of three-storey, four-storey and five- storey buildings which are used predominantly for retailing purposes.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
In 2007, retrospective advertisement consent was granted for the display of a set of individually applied lettering above the first windows on the front elevation of the building (WB/07/0221/ADV). The lettering was 600 millimetres high, and of black acrylic, reading ‘The Café’ in connection with
the previous part A1 retail shop and part A3 café use (Oil & Vinegar). This sign was removed after the café use ceased.
In January 2011, permission was granted for alterations, including a new shop front, in connection with the conversion of the premises into a hairdressing salon (WB/10/1049/FULL).
3. CONSULTATIONS
None.
4. REPRESENTATIONS
The Conservation Area Advisory Committee comments as follows:-
“Objection to the high level signage at First and Second Floor levels. Concerns that approval to these prominent signs would create a dangerous precedent. The shop front modifications including the fascia sign are considered acceptable.”
The Town Centre Manager, representing the Worthing Town Centre Initiative, comments as follows:-
“We would like to support this application. It is great to see investment in the Town which helps to support its regeneration aspirations. The work has been completed to an extremely high standard and is sympathetic with the surrounding environment. The colour scheme is also seen in other prominent buildings around the town, such as The Broadway, Brighton Road. Our feeling is that the black lettering helps to break up the expanse of white and helps draw the eye to the lovely features of the building. We have had nothing but positive comments on this work and many have noted that they had not noticed the unusual castle like details at the top of the building before. It is encouraging to have such a well renowned company wishing to invest in Worthing and this should be supported.”
5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The relevant Planning policies relating to this application are contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 19, ‘Outdoor Advertisement Control’ (March 1992), Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5, Planning and the Historic Environment’ (2010), Policy BE6 of the South East Plan (Management of the Historic Environment) and Policy 16 of the Worthing Core Strategy (Built Environment and Design).
Paragraph 22 of PPG 19, concerning the display of advertisements in Conservation Areas, advises that…”many conservation areas are thriving commercial centres where the normal range of advertisements on commercial premises is to be expected, provided they do not detract from visual amenity. Local Planning Authorities should use advertisement controls flexibly in such areas, so as to conserve or enhance particular features of architectural or historic interest.”
And Paragraph 23 of PPG 19 advises:-
Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides that where an area is designated as a conservation area…“special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of that area” in the exercise of any of the provisions of the Planning Acts. This includes the control of outdoor advertisements. Local Planning Authorities will therefore need to bear this provision in mind when considering any advertisement application in a Conservation Area.
Under these policies and to accord with the advice in PPG19, new or replacement outdoor advertisements on a building in a Conservation Area will be permitted only so long as they would reflect, and not materially harm, the historic character and appearance of the building and area concerned, in terms of size, design, positioning and method of display in relation to the building concerned, including any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, and the predominant characteristics and appearance of the surrounding area.
The main issues to consider in this case are the effects of the display of the four sets of lettering on this building, both individually and cumulatively on the character and appearance of the building and the South Street Conservation Area.
No. 8 South Street is a three-storey building of mid-Victorian date, and a retail shop, and is a building of local interest. Its principal original architectural features which contribute to the historic character and appearance of the Conservation Area are its black painted full width first floor windows, its black painted metal second floor windows and its castellated white painted rendered front elevation. Its shop front, of recent construction, follows its traditional design and form using ‘black on white’ as its design theme.
The low level signs (Signs 1 and 2) are integrated with the sub-fascia and main fascia panel, which form part of the approved shop front under application WB/10/1049/FULL.These signs consist of small sets of non- illuminated chrome and acrylic and black acrylic letters, respectively, of 390 mm and 280 mm in height.
These signs, individually and cumulatively, are similar in height and position to other fascia signs on shops and other commercial buildings in the area, and do not intrude into the street scene to any significant degree.
Both signs therefore reflect the historic character and appearance of the building and the Conservation Area in a sympathetic and appropriate manner, allowing the shop front to remain as the dominant element in the redesign of the lower façade.
The display of Signs 1 and 2 therefore accords with the above Planning policy guidance and policies and is considered to be acceptable.
On the other hand, the sets of high level lettering above the first and second floor windows (Sign 3, 4 and 5), by contrast, cumulatively, present an overdominant, discordant and unsympathetic form of outdoor advertising display which detracts from the appearance of the building and from the South Street Conservation Area. Outdoor signs elsewhere in the Conservation Area are consistently located at fascia level forming part of a ground floor shop front.
The previous high level sign, The Café, above the first floor windows on this building was approved at a time where there were a number of other high level signs in the area, including one on the north side of Nos. 14 – 20 South Street (Debenhams) and another at the former Woolworths store, Nos. 31 – 35 Montague Street (now H&M).
These ‘precedents’ of high level advertising, of long standing, had a bearing on ‘The Café’ sign being acceptable in 2007.
The Woolworths sign however was removed in 2009, and The Café and Debenhams signs were removed in 2010.
There are no longer any similar high level signs elsewhere in the locality to those at high level on No. 8 South Street.
There are no ‘precedent’ grounds, therefore, for permitting the upper level Signs (Sign 3, 4 and 5) the subject of the application, above the first floor windows and second floor windows of the building. Due to their overdominant appearance and intrusiveness within the street scene and their unsympathetic design and overdominant form of display on the front elevation these are considered to detract from the integrity, historic design, character and appearance of the building, contrary to the aims and terms of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 19 “Outdoor Advertising Displays’, and are unacceptable on the grounds that they are detrimental
to, and do not preserve or enhance, the character and appearance of this local interest building and the South Street Conservation Area.
Although the signs have been welcomed by the Worthing Town Centre Initiative, they are opposed by the Conservation Area Advisory Committee, and in this instance, issues concerning harm to visual amenity should override commercial considerations.
Refusal is recommended.
