Public Document Pack

JOHN WARD East Pallant House Head of Finance and Governance Services 1 East Pallant Chichester Contact: Graham Thrussell on 01243 534653 West Sussex Email: [email protected] PO19 1TY Tel: 01243 785166 www.chichester.gov.uk

A meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Committee Rooms at East Pallant House Chichester on Wednesday 17 August 2016 at 09:30

MEMBERS: Mr R Hayes (Chairman), Mrs C Purnell (Vice-Chairman), Mr G Barrett, Mr M Cullen, Mrs J Duncton, Mr M Dunn, Mr J F Elliott, Mr M Hall, Mr L Hixson, Mrs J Kilby, Mr G McAra, Mr S Oakley, Mr R Plowman, Mrs J Tassell and Mrs P Tull

AGENDA

1 Chairman's Announcements

Any apologies for absence which have been received will be noted at this stage.

The Planning Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications (agenda items 5 to 11) which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

2 Approval of Minutes (pages 1 to 8)

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday 20 July 2016.

3 Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 14 b).

4 Declarations of Interests (pages 9 to 10)

For details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies, please refer to pages 1 to 2 of this agenda.

Such interests are hereby disclosed by each member in respect of agenda items in the schedule of planning applications where the Council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular item or application.

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are to be made by members of the Planning Committee in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting.

There are sometimes also declarations by members that they will not participate in the discussion of and decision on a particular item for various reasons eg predetermination or bias.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - AGENDA ITEMS 5 TO 11 INCLUSIVE

Section 4 of the notes at the end of the agenda front sheets has a table showing how planning applications are referenced.

5 CH/15/02461/FUL - Old Telephone Exchange Chidham Lane Chidham West Sussex (pages 11 to 21)

Change of use from telephone exchange into office B1a.

6 LX/16/01552/FUL - Hurst Hall Close Loxwood West Sussex (pages 22 to 28)

Retrospective erection of entrance gates to Hurst Hall Close.

7 O/15/02343/FUL - Land to South of A259 Bognor Road Oving Chichester West Sussex PO20 1NW (pages 29 to 53)

Crop research, technology and multiplication centre, encompassing approximately 2.83 hectares of varietal trial plots, DEFRA official seed testing station, laboratory, ancillary offices, pack house and parking and associated landscaping, incorporating 1,591 cubic metres balancing pond.

8 SB/16/01466/FUL - Nutbourne Business Park Main Road Nutbourne PO18 8RL (pages 54 to 64)

One no replacement dwelling house.

9 WH/16/01103/FUL - Wherstead Coach Road (North) Westhampnett West Sussex PO18 0NX (pages 65 to 75)

Proposed dwelling house on land adjacent to Wherstead and proposed vehicular access to existing dwelling.

10 SDNP/16/00941/CND - Old Court House Grange Road Midhurst West Sussex GU29 9LT (pages 76 to 87)

Variation of condition 14 of planning permission SDNP/15/01256/CND to remove reference to parking spaces 7 and 8.

11 SDNP/16/01074/HOUS - Moorlands Farm Cowdray Park Easebourne West Sussex (pages 88 to 98)

Proposed side extension. 12 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters (pages 99 to 110)

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

13 Development Management Performance Update April to June 2016 (pages 111 to 112)

The Planning Committee is requested to note the performance of Chichester District Council’s Development Management service for the period April 2016 to June 2016.

14 Late Items

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the chairman during agenda item 3 as follows:

a) Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection

b) Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting

15 Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration by the Planning Committee at this meeting.

NOTES

1. The press and public may be excluded from the meeting during any item of business whenever it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in section 100I of and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

2. The press and public may view the agenda papers on Chichester District Council’s website at Chichester District Council - Minutes, agendas and reports unless these are exempt items.

3. The open proceedings of this meeting will be audio recorded and the recording will be held for one year by the town council. A copy of the recording will also be retained in accordance with the council’s information and data policies. If members of the public make a representation to the meeting, they will be deemed to have consented to being audio recorded. By entering the committee room they are also consenting to being audio recorded. If members of the public have any queries regarding the audio recording of this meeting, please contact the contact for this meeting at the front of this agenda.

4. Subject to the provisions allowing the exclusion of the press and public, the photographing, filming or recording of this meeting from the public seating area is permitted. To assist with the management of the meeting, anyone wishing to do this is asked to inform the chairman of the meeting of his or her intentions before the meeting starts. The use of mobile devices for access to social media is permitted but these should be switched to silent for the duration of the meeting. Those undertaking such activities must do so discreetly and not disrupt the meeting, for example by oral commentary, excessive noise, distracting movement or flash photography. Filming of children, vulnerable adults or members of the audience who object should be avoided. [Standing Order 11.3 in the Constitution of Chichester District Council]

5. How applications are referenced:

a) First 2 Digits = Parish b) Next 2 Digits = Year c) Next 5 Digits = Application Number d) Final Letters = Application Type

Application Type Committee report changes appear in bold text. Application Status ADV Advert Application AGR Agricultural Application (following PNO) ALLOW Appeal Allowed CMA County Matter Application (eg Minerals) APP Appeal in Progress CAC Conservation Area Consent APPRET Invalid Application Returned COU Change of Use APPWDN Appeal Withdrawn CPO Consultation with County Planning (REG3) BCO Building Work Complete DEM Demolition Application BST Building Work Started DOM Domestic Application (Householder) CLOSED Case Closed ELD Existing Lawful Development CRTACT Court Action Agreed FUL Full Application CRTDEC Hearing Decision Made GVT Government Department Application CSS Called in by Secretary of State HSC Hazardous Substance Consent DEC Decided LBC Listed Building Consent DECDET Decline to determine OHL Overhead Electricity Line DEFCH Defer – Chairman OUT Outline Application DISMIS Appeal Dismissed PLD Proposed Lawful Development HOLD Application Clock Stopped PNO Prior Notification (Agr, Dem, Tel) INV Application Invalid on Receipt REG3 District Application – Reg 3 LEG Defer – Legal Agreement REG4 District Application – Reg 4 LIC Licence Issued REM Approval of Reserved Matters NFA No Further Action REN Renewal (of Temporary Permission) NODEC No Decision TCA Tree in Conservation Area NONDET Never to be determined TEL Telecommunication Application (After PNO) NOOBJ No Objection TPA Works to tree subject of a TPO NOTICE Notice Issued CONACC Accesses NOTPRO Not to Prepare a Tree Preservation Order CONADV Adverts OBJ Objection CONAGR Agricultural PCNENF PCN Served, Enforcement Pending CONBC Breach of Conditions PCO Pending Consideration CONCD Coastal PD Permitted Development CONCMA County matters PDE Pending Decision CONCOM Commercial/Industrial/Business PER Application Permitted CONDWE Unauthorised dwellings PLNREC DC Application Submitted CONENG Engineering operations PPNR Planning Permission Required S64 CONHDG Hedgerows PPNREQ Planning Permission Not Required CONHH Householders REC Application Received CONLB Listed Buildings REF Application Refused CONMHC Mobile homes / caravans REVOKE Permission Revoked CONREC Recreation / sports S32 Section 32 Notice CONSH Stables / horses SPLIT Split Decision CONT Trees STPSRV Stop Notice Served CONTEM Temporary uses – markets/shooting/motorbikes STPWTH Stop Notice Withdrawn CONTRV Travellers VAL Valid Application Received CONWST Wasteland WDN Application Withdrawn YESTPO Prepare a Tree Preservation Order Agenda Item 2

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held in Committee Rooms - East Pallant House on Wednesday 20 July 2016 at 9.30 am

Members Present: Mr R Hayes (Chairman), Mrs C Purnell (Vice-Chairman), Mr G Barrett, Mr M Cullen, Mrs J Duncton, Mr J F Elliott, Mr M Hall, Mr L Hixson, Mrs J Kilby, Mr G McAra, Mr S Oakley, Mr R Plowman, Mrs J Tassell and Mrs P Tull

Members not present: Mr T Mark E Dunn

In attendance by Invitation: Mr G Csatlos, Senior Project Manager, Southern Water Mr C Nelson, Senior Technical Manager, Southern Water

Officers present all items: Mr Andrew Frost (Head of Planning Services), Mr Jeremy Bushell (Principal Planning Officer), Mr Tony Whitty (Development Management Service Manager), Mrs Shona Archer (Enforcement Manager), Miss Jo Bell (Development Manager (Majors and Business)), Mrs Katherine Jeram (Member Services Officer) and Mr Chris Bartlett (Principal Planning Officer)

29 Chairman's Announcements

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. He drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure which was displayed on the screens and introduced the officers present, including Sebastian Oliver a student spending the week with the Member Services Section who was observing the meeting.

30 Approval of Minutes

Resolved

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2016 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

31 Urgent Items

The Chairman advised that there were no urgent items.

32 Declarations of Interests

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of planning application NM/15/04160/FUL as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

[PC 20.07.16 1] Page 1

Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WE/16/01529/FUL, WE/15/04086/FUL, NM/15/04160/FUL, CC/16/00161/FUL and CC/15/03542/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council. Mrs Duncton did not arrive at the meeting until item 8 and, therefore, did not declare an interest in respect of application WE/16/01078/COU.

Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/16/00161/FUL and CC/15/03542/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WE/16/01078/COU, WE/16/01529/FUL, WE/15/04086/FUL, NM/15/04160/FUL, CC/16/00161/FUL and CC/15/03542/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WE/16/01078/COU, WE/16/01529/FUL, WE/15/04086/FUL, NM/15/04160/FUL, CC/16/00161/FUL and CC/15/03542/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Oakley subsequently declared a personal interest during the discussion of application NM/15/04160/FUL as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Portsmouth Water Customers Forum.

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/16/00161/FUL and CC/15/03542/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council.

33 WW/16/01384/FUL - 29 Marine Drive West, West Wittering, PO20 8HH

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

34 WW/16/01059/FUL - Cherrymead And Jacquerie, Elms Lane, West Wittering, West Sussex, PO20 8LW

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

(a) Mrs K Simmons - Agent

Whilst some members raised concerns regarding the proposed overall design and the loss of a dwelling, the majority of members considered that the proposal was an improved design compared to the previously refused application. An additional condition was favoured to ensure protection of the neighbouring listed building during the demolition of Jacquerie and the construction process.

Recommendation to Permit with additional condition (protection of listed building) agreed.

35 WE/16/01078/COU - Land West Of The Old Army Camp, Cemetery Lane, Woodmancote, Westbourne, West Sussex

[PC 20.07.16 2] Page 2 A site visit had taken place for this application on 19 July 2016.

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the amendment of drainage conditions, further representation received from Westbourne Parish Council, and a change to the recommendation to read “Defer to agree details of siting of replacement stable building, then Permit with Section 106 agreement”.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr R Hitchcock – Agent; Mr R Briscoe – Objector; and Mr P Mason – Objector.

Mrs Purnell read out a statement from Mr Dunn who was unable attend the Committee.

Mr Whitty explained the reason for a change in the recommendation, which was now to permit, was the consequence of an appeal for one of the adjoining sites that had been allowed and which was a material consideration for this application. With regard to the spread of sites across the parishes in the District and concern expressed by members that in certain areas, including Westbourne, there was a disproportionate number of sites he explained the test was not how well distributed gypsy and traveller sites were across the District but whether or not the number in any given area was disproportionate to the settled population.