In summary, the signs on the sub-fascia and main fascia (Signs 1 and 2) forming part of the shop front are considered to be acceptable. Signs 3, 4 and 5, on the upper elevation of the building, on the other hand, are not considered acceptable having regard to the above findings and visual amenity considerations.
A split decision should be issued.
6. RECOMMENDATION
That a Split Decision be issued, as follows:-
(A) Grant advertisement consent for Signs 1 and 2 (at sub-fascia and fascia levels) subject to the standard advertisement conditions 1 to 6; and
(B) Refuse Signs 3, 4 and 5, on the following grounds:-
1. The sets of high level signage (Signs 3, 4 and 5) by reason of their cumulative overdominant design and appearance on this building and their intrusiveness and visual impact within the street scene are detrimental to, and do not preserve or enhance, the historic character and appearance of this local interest building and the South Street Conservation Area in which it is situated. As such, the display of these high level signs is contrary Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 19 “Outdoor Advertisement Control” (March 1992), Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5 “Planning and the Historic Environment’ (2010), Policy BE6 of the South East Plan and Policy 16 of the Worthing Core Strategy.
7. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 19 “Outdoor Advertisement Control” (March 1992)
Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5 “Planning and the Historic Environment” (2010) South East Plan: Policy BE 6 – Management of the Historic Environment Worthing Core Strategy: Policy 16 – Built Environment and Design Observations of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee Observations of Worthing Town Centre Initiative
23rd November 2011
7
Henry Adams Planning Ltd WB/11/0238/FULL Worthing Golf Club OFF MAPO Location : Worthing Golf Club, Links Road
Proposal: Erection of 2 no. buildings on existing compound for the storage of green keeping and agricultural land management machinery and staff facilities and extension of existing hard surfaced area to allow for on-site turning of material delivery vehicles.
Not to Scale
Reproduced from OS mapping with the permission of HMSO (c) Crown Copyright Licence No LA100024321
1. THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE
The decision in this case is being made on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA).
Permission is sought on behalf of Worthing Golf Club for the construction of two storage units on land at Worthing Golf Course approximately 368 metres to the north-west of the built up area.
The application site is in the countryside in open downland within The South Downs National Park (SDNP) approximately 1700 metres south of Cissbury Ring, accessed from the private lane of Links Road. The site is already in use as an open storage compound for Worthing Golf Course. The compound is enclosed by chain link fencing with gates. It has been used by Southern Water in the past.
The Golf Course and its surrounding land is a largely managed environment made up of greens and fairways, interspersed with large areas of unimproved chalk grassland, neutral grassland, scrub and woodland. There are limited areas of tarmac road and parking areas. To the west is a complex of buildings, including the club house. The closest residential properties not occupied by staff are located approximately 370 metres in the same direction. To the east is Hill Barn Golf Course.
The works of the proposed scheme comprises the following:-
• 2 no. storage units positioned alongside each other within the existing compound. Each unit to measure approximately; 4.8 metres in height, 54 metres in length, and 8.5 metres in width
• A “Klargester Eco Unit” treatment plant and outside materials storage stack, both positioned in front of one of the storage units
• Laying of an enlarged area of “hoggin” hard standing within compound area enclosed by new 2 metre high security fence and access gates
In 2009 Worthing Golf Club took on the management of 107 acres of farming land, in addition to the 490 acre golf course. This farming land is now managed under a stewardship with Natural England. The management of the golf course and its surrounding land involves a significant amount of machinery and equipment. The majority of the larger equipment is kept within the complex of buildings around the club house. There are limitations on the safe storage of the machinery and equipment within these buildings, and the condition of the staff accommodation. Certain equipment, for instance golf carts have to be stored outside in the open. The applicant has provided crime incident reports that these have been subject to vandalism in the past.
The storage units are intended to accommodation the machinery and heavy equipment, a tool store, staff mess facilities, and an engineering workshop, all for the maintenance of the golf course and agricultural land and the relocation of the engineer’s workshop and staff facilities. The vacated buildings would be used for improved locker room facilities, a junior locker room and for secure buggy storage.
Access for construction traffic and subsequent vehicle movements would be through Worthing Golf Course from Links Road, following a tarmac track from the Club House and Golf Cottages rising up to the bridge way No. 2081 which leads to Cissbury Ring.
A supporting statement has been submitted with the application.
Amended Plan
A septic tank was originally proposed. This has since been omitted due to an objection from the Environment Agency.
A revised plan shows altered windows, roller shutter, and roof light arrangement to the new buildings.
2. PLANNING HISTORY
WB/07/0142/FULL Construction of a Water Booster Station to be located alongside existing access track. Repair and maintenance of an existing bridleway Grant Conditional Consent 15th May 2007
WB/03/00662/FULL Erection of single storey extension to west elevation to create changing and toilet facilities, staff room, store room and flower room. Grant Conditional Consent 16th July 2003
Numerous planning applications before these approved various small- scale alterations and outbuildings to the Golf Course.
3. APPLICANT’S DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION (SUMMARISED).
“BACKGROUND Worthing Golf Club long established golf club located on northern edge of town. Two 18 hole golf courses extend from Links Road northwards into Downs to east of Findon Valley. As well as managing two golf courses, 107 acres of land which were farmed by tenant terminated in 2009 and management of land reverted to golf club. Now managed as grassland and downland under 10 year stewardship agreement with Natural England which also covers majority of Golf Club’s land holding. With total of 490 acres of fairways, greens, woodlands and downland to manage, there is significant amount of machinery, tools and equipment required. At present majority of larger equipment kept within flint barn to north of clubhouse or outside where subject of arson attacks. Other machinery kept within containers around complex or in single story building to east of car park.
This building is also workshop where maintenance and repairs undertaken. Existing buildings comprise original Warren Farm buildings which are not suited to current use; they are inadequate to store all modern machinery and equipment needed for management of land and golf courses. Approximately thirty larger machines need to be accommodated securely along with smaller tools, irrigation equipment and landscaping materials such as fencing. Furthermore, all existing buildings situated adjoining car park and health and safety issues with movement of machinery around areas where public park and walk to clubhouse. There is need to rationalise storage facilities and provide new buildings for storage of machinery and equipment and engineer’s workshop away from clubhouse complex. New facility would also provide opportunity to improve facilities for the green keeping staff. It is challenge to accommodate agricultural/land management buildings within downland landscape and golf club appreciative of its location within South Downs National Park and need to accommodate development sensitively. It was therefore decided existing compound to east of clubhouse complex, adjoining the 17th tee on Lower Course, most appropriate location for new facilities. Compound improved for use by Southern Water when constructed pumping station on golf course and is hard surfaced, fenced and contained by mature trees and landscaping. Considered new facilities could be accommodated on this compound without harm to the visual quality of the area. In providing adequate new facility to accommodate all machinery, materials and workshop, opportunity to improve appearance of existing clubhouse complex which is prominently sited by removing temporary structures such as containers and portacabin. Vacated buildings used for much needed secure buggy storage and a junior locker room.
PROPOSAL Application proposes erection of two buildings for accommodation of machinery and equipment for maintenance of golf course and agricultural land and relocation of engineer’s workshop and staff facilities. Two buildings proposed to enable workshop and staff facilities to be located in separate buildings in interests of health and safety. Furthermore, provision of two buildings minimises the widths of buildings thereby keeping overall ridge heights to a minimum. Each building will have floor area of 459m2 which is similar to average sized agricultural building. Given size of land holding and particular requirements of golf course for specialist machinery, not considered two buildings of this size are unreasonable in circumstances. Regard must be had to fact that golf course has little in way of existing buildings which are suited to modern machinery and the land holding recently been enlarged by return of tenanted land which will be managed to benefit of National Park under a Stewardship Agreement with Natural England. Also proposes enlargement of existing compound northwards towards access track. This will enable existing material clamps to be relocated to the north of proposed buildings. The compound will be securely fenced and electronic sliding security gate will provide access.
Revised gates and access will allow for easier access by lorries delivering course materials such as sand which, due to constrained entrance, have difficulty entering site and currently have to deliver to storage area further along access track adjacent to one of greens. Additional landscaping proposed around peripheries of site. New septic tank provided at southern end of compound between buildings. Proposal will facilitate removal of two containers on site, a container to north-west of car park and portacabin and timber store adjacent to main flint barn.
ASSESSMENT Physical Assessment
Site located within Worthing Golf club land holding, to east of existing clubhouse and main buildings, north east of Warren Road. It is served by an access track which runs eastwards from main complex to entrance to compound and beyond to access greens. Located on rising land close boundary of Golf Course with Hilibarn Golf Course to east. Surrounded on all sides by mature woodland. Site rectangular in shape and is hard surfaced with scalping and concrete. Surrounded by chain link fencing overgrown with vegetation. Two containers on compound which would be removed. Also open storage clamps. Although site falls within ‘Open Downland’ as defined in the South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment, site is very well contained by existing mature landscaping. Views into site are extremely limited and confined largely to short distance glimpses from access and adjoining public footpath through existing vegetation.
Principal Central Government advice relevant to consideration of this application is found within PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth and PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. PPS1 sets out Government’s objectives for development control, core principle of which is sustainable development. PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth recognises development which provides employment opportunities constitutes economic development. Worthing Golf Club is therefore an economic business for the purpose of PPS. In Development Management Policies of PPS, Policy EC1O states that should adopt positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Policy EC12 deals specifically with economic development in rural areas and, amongst other matters, states should support small scale economic development where provides the most sustainable option in villages or other locations. PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas sets out the Government’s objectives for rural areas. Paragraph 5 encourages support wide range of economic activity in rural areas; whilst paragraph 15 seeks planning policies make most of new leisure and recreational opportunities that require countryside location, in particular in determining planning applications for development in countryside. Should support
other countryside based enterprises and activities which contribute to rural economies and/or promote recreation in and enjoyment of countryside. Paragraph 21 stating conservation of natural beauty of landscape and countryside should be given great weight, states planning policy should support suitably located and designed development necessary to facilitate economic and social wellbeing of these designated areas and their communities. Of particular relevance are emerging policies of Core Strategy, which is soon to be adopted following receipt if Inspector’s Report, and is confirmed as being sound. Policy 11 acknowledges outdoor recreation facilities contribute to wellbeing of residents, workers and visitors and strategy is to retain and enhance all existing provision. Policy 13 states proposals that support countryside based uses may be considered if they deemed essential and/or can contribute to delivery of wider strategic objectives. Any such development must take into account and mitigate against any adverse effects on visual and landscape sensitivity. South Downs Planning Guidelines also considered material to determination of this application, although produced in relation to the former Sussex Downs AONB it is considered to remain relevant to National Park. Policy RC1 states that Joint Committee with expect golf course proposals (the course itself and any ancillary development) to be evaluated in relation to their potential traffic generation and their possible impact on the qualities of the AONB, which include its landscape, nature conservation, archaeology, tranquillity and remoteness and public rights of way. It states where the proposal would course harm to any of these characteristics that cannot be adequately mitigated or compensated for, the Joint Committee will object.
INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL INTERESTS No specific consultation however the application subject of pre-application correspondence with Local Planning Authority. Advice of Council’s arboricultural officer sought
EVALUATION Existing golf club, clearly provides valuable rural recreational facility and also, as a business, contributes to local economy and provides local employment. It needs to be able to respond to changing circumstances and remain viable and competitive. Against this economic background, there is clearly need to have particular regard to location of site within South Downs National Park. Any development must therefore respect visual quality and landscape characteristic of nationally designated area. Golf Club acknowledges is location and is fully committed to managing its land in a responsible way to benefit of Park and also to maintain a high quality environment for its members. Acknowledged by Golf Club little investment in green keeping facilities and the current arrangements are unsatisfactory as existing buildings are insufficient and unsuitable for modern machinery and equipment and located in close proximity to public areas. Therefore decided new purpose built buildings are required, away
from main club house complex, to accommodate all machinery and equipment, staff facilities for 11 green keeping staff and relocation of engineer’s workshop. Underused compound chosen as located away from main complex and, if buildings could be kept low in profile, would not been seen in wider landscape due to established mature woodland around periphery. Application proposal therefore designed to have regard to operational needs of business whilst responding positively to site characteristics and policy. Scheme as submitted therefore considered Development Plan compliant. Furthermore, does not harm landscape, nature conservation, archaeology, tranquillity and remoteness or any public right of way, which are the characteristics considered as important in Policy RC1 of the South Downs Planning Guidelines. Accords with strategic objectives of Core Strategy as essential to this countryside based business which, as recreational facility should be retained and enhanced. In all respects therefore considered proposal can be accommodated within South Downs National Park without any identifiable harm but will have significant economic benefits to golf club in its role as employer and provider of recreational facility and in its management of land within National Park.
AMOUNT Proposal relates to provision of 2 no. buildings, each measuring 51 metres by 9 metres, giving gross floor area of 459 sq metres per building and overall floor space provision of 918 sq metres. Hard standing area extended to provide for relocated materials storage clamps and turning facilities for Lorries delivering those materials.
LAYOUT Proposed buildings located within existing compound adjoining eastern and western boundaries respectively. Gap of 6 metres between two buildings for vehicle manoeuvring and access to entrance doors on long elevations of each building. Further machinery access doors e located on north elevations of building. Relocated material store located to north of building. Extended hard surfaced area (scalping) to enable delivery vehicles to access materials store and turn on site. Existing chain link fence extended to enclose extended area and new fence with electronic sliding gate provided along frontage of new compound. Fence line set back from main access road to allow for landscaping to provide screening.
SCALE Buildings of low profile with eaves height of only 3.6 metres and overall ridge height of 4.2 metres.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping plan and planting schedule accompanies application. This identifies all existing trees to be retained including two Ash and Sycamore at entrance to site. Existing landscaping around western and southern boundaries will be enhanced and new hedge of Hawthorn and Blackthorn planted inside existing compound along eastern boundary.
APPEARANCE Buildings will be constructed in profile metal sheeting, typical of modern agricultural buildings. They have been designed as low buildings to minimise their visual impact and ensure existing mature landscaping continues to provide an effective screen. Buildings use length of compound to provide floor space required to accommodate all machinery, equipment, staff facilities and workshop without any unnecessary height.
ACCESS Existing private access track from main club house currently serves site and no change to existing arrangement. Proposal only involves relocation of onsite machinery, workshop and staff facilities from main complex to application site and will not result in any additional movements. Will enable operational vehicle movements to be separated from public parking areas which will represent an improvement to safety around public areas.
Additional information received 2nd August 2011
“Golf Club makes use of original Warren Farm buildings but facilities are cramped and not fit for purpose. Main barn currently accommodates machinery and equipment and little room inside for safe mounting and dismounting of machinery and many items left outside. Container adjacent to car park which is to be removed also holds equipment. New buildings will allow for safe and secure storage of all equipment in appropriate layout. Vacated buildings used for improved locker room facilities, a junior locker room and for secure buggy storage. Incident reports for arson attacks in connection with buggies which are stored in the open and therefore secure storage would greatly reduce risk of future arson attacks. Existing waiting list for 30 buggy storage spaces. Ability to offer such storage is of paramount importance to Club which enables its older and disabled members to access to golf course. With regard to landscape impact of proposed buildings, the site very well contained and certainly not visible from public vantage points higher on Downs towards Cissbury Ring. Entrance to site visible from section of public footpath which runs northwards to east of site (photograph enclosed) but this will be seen in context of background landscaping and will certainly not be prominent. In this regard, the green Protek fencing is appropriate as it will provide secure compound whilst providing visually lightweight structure. On eastern boundary of compound, fencing located inside existing chainlink fencing to maintain existing fence line overgrown. Layout of hedging is
clearly shown on drawing number PLO12 to be provided inside the new fence on eastern boundary and outside fence on western and southern boundaries. Application accompanied by planting schedule which sets out species and spacing of individual plants which will make up hedge. Do not consider that buildings, with low roof profiles surrounded by trees would be an ideal location for this technology. Golf Club is undertaking its own energy audit across whole of Golf Club site and such measures incorporated where appropriate. It may be possible however to provide water bulls to collect rainwater from the roof of the buildings and these can then be used for the filling of the ball washers around the course. Given amount of landscape management currently undertaken by Golf Club, welcome your comments on how such a requirement is necessary or related to development for which planning permission is sought given there is no loss of existing grassland habitat. Turn to issue of planning policy and your comments regarding Policy EC7.1B of PPS4 which you state indicates tourist and visitor facilities should be located in existing buildings and, in countryside, close to service centres or villages. Maintain that application proposal is not development for tourist and visitor facilities. Proposed buildings are for the management of the landscape; both Golf Course and agricultural land which comprises an agricultural holding and on which a Single Farm Payment is received. As indicated in our Planning Statement, believe proposal is partly justified on agricultural need for machinery in connection with management of land and remainder, which relates to management of Golf Course, is a leisure and recreation use. Buildings do not provide new facilities which will increase activity within National Park but will provide much needed storage facilities and rationalisation of uses within main Warren Farm complex. Relocation of facilities will provide enhanced setting for more prominently sited Warren Farm buildings and improved safety for users of Golf Club. Reiterated Golf Course provides leisure and recreation facility for town but also business providing employment opportunities and believe warrants support under Policy EC1O of PPS4 which requires Local Planning Authorities to adopt positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Worthing Golf Club always proud of diversity of flora, fauna and wildlife found on Club’s land. Ongoing management programme by Club to make sure natural beauty of Downland is preserved for enjoyment. Club has worked closely with Natural England, especially over last 3 years, to bring fields surrounding the two courses up to prime condition. Natural England complimented us for wealth of diversity of flora and fauna found within the boundaries of our land. Acting as good neighbours with both Worthing Borough Council and National Trust by assisting them to maintain quality of their grazing land by allowing them access to water for grazing animals. Since Club have taken back some 140 acres of farmland back under direct control and continue to manage areas to best effect. Much of wildlife around our land dependent on condition of grassland. Grass kept in best condition by grazing animals and through harvesting of grass twice a year. As ongoing commitment
Club purchased new machinery to enable them with their management program and this new equipment has to be safely and securely stored therefore increasing our need for adequate storage space. Club invested heavily to run new water supply to upper levels of land.”