Mr Frost referred to the Development Plan Document that the Council had begun to prepare and explained that following changes by the Government to the definition of gypsy and travellers the Council had decided not to pursue it any further without a better understanding as to whether their needs had changed. It was expected that the document would have included proposed sites for gypsies and travellers. Currently the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of sites as it was four pitches short. A Planning Inspector at an appeal would therefore be likely to give this matter great weight and be of the view an application should be granted unless there was very good reason not to.

It was considered by several members that the application should be refused on the basis of an inefficient use of land for gypsy and traveller pitch provision in light of the Council’s overall pitch requirement and also the protection of the open countryside as set out in Local Plan policies as if this density of development was permitted the Council would have to release further areas of land to meet the Council’s overall gypsy and traveller pitch requirements.

Mr Frost advised the Committee of the challenging grounds to defend an appeal should the Committee refuse the application. The same approach regarding density could not be applied to traveller and gypsy pitch sizes that was applied to normal residential development, as that was set out in Government guidance and in the Council’s own Local Plan.

Refuse

[PC 20.07.16 3] Page 3

The proposed provision of a single gypsy pitch on a large site in the rural area would result in an inefficient use of the land which would lead to an unnecessary loss of open countryside to the detriment of the rural character and tranquillity of the area. Having regard to the shortfall of a 5 year supply of Gypsy and Traveller pitches in the District it is not considered that the need outweighs this identified harm. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Policy 1 and 36 of the Chichester District Local Plan 2014-2029.

Note: (this decision was contrary to the officer’s recommendation)

36 WE/16/01529/FUL - The Meadow, Cemetery Lane, Woodmancote, Westbourne, West Sussex

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the amendment of drainage conditions and further representation received from Westbourne Parish Council.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr R Hitchcock – Agent; Mr R Briscoe – Objector; and Mr P Mason – Objector.

Mrs Purnell read out a statement from Mr Dunn who was unable attend the Committee.

A vote on the recommendation to permit the application was not carried.

The majority of members did not favour approval of the application and on a vote they supported a proposal to refuse the application on the grounds that they considered the development should be refused by reason of the open and underdeveloped nature of the site and its relationship to the wider land and the resulting prominence of the development, which will have a significant adverse effect on the character of the area, on the character of Cemetery Lane, and due to its proximity to the Westbourne Cemetery heritage asset.

Refuse

The development, by reason of the open undeveloped nature of the site, its relationship to the wider land and the resulting prominence of the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the undeveloped rural landscape, the character of Cemetery Lane and the tranquillity of the cemetery, which is considered to be an undesignated heritage asset by reason of the chapel, walls and its location outside of Westbourne, which contribute to its rural character of quiet serenity. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies 1, 36, 47, 48 of the Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029 and paragraphs 14, 17 and section 11 and 12 generally of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note: (this decision was contrary to officer’s recommendation)

[PC 20.07.16 4] Page 4

37 WE/1 5/04086/FUL - The Old Army Camp, Cemetery Lane, Woodmancote, Westbourne, West Sussex

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the amendment of drainage conditions, further representation received from Westbourne Parish Council, the deletion of duplicated condition 12 (lighting) and re- numbering of remaining conditions, and amended recommendation to permit subject deferral for a Section 106 agreement.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr R Hitchcock – Agent; Mr R Briscoe – Objector; Mr P Mason – Objector; and Mr J Cunnane – Agent.

Mrs Purnell read out a statement from Mr Dunn who was unable attend the Committee.

Mr Frost and Mr Whitty replied to members’ questions and comments. With regard to concerns raised about the likely impact caused by additional showmans’ heavy vehicles on Cemetery Lane, an unadopted highway and therefore a private access road, it was the responsibility of the applicant to seek access and to agree to any maintenance agreement. West Sussex County Council Rights of Way had been consulted and as no response had been received it was assumed that they did not object to the proposal. Due to the size of the vehicles expected to be stored on the site it was unlikely that they would be entirely screened. The current fencing would be replaced by hedgerow planting.

The Council was currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of sites for travelling showpeople and had a shortfall of one plot. Due to a change in Government guidance it had been necessary to stop work on the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations document that had intended to set out suitable sites within the District. Government guidance provided that in these circumstances, unless significant harm could be identified then there was a presumption in favour of development unless there were sufficient robust reasons to refuse. Mr Frost confirmed that the scheme was acceptable on planning merits.

Defer for Section 106 agreement then Permit with deletion of condition 12 (lighting) agreed.

38 NM/15/04160/FUL - Land South Of Stoney Lodge, School Lane, North Mundham, West Sussex

At its meeting on 25 May 2016 the Committee deferred this application for further information to be provided in respect of foul water drainage implications and to receive an explanation for the change of Southern Water’s requirements in respect of no requirement for infrastructure upgrades to the foul sewerage network.

[PC 20.07.16 5] Page 5 The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr P Stephens – Parish Representative; Mr A Forsyth – Objector; and Mrs E Lawrence – Agent.

Mr Csatlos referred to the assessment of the applicant’s Section 98 application to Southern Water to establish if improvements were required and explained that the findings were based on the latest hydraulic modelling data based on an average across the region. This was the reason that Southern Water had changed its position since 2012, following an upgrade to the pumping station and the use of different criteria, and advised that an upgrade was no longer required to the public sewer to facilitate the proposed development. Although the modelling exercise showed that the foul sewer up stream of the development accepted more flows than its design capacity, the proposed 25 houses would not exacerbate the current position. It was possible that a third party was discharging more than allowed, which was currently the subject of investigation. He advised that the results had also indicated that surface water appeared to be entering the system and that this was the responsibility of Southern Water to investigate. In addressing members concerns, it was important to understand that the proposed housing development was for a small site linking to the existing system, which would not significantly affect flows. Southern Water could not legally require the developer to provide additional sewerage capacity over and above the additional flows required for the development.

Mr Nelson informed the Committee that a site meeting was due to take place with the third party. He undertook to report back the outcome of the meeting to the planning officers and to provide regular updates on steps being taken to resolve the problems.

Mr Frost responded to members’ questions and comments. He advised that it would not be reasonable for members to defer the application again. Southern Water, although not a statutory consultee, was a key consultee and therefore their explanation that the current foul drainage capacity was capable of accommodating the additional flows should be respected. With regard to the future A27 Chichester bypass improvement proposals and concern expressed about the impact additional traffic using Lagness Road may have, it was premature to assess the impact of this scheme on the A27 proposals and West Sussex County Council Highways had raised no objections.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit agreed.

(The Committee adjourned for lunch from 1.15pm until 1.45pm)

(Mrs Tassell left the meeting during the adjournment and did not return for the remainder of the meeting)

39 FB/16/00961/FUL - Bethwines Farm, Blackboy Lane, Fishbourne, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8BL

[PC 20.07.16 6] Page 6 Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to one third party representation concerning their own ecological appraisal, further information submitted by the applicant in response to the third party ecological appraisal, a further representation received from Chichester District Council’s Environmental Strategy officer, further Planning Officer comment, and amended conditions 5 (biodiversity mitigation strategy) and 8 (vegetation clearance).

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr G Hand – Parish representative; Mr R Strange – Objector; Mr N Shrubb – Objector; and Mrs L Hannify - Agent

Recommendation to Permit with amended condition 5 (biodiversity mitigation strategy) and additional condition 8 (vegetation clearance) agreed.

40 CC/16/00161/FUL - Unit A2, Barnfield Drive, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 7AG

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to an amendment to paragraph 8.20 removing the need for a Section 106 agreement.

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr M Sobic - Agent

Mr Bushell responded to members’ questions and comments. He advised that the majority of the requirements of the existing condition restricting the types of goods that could be sold in units A and B, that was the subject of this variation of condition application, would be kept but that this application would now allow the sale of food from Unit A2 in addition to the approved sale of food from Unit B. He confirmed that officers would ensure that there was a consistent approach to the form and appearance of new signage of the three retail units.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

41 CC/15/03542/FUL - Squirrels, 11 Broyle Close, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6BG

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to an amended location plan.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

42 SDNP/16/01717/FUL - Ilex House , Upperfield, Easebourne, GU29 9AE

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr R Murray – Agent

[PC 20.07.16 7] Page 7

With regard to concern expressed regarding the protection of the Horse Chestnut tree, members favoured an additional condition requiring details of any works proposed to the tree prior to commencement.

Recommendation to Permit with additional condition (tree protection scheme) agreed.

43 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions

The Committee considered and noted the schedule of outstanding contraventions (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mrs Archer updated members on the latest position in respect of a number of cases.

44 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters

The Committee noted the above report (copy attached to the official Minutes).

Mrs Archer updated members on the latest position and answered members’ questions regarding:

6 – Court and Other Matters

Wassell Barn and Birdham Farm: Officers undertook to provide details of the officer recommendation for all appeals.

Mr Whitty advised that the update on Development Management performance would be reported to the next meeting.

The meeting ended at 3.00 pm

CHAIRMAN Date:

[PC 20.07.16 8] Page 8 Agenda Item 4

Chichester District Council

Planning Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Declarations of Interests

Details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies are set out in the attached agenda report

The interests therein are disclosed by each member in respect of planning applications or other items in the agenda which require a decision where the council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular planning application or item

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests, prejudicial interests or predetermination or bias are to be made by members of the Planning Committee or other members who are present in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting

Personal Interests - Membership of Parish Councils

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of the parish councils stated below in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where their respective parish councils have been consulted:

 Mr J F Elliott – Singleton Parish Council (SE)

 Mr R J Hayes - Southbourne Parish Council (SB)

 Mrs J L Kilby – Chichester City Council (CCC)

 Mr G V McAra - Midhurst Town Council (MI)

 Mr S J Oakley – Tangmere Parish Council (TG)

 Mr R E Plowman – Chichester City Council (CC)

 Mrs L C Purnell – Selsey Town Council (SY)

Personal Interests - Membership of West Sussex County Council

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of West Sussex County Council in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where that local authority has been consulted: Page 9

 Mrs J E Duncton - West Sussex County Council Member for the Petworth Division

 Mr G V McAra - West Sussex County Council Member for the Midhurst Division

 Mr S J Oakley - West Sussex County Council Member for the Chichester East Division

Personal Interests - Chichester District Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest as Chichester District Council appointees to the outside organisations or as members of the public bodies below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where such organisations or bodies have been consulted:

 Mr G A F Barrett - Chichester Harbour Conservancy

 Mr T M E Dunn – South Downs National Park Authority

 Mr R E Plowman – Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Personal Interests – Chichester City Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies

The following member of the Planning Committee declares a personal interest as a Chichester City Council appointees to the outside organisations stated below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where that organisation has been consulted:

NONE

Personal Interests – West Sussex County Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies

The following member of the Planning Committee declares a personal interest as a West Sussex County Council appointees to the outside organisations stated below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where that organisation has been consulted:

 Mrs J E Duncton – South Downs National Park Authority

Page 10 Agenda Item 5

Parish: Ward: Chidham & Hambrook Bosham

CH/15/02461/FUL

Proposal Change of use from telephone exchange into office B1a.

Site Old Telephone Exchange Chidham Lane Chidham West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 479289 (N) 105313

Applicant Mr John Pritchard

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Deferred item from March Committee

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

Page 11

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site lies on the eastern side of Chidham Lane and forms a corner plot to the south of the A259, set back from the road behind public footpaths and grass verges. Chidham Lane is primarily a residential street within the village of Hambrook/Nutbourne. The site is bounded by residential development to the south and east and there is a bus stop/shelter to the north.

2.2 The existing Old Telephone exchange building is a square brick built single storey building with a footprint of 24.93sqm. The ridge height measures 5.2m and the underside of the eaves 2.95m. The roof is tiled with plain clays.