Additional information received 2nd November 2011:
“An amended plan (P06E) clearly indicates limited extent of existing buildings on this site, their proposed uses should new buildings be permitted, and buildings which would be removed.
Golf course complex developed from farm with original buildings used to house machinery etc. Majority of these buildings seen little or no alterations in over one hundred years and supplemented by “containers” and random external storage areas. Board of Worthing Golf Club decided accommodation was not meeting demands and expectations and reached decision to invest in new buildings. Expenditure involved in excess of £100,000. Club would not have contemplated expenditure of this nature and buildings of this size if not deemed essential.
Following figured in deliberations:
Existing facilities located in and around car parking areas. Progress of car ownership/usage and size, numbers and regular use of heavy course machinery not compatible and create frequent and serious health and safety issues. None of existing buildings have “access channels” meaning machines frequently shunted around congested parking/pedestrian areas to permit use of equipment at back of buildings. Problems compounded when deliveries to clubhouse, maintenance buildings or aggregate bays.
Machinery currently stored in way that breaches health and safety regulations but no alternatives given previous problem with vandalism/arson. Despite cramming everything in, and with no allowance for access or egress, plant and machinery still left in car park. Already difficult situation made worse with additional equipment required to cover additional 106 acres returned to club two years ago under “Stewardship Agreement”. Currently 1 no 65hp tractor, 2 no scrub classes, field topper, 10 ten trailer, 2 utility vehicles and various chainsaws/strimmers which would not be required were it not for “agricultural side”.
In addition to course plant and machinery, 10 buggies currently stored in open which is unsatisfactory. Been 3 thefts of buggies and subsequent arson attacks and armed robbery at club. Given remote location imperative that as such as possible is in secure storage thereby reducing attraction to criminal elements.
In addition, relocation to fenced compound (which already exists and well screened) will enable Club to deal with other matters need to be resolved. In summary:
• Overcrowded and dangerous car park and site cluttered with container/stored machinery • Demand from existing membership to provide more buggy spaces. Currently demand for approx. 30 buggies from older/disabled members many of whom give up golf if their needs cannot be met. • External club/trolley storey which is overcrowded and a waiting list for spaces • Waiting list of members requiring locker space in main clubhouse. Need to provide space for juniors in additional to main locker room. Need to provide additional internal storage for course and patio furniture. Expansion clubhouse storage to place tables, chairs, bridge tables which are only used for individual functions. Replacement of antiquated and very poor standard changing rooms/mess rooms used by 11 course maintenance staff
With regard to the buildings removed, these are clearly marked on recently submitted drawing. By way of further clarification however these comprise 2 no. containers within compound the subject of the application., 1 no container to north of car park, and a portacabin office and store to west of main barn. Relocation of staff facilities, machinery store and engineers workshop will leave the buildings available for the following uses:
• Main Barn – this building will be used to meet requirement club is not satisfying for golf course buggies. As mentioned demand for approximately 30. • Engineer’s workshop – this will become additional lock space (including juniors) and remainder used to house professionals buggies currently left parked in open on access road • Staffrooms – in longer term, kitchens to rear and side of this building need refurbishing but not a short term priority. Used for badly needed additional storage for clubhouse and course furniture and effects
In conclusion, once again re-iterated Golf Club is a non profit making club and can only justify spending its Member’s money on buildings which are necessary. Given total land holding of over 600 acres proposed buildings meet current minimum requirements. Reputation and standing of club is high and a big asset to Worthing which is evident by local people who use it.”
4. CONSULTATIONS
The South Downs Society comments:-
“Although proposed buildings are sizeable, do not believe they will be very visible from outside the golf course. We understand this development will enable club to rationalise its storage and bring about an overall environmental improvement. We believe the club is seeking to enhance its environmental performance and welcome that. Accordingly, we SUPPORT this application.”
The Environment Agency comments as follows:-
“No objection in principle to proposal as submitted but would, however, wish following to be taken into consideration:
Development overlies the Tarrant Chalk Member which is classified as principal aquifer under Environment Agency's Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) guidance document. Site located within groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1) and partly within groundwater SPZ2 for Broadwater Public Water Supply abstraction.
Provided location plan for position of treatment plant and infiltration area indicates it lies within groundwater SPZ2. This is acceptable in principle. Any soakaways need to be constructed to requirements of BS6297:2007.”
Southern Water comments that:-
“Consult Environment Agency directly regarding use of a septic tank drainage which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. Owners need to maintain septic tank to ensure its long term effectiveness. Council’s Building Control/technical staff or Environment Agency should be asked to comment on adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from development.”
Natural England comments that:-
“Development does not appear to fall within scope of consultations that Natural England routinely comment on.”
The Sussex Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser comments that:-
“Location has average levels of crime and anti social behaviour. Do not have concerns. Perimeter fence described within D&A provides secure first line of defence. Proposed electronic sliding security gate should be
installed with Health and Safety Executive risk guide - Risks to pedestrians from crushing zones on electrically powered gates. Suggest gates have access control system installed operating swipe card or biometrics system of access, could be further expanded for use on doors to buildings. Should these options not be considered and installed, locks to the building doors and front gates to conform to BS3621. Recommend fitting of monitored intruder alarm system within buildings. To further protect expensive items stored within compound may be beneficial to overtly security mark items with company logo, postcode or name. Finally PIR activated lighting to provide security and safety to employees and to reduce light pollution recommended.”