2.3 The application site includes land within the ownership of WSCC. This land forms a concrete hardstanding that provides a non-designated parking area for the application site measuring 2.5m x 6.78m, which may be used by any member of the public.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the telephone exchange to an office (B1(a)) and the construction of mono pitched roof extensions to the east and south of the existing building. Fenestration changes are also proposed; these changes would be at ground level and no first floor openings are proposed. A single window in each of the south, east and west elevations are proposed. Internally, the office would include a first floor and WC.

4.0 History

None

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building No Conservation Area No Countryside Yes AONB Yes Tree Preservation Order No EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 No - Flood Zone 3 No Historic Parks and Gardens No

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Objection

Page 12 Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council OBJECTS to the Application and makes the following COMMENTS:

1. The Parish Council is concerned about several outstanding issues related to this Application and considers it necessary to restate the Council's views in this Further Revised Response.

2. The Comments (see below for a copy) made by the Parish Council in its Revised Response posted on the District Council website on 27 October 2015 still stand ' the Comments made here should be considered as supplementary to those made earlier.

3. There remains some confusion over the current Application, including a lack of clarity regarding the ownership of the site and the immediately surrounding area.

4. This is a particularly important issue because it is important to determine without error the exact space available to the Applicant for parking. The Parish Council remains of the belief that the current application ' with a protruding Porch ' means that there would be no room for car parking within the site curtilage. No parking outside the curtilage is available because of the existing public right of way.

5. The drawings available on the District Council website still give no information about the wastewater drainage from the site. Clear and accurate drawings showing the existing wastewater sewer to which it is intended to direct wastewater, together with the exact line of the proposed connection to the public sewer and the location of other underground services are essential.

In summary, the main objections of the Parish Council to this application are the inadequate parking and the lack of information concerning wastewater disposal. In addition to addressing this issue the other concerns expressed below should be addressed.

The Parish Council recommends REFUSAL of the Application.

------COPY OF THE PARISH COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS REVISED RESPONSE:

1. The Application has been modified subsequent to a Site Meeting on 16 October 2015. The Parish Council has changed its Response in the light of the modified Application.

2. The site of the proposed development is visually important and dominant in the village landscape. It faces an open green, with some trees, at the junction of Chidham Lane and the A259.

3. For many years, the old Telephone Exchange has presented a sorry picture, overgrown with vegetation, despite the best efforts over the years of the immediate neighbour to the south occupying No.1 Chidham Lane, who has regularly cut back the vegetation in the parts to which she has access.

4. In principle, the Parish Council would welcome a new ownership and use of the building that would result in it no longer looking abandoned, as it does at present, and that would have no unacceptably negative consequences; again in principle, the proposed office use of the building would be an appropriate use of the premises.

Page 13 5. Unfortunately, the current proposal does have such unacceptably negative consequences, the foremost of which is the parking.

6. The telephone exchange is at the northern end of a medium sized linear housing development along Chidham Lane that probably dates back to the 1950s. As is common with similar housing, the residents suffer from a chronic shortage of parking. There is particular concern around traffic delivering and collecting children from the school at the southern end of the development.

7. The current access to the old Exchange is shared between the Exchange, the immediate neighbour to the south and the public at large. The public have right of way over the access and its continuation footpath northward past the Exchange site to access the footpath on the south side of the A259.

8. The consequence of the shared access is that there would be inadequate parking space for the cars of the occupant of No. 1 Chidham Lane and a person working in the Telephone Exchange. There would be a parking space within the site, were it not for the fact that a protruding entrance/WC is proposed.

9. It would be naïve to imagine there will be no clients visiting the Exchange. Indeed, it would be reasonable to imagine that a number of clients might visit concurrently. The development makes no provision for their parking.

10. Delivery vans parking in Chidham Lane would create a serious hazard. Their parking on the grass risks its rapid deterioration into mud.

11. If the design were changed so as to accommodate one parking space on the site, full information should be given regarding the number of people who would use the site so that the District Council could judge whether just one parking space was adequate.

12. Other concerns the Parish Council has over the application now follow:

13. The proposed window on the east elevation may overlook the neighbouring property as the vegetation is cut back; obscure glass should have been specified.

14. If, despite the Parish Council's objection, the District Council is minded to approve the application, a condition should be imposed regarding permitted hours of use. Of particular concern is the prospect of light streaming from windows and from external lighting late into the evening in this quiet residential area.

15. Any window on the south side of the building would face directly towards the garden patio and front door of the neighbouring property, only a few metres away; it should therefore have obscure glass. The vegetation on the boundary fence, if it survives any building operations, dies back in winter and offers no visual protection.

16. There should be a condition forbidding the use of the site as a reception point for the delivery and subsequent collection of parcels.

17. Inadequate information about the disposal of wastewater has been provided. The Applicant has provided a revised plan proposing a private sewer running from the site towards Chidham Lane, but has not demonstrated that there is a public sewer in the Lane to receive the flow. No information has been provided in respect of water supply.

Page 14 18. Vehicular access to the driveway to the site is via a layby on the east side of Chidham Lane. Neighbours have concerns about delivery vehicles for the site attempting to turn in the narrow Lane.

In summary, the main objection of the Parish Council to this application is the inadequate parking. In addition to addressing this issue the other concerns expressed above should be addressed.

The Parish Council recommends REFUSAL of the Application.

6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Comments awaited - any comments received will be provided in the update sheet to the Planning Committee

6.3 WSCC - Highways

Comments dated 26/08/15

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.

I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.

The site does have an existing vehicular access onto Chidham Lane although this is somewhat narrow. There are no known issues with the use of this access. As no material intensification of use is anticipated, there would be no expectation for this proposal to give rise to any highway safety concerns.

In terms of traffic generation, the site is recognised as having a permitted use in the past as a telephone exchange, although it is likely that this use would have not been intensive. In considering the change of use the potential vehicle movements from the permitted use is a material consideration. In light of the scale of the permitted and proposed development, whilst it is appreciated that an increase in vehicular movements would result, it is not considered that this proposal could be resisted on the basis of traffic generation.

Comments dated 15/10/15

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.

I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.

No concerns were previously raised to this application from the highway point of view in August 2015. Since this time the applicant has provided further information (in the form of photos) to demonstrate the one car parking space at the site. Confirmation of this arrangement is welcomed. The LHA will only consider the impact of overspill parking from a safety perspective; matters of amenity would be a matter for the consideration of the Local Planning Authority. While it is likely that some overspill parking may occur it is not considered

Page 15 that this would be detrimental to highway safety and key locations in the public highway are subject to enforceable parking restrictions.

In summary as previously advised there would be no concerns with this application from the highway point of view.

6.4 CDC - Economic Development

The Economic Development Services supports the re-use of this disused commercial site as office space.

6.5 Three third party objection letters have been received concerning the following matters (all letters from same household); a) restricted parking space and interrelationship with parking at number 1 Chidham Lane b) frosted glazing to porch c) as within residential environment hours of use should be limited d) no external lighting e) sewerage connection concerns f) concerns regarding porch extension restricting parking on site

6.6 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

During the course of the application the applicant has sought to submit additional information to address the concerns of Parish Council and neighbour including the submission of details regarding the parking and drainage. The applicant has confirmed that space for parking and turning is now proposed to the front garden of 1 Boxgrove Corner. The existing gradient would be retained and the site will be drained in an appropriate manner for the site.

7.0 Planning Policy

7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. The Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is at an advanced stage of preparation having been the subject of an examination and it therefore has significant weight.

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP)

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 3: The economic and employment provision Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 40: Sustainable design and construction Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 46: Alterations, Change of use and /or reuse of existing buildings in the Countryside Policy 47: Design and Heritage

Page 16 Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity

National Policy and Guidance

7.3 Government planning policy comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This means unless material considerations indicate otherwise development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay.

7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), together with Sections 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 generally.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.5 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i. Principle of development and sustainability ii. Design and impact upon character of the surrounding area iii. Impact upon amenities of neighbouring properties iv. Parking and highway safety v. Water management

Assessment i) Principle of development and sustainability

8.2 The development involves the reuse of an existing building for a commercial use (B1 office). The NPPF and the Chichester Local Plan support the re-use of buildings within the countryside for commercial uses in the interests of supporting the rural economy and creating employment opportunities. Policy 46 of the Local Plan sets out the criteria for such conversions which include that; 'the building is structurally sound and capable of conversion for employment uses without the need for significant extension, alteration or rebuilding' and 'the form, bulk and general design of the building is in keeping with its surroundings and the proposal and any associated development will not harm the landscape character and setting'. The proposal would meet all of the relevant criteria within policy 46.

8.3 Although the site is within the designated countryside, it is well connected to the main road network, a bus stop lies directly north of the application site and the site is 500m west of the closest Settlement Boundary at Hambrook/Nutbourne. This settlement is identified as a Service Village; a sustainable location for small scale development outside of Chichester City and the Settlement Hubs where, in accordance with Policy 1 and Policy 2 of the Local Plan there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is consistent with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF which establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable

Page 17 development in such locations unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

8.4 The Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is an emerging plan which carries significant weight having been subjected to examination. The NP also contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

8.5 In conclusion, the proposal represents the reuse of an existing building within the countryside that is linked directly to public transport and is a distance of approximately 500m from the closest settlement. The development would be small scale and would promote jobs within the rural area supporting the rural economy. It is therefore considered that the principle of the development would be acceptable, subject to all other material planning considerations. ii) Design and impact upon character of the surrounding area

8.6 Section 7 of the NPPF requires good design that improves the overall quality of the area and policy contained within paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that "good design is indivisible from good planning".

8.7 The extensions proposed to facilitate this change of use would be small scale and in line with the visual appearance of the existing building. The external finish materials are proposed to match the existing brick walls and plain clay tiled roof. The alterations to the existing fenestration would be visually sympathetic to the building and surroundings, in accordance with the design principles of the NPPF and policy 47 of the Local Plan.

8.8 It is considered for the reasons set out above that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, given the size and scale of the proposed extensions and matching finish materials. iii) Impact upon amenities of neighbouring properties

8.9 The NPPF states in paragraph 17 that planning should ensure a good quality of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings.

8.10 The porch and WC extension to the south of the building would bring the built form of the building closer to part of the front garden of number 1 Chidham (the adjacent semi- detached bungalow). The extension would measure 1m (d) x 3.3m (w) x 3.65m (h) and would be a distance of 0.75m from the boundary. Concerns have been raised by a neighbour regarding the window to the WC to this extension. The WC window would be required by condition to be obscure glazed and therefore it would not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking.

8.11 There would be a distance of approximately 6.5m between the proposed southerly extension and the neighbouring bungalow to the south. Given this distance and the limited scale of the development, the proposal would not constitute an overbearing or oppressive development. Furthermore, it is considered that due to the nature of the proposed use and the size of the resultant office that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance.

8.12 To the west, the additional impact on the neighbour's garden (Stone Croft) would be limited given the scale of the proposed extensions, the small scale nature of the use, the established fence and vegetation to the boundary and the depth of the neighbour's garden.

Page 18

8.13 Concerns have been raised regarding the proposed parking arrangements and this issue is discussed below. iv) Parking and Highway Safety

8.14 The Highway Authority has advised that there would be a slight intensification of the use of the site as a result of the proposed change of use, but that such intensification would not result in highway safety concerns. The Highway Authority has also commented that the proposed development would facilitate the use of the existing parking space to the front of the site and that this would not result in a highway safety concern.