West Sussex County Council Ecologist comments that:-
“Q13 of the application form has been answered incorrectly as the proposed development will occur within the boundary of a designated Site of Nature Conservation Importance. However, no detrimental ecological impacts are expected therefore no ecological objection is raised in this instance. Strongly recommend imposition of condition to secure establishment of native chalk grassland elsewhere on land under applicant’s control. Ideal area should be twice the size of the new development. Commercial seed mixes that may provide a best fit include: BSH: RE4 Emmorsgate: EM6, EM18 Please note WSCC in no way supports these companies, they are used for illustration only and there are many other companies that are able to provide suitable seed mixes. Relevant Policy Worthing Core Strategy policies 13 & 14 Policy 13 refers back to Strategic objectives and Objective 1 relevant here. Policy 13 also looks to biodiversity enhancement and seeks to protect SNCIs. Policy 14 on Green Infrastructure is also relevant as establishment of chalk grassland will improve ecological networks within recreational environment whilst making a significant contribution to National and Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets. PPS9 paragraph 9, 12 & 14 PPG17 Paragraphs 11, 17, 20 and Annex para 3.”
West Sussex County Council Public Rights of Way Officer comments that:-
“Public Bridleway 2081 runs along eastern boundary of proposed compound and planting. However would appear from proposals that there should not be any significant impact. Would very much welcome any
contributions to any improvement of our rights of way. Please make applicant aware that any alteration to or replacement of the existing boundary with the PROW or the erection of new fence lines or planting of trees, must be done in consultation with West Sussex County Council’s Rights of Way team to ensure the legal width of the path is maintained and there is no unlawful encroachment. Safe & convenient public access is to be available at all times across the full width of the PROW.”
The Planning Policy Manager comments that:-
“Main policy would be policy 13 and main considerations would be whether proposal seeks to support a countryside based use – informal recreation is indicated as one. It goes on to say it needs to be determined whether it is essential to use and/or can contribute to wider strategic objectives. Must also take into account and mitigate against adverse effects on visual and landscape sensitivity. Difficult to make case that private golf course is informal recreation. Consider ‘formal’ sports to be those that require setting out of pitches, courses, paddocks etc. On flip side suggest informal recreation covers ‘open space’ uses and leisure pursuits such as walking and cycling.
One definition used by another LPA: Informal recreation and open space can perform variety of functions which include, defining and separating urban areas; improving quality of life for communities; promoting health and wellbeing; providing habitats for flora and fauna; providing community resource and promoting visual amenity. This category includes types of general open space and includes incidental open spaces associated with housing estates, highway verges and small pockets of open space. However, key test should be general thrust of policy i.e. it seeks to prevent inappropriate uses/development outside BUA. Think in this instance, as golf course is existing use, onus is on applicant to demonstrate why storage unit of this size is required and that its design and siting takes full account and mitigates against adverse effects on visual and landscape sensitivity.”
The Borough Environmental Health Officer requests a precautionary contaminated land condition.
The Highway Authority raises no highway concerns.
English Heritage was not consulted as no objection was raised to an earlier application for the water booster station (WB/07/0142/FULL) in relation to Cissbury Ring, a designated National Monument, and they asked not to be consulted again.
On this earlier application Southern Gas Networks noted the existence of a pressure gas main in proximity close to the application site, and asked
that no mechanical excavations take place above or within a certain distance of the pressure system.
The County Archaeologist has not commented on this application but on the earlier application 07/0142/FULL, a possible Bronze Age barrow and high potential for archaeological features principally of prehistoric age was noted, and an archaeological field unit to monitor these works and record as necessary.
Borough Arboriculturist and Borough Engineers comments are awaited.
5. REPRESENTATIONS
The occupier of The Lodge Links Road comments as follows:-
“No way of knowing if this affects me as your online map does not work. Please post or email a map to me.”
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Introduction
The most relevant planning issues raised by this application are:
• Principle of the development and its implications upon The South Downs National Park; • Its environmental implications including those on groundwater abstraction and flora and fauna; and • highway considerations including public rights of way
As such the proposal should be mainly considered against Worthing Core Strategy policies 3, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19; saved Worthing Local Plan Policies RES7, TR9, and H18, and most relevant South East Plan Policies SP1, SP2, CC1, CC3, CC4, CC6, NRM1, NRM2, NRM3, NRM4, NRM5, NRM9, NRM10, NRM11, W2, C2, C4, C5, C6, T7, TSR2, TSR4, S1, S5, SCT1.
Government guidance is also relevant in the form of Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development and Climate Change Supplement; PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth; PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment; PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, PPG13: Transport, PPG17: Sport and Recreation, PPS23: Planning and
Pollution Control; PPG24: Noise; and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk
The recently published Government White Paper The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (June 2011) sets out how Government views the planning system’s role in protecting and improving the natural environment.
Also of consideration is The South Downs Management Plan 2008-2013 and allied document The South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment: Technical Report (Dec 2005) and A Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland (Countryside Agency 2002).
Finally, the draft National Planning Policy Framework is a material planning consideration. But its draft status ensures the present Development Plan carries the greater weight in the determination of this proposal.
Principle
The site lies within The South Down National Park. The two statutory purposes of this designation are: y To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; and y To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.
If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.
Government policy relating to National Parks set out in PPS7 and Circular 2010 English National Parks and the Broads UK Government Vision and Circular (DEFRA March 2010) is that they have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside must, therefore, be given great weight in development control decisions.
Fundamental to the principle of sustainable development contained within Government Guidance is that new building development in the open countryside should be strictly controlled. Policy 13 of the Core Strategy generally supports countryside based uses. But a golf course could be equally found in an urban environment. The proposal will not generate employment opportunities in itself as it is to serve existing employers and patrons. Moreover, increased use of the compound
would increase the movements of specialist ‘green-keeping’ vehicles associated with the maintenance of the golf course.