8.15 The applicant has provided additional information and a photograph showing a car parked on the existing driveway to the application site (see plan 15028-02 revision D) and a plan showing the size of the parking space. This is the existing parking arrangement for the site. The 2.5m wide x 6.7m deep parking space provides sufficient space for a vehicle to park free of the pavement. The concerns of a neighbour regarding ownership of part of the site have been considered. WSCC has been notified and certificate B submitted as part of this application. Therefore the ownership requirements for the planning application have been met and the fact that the site boundary includes land outside the ownership of the applicant is not a constraint to the development or a reason to object to the application.

8.16 A neighbour has raised concerns regarding the size and intensified use of the existing parking space as it would interfere with the parking at no. 1. The planning history for no. 1 suggests that the area currently being used by this neighbour for parking is outside the residential curtilage of that property and evidence has been provided that this is land also within the ownership of WSCC. Regardless of the ownership issues (which would be a private matter between the relevant parties), it appears that the land at no. 1 currently used for parking is limited in size. WSCC guidance requires a standard parking size to measure 2.4 x 4.8m and there is space to the front garden of no. 1 should this neighbour have legal rights to use and pass over WSCC land and wish to increase the space available for parking.

8.17 Whilst the neighbour's and Parish Council concerns regarding the ownership and parking relationship between the application site and no.1 are appreciated, given the above, there is no planning justification to resist use of the existing parking arrangements in association with the application site.

8.18 Since the application was last reported to the Planning Committee it has been established that the area proposed to provide parking for the business unit is within the Highway and that WSCC have no concerns for its use as a parking area. However the area immediately adjacent to the application site and the wider hardsurfaced area may be used for parking by any vehicle, not just those associated with the proposed business. Therefore, whilst acknowledging that other ‘public’ parking areas exist that would be available for use by the proposed office, the proposal does not provide for a dedicated parking space. It is noted, however, that this concrete area has historically formed the vehicular access to the site (as a Telephone Exchange) and any use of it by the public not in association with the use of the building would result in the obstruction of this access.

8.19 Given the availability of parking within the highway and the low level intensification in the use of the site, there would not be an adverse impact on the safety and function of the highway network as a result of the provision of an office of the scale proposed without dedicated parking. The office would be limited in its hours

Page 19 of opening and therefore un-occupied in the evenings and on Sundays and Public Holidays freeing up this space at those times.

8.20 Having regard to the considerations outlined above, the proposed development would provide suitable parking arrangements and appropriate visibility already exists to ensure that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the safety or function of the highway network. Furthermore, the intensification of the use would be limited and would not create an unacceptable level of traffic movements. The proposal is therefore acceptable in respect of these matters. v) Drainage

8.21 The neighbour and the Parish Council have raised concerns regarding the proposed new connection to the main sewer. There are no reported capacity problems in this area and the addition of a single toilet and sink would not result a significant increase in foul waste. The new connection and pipework would be required to meet current Building Regulation standards. The additional surface water should be drained within the site in an appropriate manner to the soil type and should not be directed to the foul sewer or road. A condition and an informative are recommended ensuring this is the case.

8.22 It is considered that the proposed surface and foul water drainage requirements for the development are capable of being managed appropriately and therefore the proposal would be acceptable in this respect.

Significant Conditions

8.23 It is recommended that conditions are imposed to ensure external materials match the existing building and the retention of the existing parking space for the parking of vehicles. Conditions are also proposed to ensure the proposed refuse and cycle storage is provided in accordance with the details submitted and that appropriate drainage is provided. In addition, a condition is recommended to limit changes of use to ensure that once implemented, the business use is retained in the interests of supporting the rural economy.

Conclusion

8.24 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal complies with the Development Plan and any material considerations and subject to conditions permission is recommended for approval.

Human Rights

8.25 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit – Full 2 U03360 Plans 3 U03361 Materials to match

Page 20 4 U033362 PD removed – COU 5 U03370 Hours of Use 6 U03363 Surface Water 7 U03365 Retention of Parking Space 8 U03363 Bins and Bikes 9 U03367 WC Window 10 U03368 Drainage

INFORMATIVE

1 U033699 Positively and Proactively

For further information on this application please contact Maria Tomlinson on 01243 534734

Page 21 Agenda Item 6

Parish: Ward: Loxwood Plaistow

LX/16/01552/FUL

Proposal Retrospective erection of entrance gates to Hall Hurst Close.

Site Hall Hurst Close Loxwood West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 503813 (N) 131604

Applicant Bob Brennan

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends to permit

Page 22

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site comprises an entrance road to a housing estate known as Hall Hurst Close. Hall Hurst Close comprises 20 residential dwellings permitted in 2007 (ref: 07/05855/FUL).

2.2 The application site falls on the western side of the B2133 (Guildford Road) which is the main northern access point to the village. It is bounded on all elevations by residential dwellings.

2.3 The application site falls within the settlement policy boundary of Loxwood and is not constrained by any other local or statutory designation.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application proposes the retrospective erection of 2 no. gates measuring 1.07 metres at their lowest point and 1.64 metres at their highest point. The gates comprise a total length of 5.5 metres. The gates are set back from the line of the public highway by approximately 9 metres. Limited intervening boundary treatments result in the gates falling adjacent to the public highway. The gates comprise a rural appearance with spacing between horizontal timber bars.

3.2 The southern gate of the two erected is detailed within the plans as being closed, with access being available to the site through the northern gate. Priority signs are shown on the gates that demonstrate vehicles entering the site have priority over oncoming traffic exiting the site. Throughout consultation with the applicant, this arrangement has now been reversed so that traffic entering the site has priority.

3.3 The application forms detail the gates seek to reduce vehicle speeds entering and exiting the site, provide for a safer environment for the occupants of the estate and also to prevent unnecessary vehicle access to the estate.

4.0 History

07/05855/FUL PER106 Construction of 20 no. residential units with associated works, public car park, landscaping and public open space.

16/01552/FUL PDE Retrospective erection of entrance gates to Hall Hurst Close.

07/05855/FUL PER106 Construction of 20 no. residential units with associated works, public car park, landscaping and public open space.

16/01552/FUL PDE Retrospective erection of entrance gates to Hall Hurst Close.

Page 23

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation OrderNO South Downs National NO Park EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and NO Gardens

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1Loxwood Parish Council - 10 June 2016

The gates are over 1m high and adjacent to a major highway. In addition the gates are causing issues for some of the residents achieving the correct angle to leave and enter their private driveways from entering the gates or attempting to exist through the gates, this is due to the proximity of the gates to their driveways. At least 8 out of the 22 residents in the Close did not agree to the installation to the gates.

6.2 West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning - 24 June 2016

West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. LX/07/05855/FUL to which no objections were raised.

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

The proposal is for the retrospective application for gates located away from the Highway. Due to the site's relationship with publicly maintained Highway and Hall Hurst Close, which is a privately maintained road, the Local Highway Authority is restricted in the level of comment that can be made. In this instance it is only in relation to the Highway Safety or road users using the B2133.

The gates are set back approximately 9 metres back from the highway. The one on the exit side of Hall Hurst Close appears to be permanently open to allow vehicles to flow, and on the entrance side is semi-permanently shut, to be opened for service vehicles, or others of similar size. Priority around the gate has been set for vehicles exiting the B2133 into Hall Hurst Close, so as to prevent obstruction back onto the Highway. Vehicles in Hall Hurst close are afforded space in which to wait for vehicles to pass by when the gates are in their present state.

An area of concern that has been highlighted has been the time taken for refuse vehicles to open the gate. The gates have been set back by 9 metres, with little scope to extend back

Page 24 further due to the access to 1-6 Hall Hurst Close. The Local Highway Authority does not consider this obstruction to be severe, as it likely occurs only weekly, the refuse vehicles will be causing an obstruction if it is performing kerb side service in any case, up High Street or Guildford Road. Furthermore, the forward visibility at the point of access with is of an acceptable level that vehicles should be capable of stopping in order to pass the refuse vehicle whilst it is entering or exiting the site.

In summary, the Local Highway Authority would find these gates difficult to resist on planning terms.

6.3 Third Party Consultations

19 letters of objection have been received from residents throughout the consultation period. Their concerns relate to the following material considerations:

- Unnecessary and dangerous restriction to manoeuvring in and out of the site - Gates are over permitted size - Gates are not in keeping with the area/appearance of the gates - No other private roads in Loxwood or the surrounding areas that has a gated entrance - Alienates residents from the village - Restrict access to the Fire Hydrant outside No.1 - Gates have caused damage to vehicles - Restricts access and use to the green at the front which was agreed to be for all locals

One petition was submitted which objected to the application which contained ten signatures of residents within the estate.

13 letters of support have been received from 8 residents throughout the consultation period. Their support relate to the following:

- Hall Hurst is a safer and more pleasant place to live - Children safer to play within the estate - Gates control vehicle speeds - Improvement to amenity of residing occupants - Gates are easily opened to allow large vehicles to enter - Consultation of neighbours prior to the erection of the gates - No residents voiced an objection when notified by the management company - Police and the Highways Authority raised no objection when consulted by the management company - Planning permission not required for gates under 2m high, not adjacent to the highway and on private property - Persons objecting do not reside in properties that front Hall Hurst Close - Residents association has spent £10,000 over the last six years to improve and maintain the grounds around Hall Hurst Close

7.0 Planning Policy

7.1 The Development Plan for the Chichester District comprises the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029). The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application comprise: - Policy 39 (Transport, Accessibility and Parking)

Page 25 7.2 Development in the Loxwood area is now subject to the policies contained within the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan (March 2015). The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application comprise: - Policy 16 (Traffic Calming & Speed through the Village)

National Policy and Guidance

7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states:

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:

For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.4 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment

8.0 Planning Comments

Assessment

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Impact on Highway Safety; and ii) Visual impact of the gates

8.2 The application proposes development that has an impact on access to the housing development. Policy 39 (Transport, Accessibility and Parking) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2-2014-2029) is therefore relevant, particularly criteria 2 and 3. Criteria 2 requires development to be located and designed to minimise additional traffic movement and not create, or add to, problems of safety or congestion. Criteria 3 requires proposals to have safe and adequate means of access for all modes of transport relevant to the proposal. i) Impact on Highway Safety

8.3 Significant concern has been raised by local residents and Loxwood Parish Council throughout the public consultation period on the impact on highways safety. This relates to private vehicles requiring access to the site and larger service vehicles.

Page 26 8.4 The gates are set back approximately 9 metres from the highways boundary. The traffic data submitted in the original 2007 permission for the housing scheme estimated that two way travel peak time trips constitute 16 vehicle movements. This means over morning and evening peak time hours, 32 vehicle trips pass through these gates.

8.5 The 9 metre set back of the gates from the boundary of the public highway provides room for approximately 1 vehicle to wait, off the public highway, if vehicles are exiting the site. The 9 metre gap provides sufficient room for one vehicle to wait beyond the gate, at the junction of the highway, allowing another vehicle to pass behind it.

8.6 On the basis of the 2007 consent, such a frequency of vehicles is assessed as likely to result in minimal vehicle conflicts. The consultation response from West Sussex County Council Highways has confirmed the demonstrable lack of impacts on highways safety.

8.7 A condition is proposed to ensure the southern gate be fixed open at all times and retained as such thereafter. A further condition can be added requiring the northern gate to be remain unlocked so as to provide free access to larger vehicles, as necessary.

8.8 Consideration has been given to the traffic calming measures which these gates provide in terms of the speed of vehicles entering and exiting the site. Most vehicles using this access point will be occupants of the estate. As such, the local knowledge of these persons should help avoid the detailed vehicle/gate conflicts referred to in the representations.

8.9 In light of the above, the provision of the gates in this location accord with the criteria contained within Policy 39 (Transport, Accessibility and Parking) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029). ii) Visual Impact of Gates

8.10 The application proposes the introduction of new development adjacent to the public highway which alters the visual appearance of an open entranceway. Timber post and rail fencing is a common feature along the adjacent highway and characterises the semi-rural appearance of the approach towards Loxwood.

8.11 The design of the gates accord with the overall design of the adjacent timber post and rail fencing that characterises this area. Therefore, the visual appearance of the gates retain the semi-rural appearance to the approach into Loxwood.

8.12 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF requires planning decisions to establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live and work. Paragraph 58 goes on to require planning decisions to respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials.

8.13 The continuation of the materials and form of the gates ensures that the sense of place and local character of the area is reinforced, in accordance with the above NPPF provisions.

Significant Conditions

8.14 It is recommended that conditions be imposed regarding the following matters:

- The southern gate shall be fixed open and retained as such at all times thereafter. The southern gate shall remain unlocked at all times.

Page 27 - The signage shown on the gates hereby approved shall give priority to traffic entering the site. The signage shall retain this priority at all times thereafter.

Human Rights

8.15 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 U03378 Plan Reference 2 U03379 Gate Opening 3 U03381 Signage

For further information on this application please contact James Cross.

Page 28 Agenda Item 7

Parish: Ward: Oving North Mundham

O/15/02343/FUL

Proposal Crop research, technology and multiplication centre, encompassing approximately 2.83 hectares of varietal trial plots, DEFRA official seed testing station, laboratory, ancillary offices, pack house and parking and associated landscaping, incorporating 1,591 cubic metres balancing pond.

Site Land To South Of A259 Bognor Road Oving Chichester West Sussex PO20 1NW

Map Ref (E) 489262 (N) 103587

Applicant Mr Tim Gleeson Bartholomew’s (Holdings) Limited

RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

Page 29

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Red Card: Cllr Plowman - Information/opinion to raise in debate.

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site comprises a parcel of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land located within the designated Runcton Horticultural Development Area (HDA). The site area extends to 5.58 ha with a level change of 1.5 metres across the site. The surrounding part of the HDA is known as the Chichester Food Park (CFP). The Food Park is accessed from the A259 via the Merston roundabout, with access to the strategic road network (A27) one mile to the west.

2.2 The site consists of an arable field located to the west of the A259, which is bounded on its southern side by the main access into the Food Park. To the north are a number of residential properties accessible via Green Lane, a residential cul-de-sac, which also provides access to a public bridleway and public right of way. The north field boundary contains deciduous trees and hedging, and the eastern boundary contains mature hedging. The south west boundary is defined by a drainage ditch with mixed species hedgerow. The National Cycle Network runs parallel with the eastern boundary of the site. A public right of way runs along the north west boundary of the site (2792/1) and a second public right of way (274) is located to the north of the A259 up to Drayton Lane.

2.3 A number of horticultural pack houses and distribution facilities are sited to the south and west of the application site within the Food Park. To the south of these buildings, is an extensive range of glasshouses. Members will be aware that permission was granted in 2013 for a grain store, located on the western side of the food park, with two bays now built and operational (13/02608/FUL). There is an extant permission for a further horticultural glasshouse, packhouse, offices and reservoir, to the south west of the application site, on the opposite side of the access into the food park (14/01721/FUL) in addition to a further packhouse currently under construction further to the west of the application site (14/02600/FUL).

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 Permission is sought to erect a crop research and DEFRA seed testing station at the site, including varietal crop beds. The purpose of the facility is to allow the expansion and growth of the current crop research and packaging facility at Bartholomew's on Bognor Road through relocation to a larger, purpose built site that will include crop trials and breeding. The new site will therefore be a fully operational seed testing station, approved by DEFRA. A trials programme is to be run from the site, working with the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (which approves and registers new varieties of crops).

3.2 The north and centre of the site will be retained as varietal trial plots, where new strains and varieties of seeds will be grown, subject to testing and the multiplication process, before being brought to the commercial market. This area of the site would extend to 2.83 ha coverage.

3.3 The built element of the proposal will be located at the southern and eastern end of the site. The building would contain a seed testing station, packhouse, laboratory, education facility and ancillary offices. The building would have a gross internal floor area of 7,750 sq metres and would measure 156 x 51 metres, at a height of 21.5 metres to the ridge, reducing

Page 30 to 17.2 metres at the southern edge of the site, and 19.9 metres at the northern edge. The external treatment of the building will comprise concrete panels to ground level with profiled metal dark green sheeting above, roller shutter doors on the north elevation in contrasting green. The pitch roof would be a mid-grey, profiled metal roof with rooflights and solar panels on the south roof elevation. The south east elevation of the building at the entrance to the facility would have brown profiled metal sheet cladding.

3.4 A total of 16 full time staff would be employed at the site (plus 4 additional staff during harvesting) to include contractors (planting and harvesting of crops), agronomists (monitoring the disease, nutrition and development of crops), seed technicians (assessing breeding and regulatory issues), crop technicians (assessing crops for their commercial benefits) and packing and logistics staff. The submitted floorplans indicates that the entire ground floor of the building would contain processing and packaging plant and equipment, with a mezzanine containing ancillary offices, laboratories and an education/resource room.

3.5 Deliveries and despatch by HGVs would be from the southern edge of the site via a proposed new access off the service road, at the entrance to the Food Park. The area to the east and south of the building would be retained as car parking for staff and visitors with 42 and 16 spaces respectively, and new access road. A further 32 HGV parking spaces would be located on a hardstanding to the north of the building with refuelling depot and weighbridge.

3.6 The proposal includes a landscape strategy which comprises a 10 metre woodland landscape buffer along the site's southern and eastern boundaries, and reinforced hedgerow planting along the north, east and west site boundaries. Areas of scrub vegetation would be retained in the northwest boundary of the site, incorporating a balancing pond of approximately 1500 metre cubic capacity to form new wetland habitat. A Landscape Masterplan Strategy is submitted and includes detailed planting sections of 1.5 metre high bunds on the north-eastern and south-eastern site boundaries closest to the A259, a detailed soft landscaping scheme, planting plans and schedule, a soft landscape specification, and landscape and ecological management plan.

3.7 The facility is proposed to be relocated from the existing Bartholomews site, off Bogner Road. The key difference between the existing site and the proposed site will be modernisation of the facilities and the addition of varietal trial plots, where new strains and varieties of seeds will be grown on site (referred to as basic seed for multiplication), subject to testing and the multiplication process, before being brought to the commercial market.

3.8 The application is supported by numerous technical reports and statements, including a Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Ecology Report, Landscaping and Visual Impact Assessment, reports on Noise, Archaeology and Lighting, and Foul and Surface Water Disposal. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Noise Assessment have been updated during the course of the application, in response to officer and consultee comments, and additional transport modelling undertaken. The applicant has also produced a Travel Plan.

4.0 History

13/02357/FUL PER Pedestrian footpath with lighting.

Page 31 5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National NO Park EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and NO Gardens

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Oving Parish Council

Support

The 21 metre high main building will have a visual impact on the residents of Merston and those using the A259 Bognor Road, as it will part of the Strategic Gap to Chichester. We understand that the building height is required for the processing of seed.

It is essential that the proposed bund and screen includes as many native trees as possible, particularly evergreen varieties to mitigate the visual impact as much as possible.

We are satisfied that the lighting on the site will not further exacerbate the light pollution from the greenhouses in the area; we receive frequent complaints from residents on this issue.

We are concerned about the proposed 120 HGV movements quoted for a typical week. This takes no account of additional vehicle movements, or those associated with other developments in the Food Park. This will add to congestion on the A259 dual carriageway towards the Bognor Road roundabout. It is not possible to determine the impact of these additional vehicle movements until the planned improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass have been agreed.

6.2 Environment Agency

Please confirm the chosen method of foul drainage. The application refers to a septic tank and a cesspit. Information on the chosen method would be useful. More information is needed on the re-fuelling tank. Will it be double skinned or a bunded oil tank?

Further comment following revised details:

No objection Additional information confirms that the management of foul water is to discharge to a cesspit that will be emptied once a month. This is acceptable. We are pleased that the re- fuelling tank is double skinned.

Page 32

6.3 Southern Water Services

Applicant is advised to contact the EA directly regarding the use of septic tank drainage, which disposes effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner will need to maintain to ensure its long term effectiveness.

The proposed means of surface water drainage is via watercourse. The Council's technical staff should comment on the adequacy to discharge surface water to the local watercourse.

6.4 Highways England

In order to assess the impact on the SRN (Strategic Road Network) we require a traffic impact assessment of the A27/A259 roundabout. We note the applicant's view that the increase in trips is insufficient to warrant a detailed assessment. Our view is that the interchange experiences regular congestion and operates above capacity with peak period queues and delays in its present condition. An assessment is required that accounts for Local Plan growth to 2029, and considers scenarios with and without the site traffic for the evening peak hour. We can supply a Transport Model and request that the Council refrains from determining the application.

Further comments following additional information:

Due to the operation of the business, there is little to no effect on the operation of the Strategic Road Network during the morning peak (08.00-09.00 hours) in all modelled scenarios. The south bound A27 entry into the Bognor Road roundabout experiences an additional 20 second per vehicle delay in the afternoon peak (17.00-18.00 hours). This arm already experiences severe delays. At the end of the Local Plan period, the delay is forecast to increase to 9 minutes per vehicle (from 8 minutes 40 seconds). The applicant should propose measures to supress traffic demand during the PM peak or appropriate mitigation measures that bring a no worsening of traffic delay.

Further comments following additional information:

No objection, subject to conditions. Having considered the information, Highways England has decided to offer no objection, but would advise the Council to require a Construction phase Traffic Management Plan which restricts construction traffic movements during the peal AM and PM periods.

6.5 Natural England

No comment. The application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated nature conservation sites or landscapes.

6.6 Council's Agricultural Consultant

All such seed testing and packaging plants require a DEFRA licence to ensure that the crop seed meets laid quality and purity standards. These ensure that farmers can be confident that the seed produced by each seed is the right variety and quality. Seed breeding companies need to have a symbiotic relationship between agricultural merchants such as Bartholomew's. Seed breeder companies require a conduit through which seed can be multiplied and sold to the farmer. The seed multiplication and provision to the grower is a service provided by the merchant. Agricultural merchants like Bartholomew's know which

Page 33 farmers have suitable ground and the ability to take generation seed that can be grown to provide seed for commercial growers the following season. Such crops need to be kept pure. The merchant will then process the seed and market it the same autumn to the commercial grower.

The application will move the existing seed plant to a larger site incorporating modern technology. This will enable the company to continue to service local commercial growers and test new varieties on the 7 acre trials site. Providing farmers with varietal pure seed at the right time and the right purity and germination is essential for commercial viability and sustainability. Arable seed crop harvest and sale involves timelines of less than 4 weeks from harvest to being drilled as seed for the next harvest. The merchant is required to meet stringent central government guidelines and must have the capacity to provide the commercial grower with seed of the right variety and purity.

The applicant contends that to remain competitive in the seed market, a new facility capable of coping with change and providing growers with seed is required.

Local climate and topography of Chichester enables early harvest of crops so the area has natural advantages for the commercial grower, enabling seed to be produced earlier for other farmers to purchase.