The South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment: Technical Report (Dec 2005) states the application site falls within the landscape character type of Open Downland. The landscape character area is the Arun to Adur Open Downs.
Views south from Cissbury Ring toward the coastline which take in the application site and its surrounding land contribute toward the landscape character, including its scenic qualities, and have a high sensitivity to change. The various national and local designations afforded to the land within the wider landscape indicate it has a good condition and is of high value. An inherent characteristic of the landscape is the absence of buildings, and so this landscape is particularly vulnerable to the introduction of such. This area has high levels of public recreational use with a network of public rights of way and open access land. Cissbury Ring and its outer edges are popular with residents of nearby urban areas, walkers, horse riders, and other users.
It is important to recognise that although a relatively small development site is affected, the magnitude of change to the immediate surroundings should not be down played. The buildings would be sited on an existing compound at a low point in an open rolling hill running north to south from Mount Carvey toward the east edge of Findon Valley. The valley between Mount Carvey and Tenants Hill is to the east.
It is acknowledged the overall size and height of the buildings is largely governed by the machinery contained within it. But owning to their size, it is inevitable the proposed buildings would have an impact on the surrounding landscape. The scale and massing of the buildings and the high sensitivity of the surrounding landscape would be mean directly physical changes, indirect changes to visual character and perception, and impacts on landscape value would all be reasonably substantial.
These buildings would be visually prominent from within the Golf Course itself, particularly in more exposed views from the north and west. They would be highly visible along the bridleway that runs north-south along the ridge of Mount Carvey (No. 2081) and which runs adjacent to the site. Apart from the buildings, the proposed up-grading of the entrance access would also have a visual impact on the landscape. In these instances the development would be seen against the backdrop of the existing screen planting, hedgerows, and vegetation. The area of hard standing would be visibly apparent in very close views but not so in more distant views. Far more limited public views would be possible from the bridge ways running along the ridge of Tenants Hill and along
its western flank (No. 3131), although views of the building from here would be restricted by the form of the land.
The introduction of buildings of this size, which incorporates containers and heavy machinery, and the associated vehicular activities, would diminish to a certain extent the perception of tranquillity, remoteness, recreational experience on the more exposed hill slope whereas at present it is limited to small golf carts. This would be readily perceived from users of the adjacent bridleway. However an established golf course means the landscape lacks a degree of remoteness already. The nearest dwellings not occupied by staff are well away from the development area and would be unlikely to be affected at such significant distance.
The applicant has ruled out other alternative site options as the location of the proposed buildings is largely governed by the existing infrastructure in the area and the need to link it to the existing golf course. If the principle of the development is considered acceptable, there are few alternative locations nearby which would be less environmentally damaging to the landscape as the landscape is highly sensitive owing to the open rolling downland, and lack of existing screening vegetation. It is evident that the capacity of the existing buildings to accommodate the present amount of machinery and equipment is very limited and far from satisfactory. When the planning officer visited the site there was little room inside for safe mounting and dismounting of machinery.
It is proposed to plant additional native trees and shrubs around the compound to help diminish the impact of the development. Mitigation planting is suggested which, over time, would grow to screen more of the buildings from public view. The suggested position of the security fence behind the existing fence, which is overgrown with shrubs and climbers, would ensure the verdant character of the bridleway remains. It is imperative this planting scheme is retained as otherwise the buildings would be much more prominent, so it is prudent to condition that a scheme be submitted demonstrating the long term management of the planting beyond the immediate post-build period, and that semi- mature specimens are used to create instant screening. It is important to recognise the suggested planting is almost all deciduous so the buildings would become more visible in the winter months.
To ensure disturbance to the tranquillity of the National Park is kept to a minimum, it is prudent to condition both buildings and access are completed on-site together in a timely manner to avoid a lengthy phasing of the development, and that a construction management plan be submitted.
Physical works to the access, signage, fencing, and gates have been kept to a minimum. The suggested fencing and gate design is quite industrial but also of diffuse design that reduces its visual impact. It is not considered that the recommendations by Sussex Police should be fully endorsed as a balance needs to be made between reducing the risk of crime and preserving the intrinsic qualities of the National Park. To that end, it is necessary to condition the access, fencing, signage, and gates not to be altered beyond that shown on plans submitted, and any security details be agreed. To avoid an unacceptable level of pollution from sources of artificial light, all lighting should be controlled by planning condition. Permanent lighting would not be acceptable.
The buildings are designed with materials reflecting a modern agricultural building. The applicant asserts their size means it is not financially feasible to build them in flint block work with clay tiled roof. Flint and brick ex-farm buildings near to the club house make a contribution to cultural heritage of the National Park. The removal of existing containers and other unsightly structures near to the club house would enhance their setting. The development is far enough away from the National Monument of Cissbury Ring so as not to unduly harm its interest.
Improved storage capacity for the golf course could, potentially, allow the golf course to offer more people recreational opportunities on the South Downs through increased membership. This would meet the second statutory purpose of the SNDP.
On balance, taking into account surrounding topography and landscape features, and together with its design, Members may well decide the development would not appear as wholly unsympathetic form of development in the context of the surrounding landscape.
Other Environmental Implications
Pressure gas main and Archaeology
A condition can be imposed to ensure no mechanical excavations take place to protect the pressure gas main. Also an additional condition can imposed a watching brief to ensure any archaeological finds are recorded. Similar conditions were imposed on the earlier 2007 application for the alterations to the water booster station.
Ground water Abstraction
The application site lies within a groundwater source protection zone. Originally a septic tank was proposed but the Environment Agency objected to this due to potential risk of groundwater contamination.
Following negotiations, this has been omitted and an alternative disposal system is suggested and the Environment Agency has retracted their objection. The details of this system can be secured by condition. Equally the details of the new hard standing can be secured by condition to ensure pollutant seepage and/or surface water runoff is avoided.