Commercial trials of crops are less common. Universities and colleges undertake some crop trials. These are associated with complex scientific research rather than varietal suitability for the commercial grower. The London University Wye College is closed; therefore the closest research site for West Sussex is Reading University. The proposed facility will be the only such site combining all aspects of crop seed work in the Southeast. The absence of a 'local seed plant and trials facility' would place Sussex and the South eastern growers at a disadvantage. By contrast, farmers in the eastern counties benefit from the Cambridge facility and without a local seed plant, farmers would have to source seed from there.

Crop varietal trials show regional differences. Transporting seed from different regions into the southeast increases the carbon footprint of each business; it is possible that future grants and central government support will require businesses to meet low carbon footprint criteria in order to quality for financial support.

West Sussex is known as a centre for excellence in horticultural production. It is less well known that cereal farmers are regularly approached by seed suppliers to grow basic and C1 seed for multiplication providing seed for the commercial grower. There are many excellent West Sussex cereal growers and of greater significance, crops can be harvested 2-3 weeks earlier than in other parts of the country due to the maritime climate. This is crucially important for the merchant enabling seed to be tested and treated in time for drilling. A seed facility in the locality is a definite advantage to the local community.

6.7 Chichester Harbour Conservancy

The development is far removed from the AONB boundary. Although the packhouse building is tall and bulky, it will not materially affect the setting and natural beauty of the Chichester Harbour AONB, nor impact on the ecological designations therein.

6.8 WSCC Highways - Local Development Division

Access and visibility - Two access points are proposed from the private access road serving the Food Park. No alterations are proposed to the adopted highway network. The dropped

Page 34 kerb/access found 100m north of the A259/B144 junction on the site side would be required to be closed. Visibility splays and tracking is provided. The LHA recommends that the secondary visibility splay be taken to the nearside kerb line and ensure that vegetation is kept clear at this point. Sliding gates should be set further back to ensure no overhang of HGVs onto the highway. Response is needed from the Road Safety Audit Team responsible from the preparation of previous RSAs for earlier nearby planning applications at the Food Park (to determine whether they consider a further RSA is necessary at the A259/B2144 Drayton Lane roundabout).

Parking - 48 full time staff are to be based at the site (32 HGV drivers and 16 full time staff increasing by 4 during the harvest season). 42 staff parking spaces are provided, plus 16 visitors spaces. Applicant to explain why 60 spaces is sufficient for the new facility, when 90 spaces is provided at the existing facility. 32 HGV parking bays have sufficient turning and reversing to accommodate loading/unloading/manoeuvring. 8 cycle spaces are provided. Applicant to explain why this level of cycle parking is acceptable.

Sustainable Access - A share footway/cycleway runs parallel along the A259 linking Chichester to Bognor Regis. There is a cycle way towards Oving along Drayton Lane. Nearest bus stop is 300m away on the A259 with frequent services to Chichester, Bognor, Portsmouth/Brighton (via no. 700). A segregated footway along the private access road has recently been installed. Site layout shows the footway widening to 2 metre as it is extended into the site. A Travel Plan should be secured for the site.

Traffic flow diagrams are required to include permitted developments on the Chichester Food Park (10/03529/FUL; 13/02608/FUL; 14/01721/FUL; 14/02300/FUL). Modelling has been undertaken from the Bognor Road/Drayton Lane roundabout for 2016 and 2020 scenarios which appears acceptable. Necessary to assess the impact on the A27/A259 roundabout given the development would generate more than 30 vehicle movements per hour. Highways England should be consulted.

Highway contributions will be required in line with CIL and/or TAD methodologies. Further information is required to determine the amount.

Further comment following additional information:

No objection, subject to S106 Agreement to secure improvements to local bus infrastructure (stops, shelters and real-time bus information) and highway conditions.

Access and Safety - Traffic generated by the proposal has only modest impact at the adjacent A259/B2144. A Road Safety Audit was recently undertaken for another development on the Chichester Food Park and mitigation provided. The Highway Authority is satisfied that no further RSA is required on this occasion.

Internal details - Submitted visibility splays at both access points should be taken to the nearside kerb line of the access road and ensure vegetation is kept clear of sightlines. Proposed sliding gate to be set back, to ensure no overhanging HGVs on the site.

Parking - 60 parking spaces are provided. There are 48 full time (16 full-time and 32 HGV drivers) and 42 parking spaces are provided on site anticipating that some staff members will not drive. There are an additional 18 visitor spaces (including 2 disabled). This site would appear to be suitably catered for with respect to parking provision. Space within the loading/unloading area could also provide for any overspill.

Page 35 Sustainable Access - Being consistent with other developments on the Chichester Food Park site, a new bus shelter (for south-bound stop) and Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) for both nearby bus-stops serving the 700 Coastliner service should be secured by S106. A Travel Plan has been submitted. Largely acceptable. A condition to secure Standard Assessment Monitoring (SAM) surveys at specific intervals in line with TRICs criteria is necessary.

Trip Generation - Resulting trip generation is broadly acceptable based on assumptions within the TA and is as follows:

Combined trips 05.30-06.30 08.00-09.00 17.00-18.00 18.30-19.30

Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound

All trips 35 30 13 0 20 29 16 19

Pedestrians and 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 cyclists 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 Public transport 25 3 9 0 3 21 0 14 Car drivers 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 Car passengers 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Motorcycle 0 32 0 0 16 0 16 0 HGV

Traffic Modelling - The TA considers recent applications at the Food Park (packhouse 10/03529/FUL), grain store (13/02608/FUL), glasshouse and packing facility (14/01721/FUL) and horticultural packhouse (14/02300/FUL). The applicant has provided modelling outputs for the following scenarios. Modelling is undertaken for the Bognor Road/Drayton Lane roundabout (2016 & 2020 scenarios) reflecting the opening year and give years post application. A response from Highways England is required and associated traffic impacts on the A27 Trunk Road.

6.9 WSCC Flood - Local Development Division

Surface water drainage proposal does not show evidence that the applicant has followed the hierarchy of surface water disposal set out within SUDs guidance (infiltration unless not viable, then discharge to a water course and then sewer as the final option).

Evidence is required that the ground conditions are not suitable for infiltration / soakaway. Should this be proven, the proposal will meet the requirements of the NPPF. No detailed design plans have yet been submitted to show how flow rate is being restricted to pre development runoff rates. We suggest a condition to secure a detailed surface water drainage design based on an assessment of hydrological and hydro geological context of the development to be submitted and approved prior to development commencing. Development should not commence until full details of the maintenance and management of the SUDs system is set out in a site specific manual to be submitted to and approved in writing.

Page 36

Further comment following revised details:

Support CDC Drainage Engineer's comments i.e. to provide evidence whether or not ground conditions are suitable for infiltration / soakaways. Approved part H of the Building Regs 2000 establishes a hierarchy for surface water drainage, which encourages a SUDs approach with infiltration where possible i.e. soakaways of infiltration trenches.

6.10 Specialist Landscape Architect

It is considered that the form, scale and nature of the proposals would have an adverse impact on the landscape.

The LVIA does not contain a section on Cumulative Impacts and this needs to be addressed for the site.

The scale, location and colour of the building and its surrounding parking areas is very significant and the area of land around the building is inadequate to fully mitigate its impact as the building is located close to the A259. Detailed planting proposals and a Landscape Management Plan are required as part of this application. The management plan could form part of a condition or S106 Agreement. The proposed planting would help to lessen the overall impact from the A259 and the access road to the site; however, establishment would take a significant time to fully reduce the scale of this development. There is inadequate space and planting along the south western boundary.

The scale and mass of the building bears no resemblance to an agricultural barn unit. It has the appearance of an industrial building with extensive offices attached. The proposal would introduce a large building very close to the A259 and would have the effect of totally changing the character of the landscape. The proposed colours of the brickwork and cladding on the building will accentuate the visibility of the building and do not help to make it recessive in the landscape. Dark greys are much less intrusive. Green cladding is the least acceptable colour to integrate into the rural landscape.

The site falls within Natural England Landscape Character Assessment Area South Coast Plain (126) and West Sussex County Council Landscape Character Assessment Area LCA - Chichester to Yapton Coastal Plain (SC9). Within Landscape Character Area SC9 the key issues include urban development pressures, especially in the gaps between settlements on the edge of Chichester and the introduction of large scale industrial buildings and glasshouses with distribution sheds. Both of these issues would be compromised by this proposal. It would change the perception of the road corridor from an essentially rural landscape to having an industrial image.

The existing landscape has been given no quality or sensitivity and the magnitude of the impacts and significance of the development on the landscape character not thoroughly assessed. The LVIA sets out all potential views of the site in detail. There is no methodology set out for determining the sensitivity of the receptor or the magnitude of the view.

The LVIA makes the assumption that because there are other large buildings on the food park it makes the application acceptable in landscape and visual terms. The document is totally lacking in cumulative effects.

Within the application, there is a large area of parking/hard standing for lorries, including a vehicle wash and energy centre. No details are included on these features. The lights

Page 37 attached to the buildings could be visible from a significant distance, even though there are directional luminaries, many viewpoints will be visible from below the lights. Floodlights for the lorry in-lines and hoppers will spill across the yard and be visible from a wider area. During winter months, the roof lights will result in light seepage in the light sky.

The landscape masterplan is inadequate for a building of this scale and planting is inadequate to fully mitigate the impacts. Ground modelling and mounding is not a natural feature but has been introduced elsewhere on the Food Park and provides instant and permanent all road screen. Relying on existing hedgerow to screen and absorb the impact of the development from the southwestern boundary is totally inadequate. A detailed planting plan is required with the application. Without it, it is not possible to verify growth rates or the screening potential as shown on photomontages.

Further comment following additional information:

The scale, location and colour of the building and its surrounding parking areas is very significant and the area of land around the building inadequate to mitigate the impact as the building is located close to the A259. The form, scale and nature of the proposal is too intrusive for the site and location, and would have an adverse impact on the landscape. The applicant has submitted significant additional information to address issues raised in November 2015. These include:

 Outline masterplan landscape strategy, to include cross sections of the landscape bunds  Detailed soft landscaping scheme, layout and detailed planting plans  Detailed planting schedule  Soft landscape specification  Landscape and Ecological Management Plan  LVIA including a Methodology  Rebuttal including assessment of cumulative impacts

Areas of concern that have not been addressed:

 Scale, location and height of the building  Colour and materials of the building  Ground level of the building (appears raised above existing ground levels by up to 1 metre)  Flood lighting attached to the building

Scale, size and long term duration will have a substantial effect on the character of the area. Proposal compromises the objectives of Landscape Character Area SC9. It is accepted that this area is designated for horticultural uses, but the proposal is for a very large building located immediately adjacent to the highway that would change the perception of the road corridor from a rural landscape to an industrial image.

Disagree with conclusions drawn on a number of viewpoints within the LVIA; for example, viewpoint 14, retain concerns about distant views from the Trundle. Accept that the building is not likely to be identifiable, but due to its scale, colour and addition of rooflights, it is likely to be discernible as an additional negative element in the landscape. Viewpoint 1, from the northern side of the A259, the introduction of a building of the height and scale proposed would constitute more than a, 'minor component within the landscape'. The impact should be substantial adverse in year 1 and moderate adverse in year 12-15. Even after this time, a 21

Page 38 metre high building will remain visible until the vegetation is mature (40-50 years) and the building will be visible in winter.

Mitigation plans, including planting and specification, are very thorough. Species mixes and specification are all suitable; additional planting has tried to address some concerns. This cannot overcome the outstanding issue that the massing, colour of this very large building in this location will be highly visible. 10 metre wide planting belt is less than the width of 1 mature tree.

6.11 CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Noise)

Further information is required. The DAS and description of development does not adequately cover ground floor activities on the site, which are predominantly haulage and distribution, processing of materials, packaging and storage. Plant and equipment needs to be running 24 hours per day; there are 32 HGV spaces and vehicles will be running from 05.00 hours. The application is light on information on these activities, which take up the majority of the site.

Note that the 24 hour plant will only be acceptable if fitted with significant attenuation in the form of silencers to reduce noise by as much as 50dB. This is a significant requirement. They will be significant in size and must be planned on the drawings. This is so critical that it must be included in the application.

Further comment following revised details:

Concern that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on neighbours. Matters below should be clarified and an assessment under BS4142 carried out. When mitigation is finalised, mitigation must be committed to by specific inclusion in the scheme, not left to the consultant's report.

Plant Noise - Neither the application nor the acoustic report show the location of the plant demonstrating whether the plant will be housed internally or exit the building at certain points via flues or other apertures. Acoustic report suggests that three silencers will be fitted to the termination of each piece of plant to reduce noise. There is no information where this is to be accommodated, whether there is sufficient space and where it will terminate. Acoustic report suggests certain elements of plant to run 24 hours per day at certain times. Please clarify. If compliance with night-time noise levels requires certain equipment not being used, this should be confirmed and offered as a planning condition.

Noise - Acoustic Report does not clearly indicate how many HGV movements we can expect each day and at what time. If the successful outcome of the noise assessment is dependent upon cautious assumptions, would the applicant be happy to be conditioned to such restrictions. Early morning noise from HGVs is so critical to the proposal (shift starts at 5am in a lorry park containing 32 HGVs) that the predicted movements of HGVs should be made clear. The applicant should be happy to be committed to the scale of those movements indefinitely and the noise model should be worse case not optimistic.

Further comment following amended Noise Assessment:

The amended Acoustic Report is a comprehensive assessment, which demonstrates that subject to a robust scheme of mitigation, there will be minor to negligible impact caused by the proposal.

Page 39 Such mitigation includes: doors being kept closed at night; specific kingspan panelling being used in construction; absorbent material being used within the building; fan silencers and fan cladding being installed.

Following submission of confirmation that the measures are not draft, my concerns may be resolved by the imposition of conditions limiting hours of vehicular movement, noise from the site and access road.

6.12 CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Contamination and Air Quality)

Site lies near to former RAF Merston airfield, but the land appears to have been in agricultural use in recent years; therefore the likelihood of encountering land contamination is low. The developer should maintain a watching brief in case of unexpected contamination. A lorry refuelling depot is proposed. Condition L09F should be applied, so that the tank is suitably bunded to contain leaks or spillages. If chemicals are to be stored (such as in the lab) they should be stored in a bunded and ventilated area.

32 lorry spaces are available plus other parking for staff and visitors (60 spaces in total). Highest expected peak flows will be between 0530 - 0730 (Mondays) and 1700-1930 (Fridays). Office based staff will work be between 0900 - 1700. Traffic impacts on air quality, delay times and capacity on the Food Park entrance roundabout on the A259 are likely to be minimal.

Measures to mitigate environmental impacts from construction traffic should be employed.

6.13 CDC - Archaeological Officer

There is potential for the site to contain archaeological deposits. This should be investigated further with the aim of identifying significant archaeological deposits present and appropriate measures for their preservation. This should be secured by condition.

6.14 CDC - Drainage Engineer

Surface water is proposed to be attenuated to a pond prior to discharging to the adjacent wartercourse at a restricted rate. Infiltration should be investigated across the site. Some summer groundwater monitoring has been undertaken, finding groundwater at 800mm below ground level. Winter groundwater monitoring should be undertaken to confirm whether groundwater levels increase beyond this, ruling out infiltration. Percolation testing to BRE 365 or equivalent should be undertaken where possible based on groundwater monitoring results. It may be possible for some areas of the site to infiltrate to ground while other areas drain to a reduced size pond.

Full details of pond construction including the liner and outlet/control structure/headwalls should be provided if infiltration is not possible through the site. Drainage design to be dealt with by condition. All watercourses must retain a 3 metre easement for access and maintenance. Condition to be applied.

Further comment following revised details:

Request that the condition is retained, especially as the ideal opportunity for testing is in the next few months. If some soakage can be utilised, it should be prioritised, even if some of the site has to drain to a basin structure or similar. Without knowing the highest recorded winter

Page 40 groundwater level, we would not know whether shallow structures and surface structures such as permeable paving, swales or even shallow crate soakaways have a chance of working.

6.15 CDC - Environmental Strategy

Bats: If two trees on the western boundary are to be removed, which have potential for roosting bats, further bat emergence surveys will be required. Lighting scheme will need to take into consideration the presence of bats in the local area and minimise potential impacts to any bats using trees, hedgerows and buildings by avoiding any unnecessary light spill through the use of directional light sources and shielding.

Nesting birds: Any works to trees or vegetation clearance on the site should only be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season (1 March - 1 October). If works are required within this time, an ecologist will need to check the site before any works take place (within 24 hours).

6.16 CDC - Economic Development

Horticulture is the second largest industry in Chichester District. Businesses such as Bartholomew's must continue to grow and adapt. For over one hundred years, they have proved to be very capable of this and the Council must continue to support this growing business, as per the Economic Development Strategy Priority 2: Create the Conditions to support Growth-Orientated Businesses. The use of Horticultural Development Area Land is appropriate, as this facility will be developing Horticultural processes.

6.17 CDC - Planning Policy

There is an objection to the use of the site for lorry parking if it cannot be justified to be required for the proposed development.

Policy 32 and HDAs relate to commercial horticultural development. Comments from the agricultural consultant support the need for a local seed processing facility to benefit the local farming community. In principle, there is support for crop research, technology and multiplication centre (including trial plots), laboratory, ancillary offices and packhouse development on HDAs. Consideration needs to be given to the scale of buildings, ecology, noise and transport.

Paragraph 16.37 indicates that, 'the council considers that HDAs should remain available for growing and packing horticultural products'.

There is concern relating to the scale of lorry parking within the HDA as there does not appear to be justification for the lorry parking associated with the proposed use.

[Officer comment - the existing site at Portfield currently operates with 28 HGV movements daily. 32 HGVs are proposed at the new site, in order to transport seed to farmers across the District and the wider region].

6.18 CDC - Design

The building is functional and utilitarian, and appears as an industrial shed in a carpark. The most prominent elevation facing the roundabout is marred by an external staircase. No attempt or evidence to incorporate ground breaking environmental features to minimise its

Page 41 impact in terms of orientation and incorporation of renewable technologies. No evidence is provided that the materials will be from sustainable, ideally local sources. These should be appropriate to the context and derived from sustainable means. A public art contribution for non-residential development is no longer applicable following the introduction of CIL.

6.19 6 Third Party Support:

 Support new investment, as it will put the applicant (and their customers) at the leading edge of UK food production by offering customers the most up to date information and services on all new varieties of crops and help UK farming by using more environmentally sustainable farming methods;  Applicant has indicated this will be one of the leading facilities of its kind in the UK;  Education and research facility would be an invaluable resource for farmers and residents of the Chichester area [for crop research and planting breeding];  Bayer Crop Science has been involved in the technical design of the seed handling machinery;  Development will positively benefit the farming and growing industry;  Developments in technology and research will contribute to improved food security in the long term and increase investment in UK relevant agri-science;  Underinvestment in crop research has led to plateau in crop yields. The proposal will address this issue and ensure investment in agriculture and horticulture technology, sustain rural jobs, diversify the local economy and meet national food security.

6.20 6 Third Party Objection:

 Development is vastly growing in size;  Landscaping will be insufficient or will not happen at all;  24/7 industrial building will affect way of life in so called rural area;  Chichester Food Park is a nightmare - unbearable HGV noise, light pollution;  Green Lanes properties have been disregarded in this application;  Noise levels will wake children at night from proposed 24 hour noise (91 dCB);  Increase in migrant workers close to our homes (already suffer from loitering);  Monstrosity and eye sore from Bognor-Chichester Road;  Site has lost its agricultural status with commercial/industrial buildings adding to traffic and HGV / plant noise;  Exit and access onto A259 is concerning, as currently I have to wait along time to access;  A259 roundabout is worse in Chichester. Adding another site will add to the problem;  Thought it was horticultural land, not an industrial estate.

6.21 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

The applicant has provided the following information and documentation in support of the application: Design and Access Statement, Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, and Landscape Strategy and Masterplan.

Page 42

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester District Local Plan: 2014- 2029 and all made Neighbourhood Plans. There is no Neighbourhood Plan for Oving Parish.

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies: 2014-2029

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 32: Horticultural Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity

National Policy and Guidance

7.3 Government planning policy comprises the National Planning Policy (NPPF) paragraph 14 of which states:

At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking: For decision-taking, this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.4 Consideration should be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), Section 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy), Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy), Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport), Section 7 (Requiring good design), Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment). The contents of the Government's Planning Practice Guidance in respect of the above matters is also material to consideration of the proposal.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.5 The following Supplementary Planning Document is material to the determination of this planning application: Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document.

Page 43

7.6 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow A2 - Employees with good skills relevant to local employers, prepared for national and international competition and with well-paid and secure jobs A4 - The district to be known as a centre for creative and innovative industries building on our rich arts and heritage base B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living B3 - Environmental Resources E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion E2 - There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i. Planning policy context; ii. Principle of development; iii. Character and appearance and Landscape Impact; iv. Highways and parking; v. Residential amenity; vi. Other matters; vii. Infrastructure requirements.

Assessment

Policy Context

8.2 The site is located within the countryside where development plan policies seek to carefully control development in the countryside. Local Plan policy 45 states, 'development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements'. Other policies seek to ensure that development is sustainably located and that journeys are minimised.

8.3 Agriculture , including horticulture, is one such activity that requires a countryside location. In recognition of this, the District Council designated four Horticultural Development Areas (HDAs) in the 1999 Local Plan, which has been followed through in the current Local Plan: Runcton, Tangmere, Sidlesham and Almodington. The site is located in the largest HDA at Runcton, which is 170 ha in total.

8.4 The creation of HDAs resulted from recognition of the favourable growing conditions on the coastal plain (maritime climate, soil and topography); the good transport links; and the contribution that horticulture makes to the local economy. The use of the HDA designation is intended as a positive development tool to encourage development and inward investment, but also to focus such development in appropriate locations where the environmental impacts could be minimised and access to the strategic road network maximised.

8.5 Tangmere and Runcton are the largest HDAs at 170 and 108ha respectively, and are capable of accommodating large scale enterprises with access to the Strategic Road

Page 44 Network (SRN). The Runcton HDA has been the subject of several large scale proposals in recent years, including packhouses, glasshouses and a grain store (14/01721/FUL; 14/02300/FUL; 13/02608/FUL). The grainstore is now built and operational. The Nature's Way packhouse is also currently under construction.

8.6 Policy 32 of the Adopted Local Plan brings forward the HDA designation and is a criteria based policy which, in summary, states that large scale horticultural uses will continue to be focused in the HDAs at Tangmere and Runcton, where new glasshouse, packhouse and polytunnel development will be permitted where there is no adverse impact in terms of noise (resulting from machinery and vehicle movement), spoil, odour, air or light pollution, the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, landscape impact, highway safety, and acceptable surface water drainage exists or can be provided. The sub-text to the policy is explicit in stating that HDAs should remain available for growing and packing horticultural products and other processes directly related to the preparation of vegetable and salad products, such as washing and shredding. Other related processes, such as cooking, which do not require a countryside setting, should be located on industrial estates.