Flora and Fauna
Evidence of protected badgers has been identified in the landscape near to the compound. This is the only protected species to be identified on the site. The application is supported by a report by Sussex Badger Consultancy which summarises no signs of badgers were found to the north of the compound where the extension to the hard standing is proposed and although a sett hole was found n the wooded area to the south of the existing compound this showed no sign of recent usage. Following from the Sussex Badger Consultancy report, it is not expected the proposed works would have a detrimental impact on badger activity.
The North East Worthing Downs has been recognised as a Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA) as it represents a priority area for the delivery of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets for lowland calcareous grassland habitat. The application site falls within the BOA. In addition, Worthing Golf Course is designated a Site of Nature Conservation Interest and encompasses large areas of unimproved chalk grassland, neutral grassland, scrub and woodland. Nearby, Cissbury Ring is a Site of Special Scientific Interest with unimproved species-rich chalk grassland and areas of scrub supporting a good butterfly and bird community.
Within this context, the applicant has been asked to secure an improvement to the ecological value of the landscape by seeding a parcel of land equivalent in size to the application site to grassland. Disappointingly, the applicant has declined this opportunity to build on their existing management regime of the land. There could also be an opportunity to secure enhanced habitat for bats and birds and/or a dew pond within the vicinity of the compound.
However, it is recognised Worthing Golf Club has an ongoing management plan with Natural England concerning fields around the course to provide grazing grassland. They also work with Worthing Borough Council and National Trust to allow both bodies access to water for their grazing animals on their land.
Sustainable Construction
Due to additional costs, the applicant is reluctant to consider use of sustainable materials for the storage units, despite a request to do so but has agreed to install a rainwater collection system to these units and use this ‘grey water’ for filling of the ball washers around the course. The details of this can be secured by condition.
Contamination Land The application site is not identified as contaminated so an informative would be sufficient to raise the applicant's awareness of the risk.
Highway considerations
The storage compound is accessed via a narrow access to the golf course complex. Heavy vehicles would use this tarmac track. However it is not adopted highway. And turning space is available within the compound site itself so the development is unlikely to materially impinge upon highway safety.
7. CONCLUSION
Since 1st April 2011 the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) is the Planning Authority and Worthing Borough Council is effectively acting as their agent. The two authorities have worked together towards making this recommendation on behalf of the SDNPA, under delegation arrangements.
Government Guidance in PPS1 identifies the prudent use of natural resources and the effective protection of the environment as two of the basic aims of sustainable development, underpinning the fundamental principles of land use planning. New buildings in this location should be avoided but the applicant has argued, with reasonable evidence, that the new buildings are necessary for the purposes of the golf course and the management of the surrounding land, and the functionality of the former would continue to be impeded without them. The siting of the new buildings on the lower slopes of the rolling downs, together with existing and mitigation screen planting, would reduce their visual impact.
For the reasoning set out in this report, it is considered that the new buildings in this location within The South Downs National Park would, notwithstanding their size, not have such an impact as to materially impinge upon the conservation of natural beauty of the landscape and countryside, conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park, and that no material conflict would arise onto its statutory purposes.
8. RECOMMENDATION
On behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1. Standard 5 year time limit 2. Plans as approved 3. Permission is personal to Worthing Golf Course operator 4. All new development and vacated buildings to be purposes as shown on submitted plans ancillary to operation of Worthing Golf Course 5. All development completed out on site as single operation in timely manner to be agreed 6. No use of the storage units until the containers and portakabins removed from the site as shown on the submitted plans 7. No development until all building and structures existing on the land at the date of this permission removed from the site unless otherwise shown on to be retained on the submitted plans and details of their disposal to be agreed 8. No development until precise soft landscaping scheme agreed and planted out in full in a timely manner to be agreed. This scheme shall include written specifications; schedules of plants stating species, sizes and numbers/densities including semi- mature tree specimens; and the implementation programme, details of protection of existing trees/shrubs/other vegetation retained during the course of construction, functional services above and below ground such as drainage, power; communications cables, pipelines etc (indicating lines, manholes, supports, and a medium/long term management plan for retention of approved planting scheme beyond initial planting out 9. No development until programme of archaeological work agreed and implemented 10. No development until precise details of specification for up- grading of site access agreed and precise position of new fencing agreed 11. No development until details of “Klargester Eco Unit” and hard standing agreed in consultation with Borough Engineers and Environment Agency 12. No use of storage units until details of material stack agreed 13. No development until Construction Method Statement agreed. The Statement shall provide for:- (i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; (ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; (iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
(iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding; (v) wheel-washing facilities; (vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and (vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. 14. Existing Public Right of Way maintained and protected throughout course of construction 15. No mechanical excavations in vicinity of pressure gas main 16. No use of storage units until details of rainwater collection of storage units agreed 17. No use of storage units until security measures agreed 18. No external lighting or floodlighting installed without permission on any structure on the land edged in red 19. No signage installed without permission on any structure on the land edged in red 20. Other than the areas shown on the submitted plans no raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials, nor any other items shall be stacked, stored or displayed on the site 21. No external working shall take place anywhere on the premises to which this permission relates and all working shall be confined to within the buildings 22. Notwithstanding “pd” no means of enclosure and/or gates erected other than shown on the submitted plans unless permission granted 23. Notwithstanding “pd” the buildings shall not be extended or altered externally or any incidental building and/or structure erected unless permission granted 24. Notwithstanding “pd” no external plant or machinery shall be installed, erected or replaced on the application site unless permission granted 25. No vehicular turning unless on site in the land edged in red
9. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Observations of the South Downs Society Observations of the Environment Agency Observations of Southern Water Observations of Natural England Observations of Sussex Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser Observations of West Sussex County Council Observations of the Planning Policy Manager Observations of the Executive Head of Health, Housing and Community Safety Observations of the Highway Authority
Letter of Representation from a Member of the Public
23rd November 2011