8.7 The development must also be considered in the context of the national planning policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). There is no specific policy in the NPPF relating to large scale commercial horticulture; however, it is underpinned by policies that support sustainable economic growth in the rural area and the wider economy. The NPPF reaffirms the need to balance economic growth against the need to protect the character of the countryside, and to support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings (paragraph 28).

Principle

8.8 The new site will be a fully operative seed testing station, as approved by DEFRA, to allow seed certification processes. A trials programme is proposed to be run from the site working with the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (which approves and registers new varieties of crops).The new site will be required to coordinate the activities of contractors (responsible for planting, agrochemical, nutritional applications and harvesting crops), agronomists (monitoring disease, nutrition and development of crops), seed technicians (assessing breeding and regulatory issues) and crop technicians (assessing crops for commercial benefits).The process will involve sowing pre seed (in the varietal trial beds), monitoring growth and development, harvesting and assessing, and, if deemed suitable, certification and packaging for further multiplication. Further tests and certification are carried out before the crop is placed on the market commercially.

8.9 The applicant has provided flow diagrams to illustrate the five stage cleaning process and agro-chemical protection, undertaken within the main processing and packaging building, before the seed is bagged and distributed to farmers for further multiplication. This process would occupy the entire ground floor area of the building and would be akin to a packhouse. The main difference in relation to the existing facilities at the applicant’s current site would be that the proposed building would operate more efficient, up-to-date processes and technologies. The seed would be tipped into intake hoppers, having been harvested from the varietal trial beds, before being passed through an initial cleaning stage, passed into holding bins and a series of fine cleaning filters. The cleaned seed would then be held in holding bins, treated with agro-chemical protection, before being bagged and distributed to farmers for further multiplication, whereupon it will be returned for further testing. The ultimate purpose will be to put new strains and varieties of seeds, including more drought and flood resistant, on the commercial market for onward sale to farmers.

Page 45

8.10 As set out in the Agricultural Adviser's response, the proposed facility will be the only such site combining all aspects of crop seed work in the southeast. The local climatic conditions and topography of Chichester will enable crops to be harvested 2-3 weeks earlier than in other parts of the country due to the maritime climate. West Sussex is known as a centre for excellence in horticultural production and the facility will therefore be advantageous to the local farming community.

8.11 The proposed crop research and DEFRA seed testing station, including varietal crop beds, is sited within the rural area as defined by the Chichester Local Plan. The site is also located in part of the Runcton Horticultural Development Area (HDA), one of the two largest of the four HDAs with the district.

8.12 The starting point for the assessment of this proposal is policy 32 of the Chichester Local Plan which relates to horticultural development. Policy 32 is positively worded to encourage horticultural and associated uses within HDAs but it does not restrict other forms of agricultural development; such an approach would be unduly restrictive. Agriculture is the base land use and agricultural development is therefore in principle appropriate in the countryside. Indeed it could be considered peculiar that an agricultural building would not be appropriate in the countryside on agricultural land due to it being identified as an HDA. Furthermore it is noted that not all land within the defined HDAs is solely in existing or active horticultural use, and the land identified for the proposed building is currently used for arable crop.

8.13 Officers have sought a legal opinion regarding the proposed use. The legal opinion states that 'seed growing' is specifically listed within the definition of agriculture. The testing of seeds/laboratory work could be considered as ordinarily incidental to the growing of seeds, cleaning, sifting, sorting, packing and storage. The proposed use is therefore agricultural; 'horticulture' is a separately defined use within the definition of agriculture. On the basis of this legal opinion, officers consider the proposed use which is defined as agriculture, is acceptable in principle and therefore it is considered appropriate and reasonable that the proposed facility is sited on agricultural land; the additional layer of HDA designation does not make this agricultural development in principle unacceptable.

Character and Appearance; Landscape Impact

8.14 The site is located in the countryside where local and national planning policies require careful control of new development in order to protect the essential rural and undeveloped character and appearance of the countryside. Policy 45 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that new development in the countryside has minimal impact on the landscape character of the rural area in terms of scale, siting, design and materials. Policy 48 of the Local Plan is a criteria based policy that requires, amongst other matters, that development has no adverse impact on the tranquil and rural character of the area; recognises landscape character and contributes to its setting and place; and respects and enhances landscape character of the surrounding area and site.

8.15 The southern half of the site will contain a large building of approximately 7,750 sq metres (GIA) within a building of height 21.5 metres, depth 50 metres and length 156 metres. The proposed building is of a substantial scale, set to the front of the horticultural land in an open agricultural landscape currently used for arable production.

8.16 When travelling east along the A259 away from Chichester, it is considered that there is a general perception that the City has been left behind with the road passing through

Page 46 countryside even though there are a few existing developments. This proposal would introduce a very large building, which would be prominently sited at the main entrance to the Food Park on the A259 and, given its proposed scale, mass and siting, and the flat, open nature of the landscape, it will clearly result in a discernible change to the character and appearance of the area. Long distance views of the development will also be possible from elevated locations within the South Downs National Park (The Trundle).

8.17 As can be seen from the landscape architect’s response at paragraph 6.10, there are concerns regarding the design, siting, scale and mass of the building and the large area of associated parking/hardstanding in the southern half of the site for lorries, and its wider landscape and visual impact. The building, owing to its prominent siting, will have the effect of totally changing the character of the landscape from an essentially rural character to industrial in nature. In clause 3.17 of the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment the report concludes that “the development would have the appearance of a large-scale agricultural barn unit”. The landscape consultant is, however, of the opinion that the scale and mass of the building, along with its design and proposed colour is not considered to bear any resemblance to an agricultural barn unit, but has the appearance of an industrial building with extensive offices attached.

8.18 Regarding the detailed design of the building and materials, green cladding with lower sections of red buff brick are proposed on the external elevations of the building, which will have the effect of accentuating its visibility and will not help to make the building recessive in the landscape. It is the view of the Council's landscape architect that green cladding is the least acceptable colour to integrate into the rural landscape.

8.19 With regard to lighting, this is proposed all around the building, which has been designed to have directional luminaries to reduce light spill. The lights attached to the buildings could be visible from a significant distance, owing to the height of the building, and even though these are mainly directional luminaries, many viewpoints will be from below the lights and the viewer will effectively be looking up into them. Floodlights for the lorry in-lines and hoppers will spill across the yard and will be visible from a wider area. During winter months, the roof lights will result in light seepage in the night sky.

8.20 The A259 runs parallel to the Food Park and the nearest residential properties are located approximately 170 metres away. There are public rights of way that pass along Green Lane (PROW2792/1) to the northwest and a second public right of way (PROW 274) to the north of the A259 that takes a route through a Garden Centre and along the edge of an open field in a north-easterly direction, until it meets with Drayton Lane. There are a number of residential properties approximately 320 metres to the southwest along Marsh Lane, in addition to those along Green Lanes to the northwest. Various short medium and long range public views of the proposed development will be available, including those summarised above, and these are shown in the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

8.21 Views from the public rights of way, nearby residential properties and the A259, are the most sensitive for their proximity to the application site and will be most affected by the proposed development. The LVIA concludes that the landscape effects are deemed to be low, despite the overall height of the proposed building, owing to the presence of other large buildings across the Food Park. The Council's landscape architect disagrees with this view. Whilst other, large buildings have been permitted elsewhere in the Food Park, these are set well back from the road and do not present such a large, physical presence. With regard to longer range views, including from Byway 3407/1 from The Trundle, it is accepted that the building is likely to merge into the mass of existing horticultural developments during daylight

Page 47 hours, however at night it will contribute to additional light spill and is likely to be discernible as an additional negative element in the landscape.

8.22 As a result of the scale and design of the building and its siting in a prominent location at the entrance to the Food Park within an open agricultural landscape, it is considered that the development will not assimilate satisfactorily into the landscape. Mitigation is proposed as outlined in the landscape masterplan, as well as a detailed planting schedule and soft landscape specification. This includes:  a 10 metre wide woodland buffer along the A259 site boundary, incorporating a 1.5 metre high landscape bund;  10 metre wide buffer between the building and the access road;  native hedgerow planting between the lorry park and the field trial plots;  supplementary hedgerow planting along the north-west boundary with new 3 metre wide hedgerow;  retention of hedgerow planting along the south-west boundary;  wildflower grass meadow adjacent to native planting; ornamental planting around the carpark; and a balancing pond.

8.23 Mature trees are to be retained and protected along part of the northern boundary fronting the A259 and the northwest boundary closest to residential properties on Green Lanes. The proposed landscaping scheme would help to lessen the overall impact of the development, however the planting would take a significant time to establish and help mitigate the impact of the development. It is the view of officers and the Council’s landscape architect that even with the proposed planting, it will not be possible to fully mitigate the visual effect and presence of a building in this highly visible location, and of this scale, massing and colour, on the wider landscape through enhanced landscaping. The proposal therefore would not satisfactorily assimilate into the landscape and fails to respect and enhance the landscape character of the site and surrounding area.

Highways and Parking

8.24 A facility of the size and scale proposed will be expected to generate a significant level of traffic movements. The submitted information demonstrates up to 32 daily HGV movements, with a daily total of 168 movements generated by all modes of transport. By comparison, the existing facility at Portfield generates 28 daily HGV movements.

8.25 As can be seen from WSCC Highways response, the A259 Bognor Road / B2144 Drayton Lane roundabout is considered to be capable of accommodating the traffic generated by this development, with only a modest impact. No Road Safety Audit is provided, but WSCC Highways considers this acceptable, as no changes are proposed to the roundabout on the A259 junction, and a Stage Road Safety Audit was recently undertaken for another recent development at the Food Park and mitigation provided. Access is to be taken from two points from the private access road serving Chichester Food Park. Visibility splays are provided and are acceptable, provided these are taken to the nearside kerbline and vegetation kept clear of sightlines. The applicant is agreeable to the closure of the existing dropped kerb/access located 100 metres to the north of the A259/B2144 junction on the site side which could be secured by planning condition. The proposed level of car (60), HGV (32) and cycle (8) parking, is considered acceptable by WSCC Highways, based on an assessment of the existing Bartholomew's site.

8.26 In terms of sustainable modes of transport, the site is located outside the Settlement Boundary, but is located on a bus corridor (700 Coastline route) with a shared

Page 48 cycleway/footpath running along the A259, providing links to Bognor and Chichester, as well as a cycle way towards Oving along Drayton Lane. The site proposes to extend the segregated footpath along the private access road to the Food Park. A Travel Plan is provided, which is considered largely acceptable. The nearest bus stop is approximately 300 metres away on the A259 with frequent services (every 15 minutes). WSCC Highways recommends the provision of a financial contribution to secure a new bus shelter (for the south bound Coastliner stop), real-time passenger information for north and south-bound stops serving the 700 Coastliner service and associated maintenance for both elements is secured by S106 Agreement to support the development and encourage non-car modes of transport.

8.27 As it can be seen from Highway England's response, concerns were raised regarding the impact of the proposed development on the Strategic Road Network at the junction of the A27/A259 roundabout. Highways England requested that transport modelling was undertaken to assess the impact on the roundabout, which currently operates above capacity with peak period queues and delays in its present condition, to take account of Local Plan growth to 2029, and consider scenarios with and without the site traffic for the evening peak hour.

8.28 The results of this transport modelling undertaken by the applicant show that during the morning peak (08.00-09.00 hours) there is little to no effect on the operation of the strategic road network in all scenarios and, in particular, at the end of the Local Plan period 2031. The operation of the network during the afternoon peak (17.00-18.00 hours) however shows an additional 20 second delay per vehicle at the south-bound A27 entry into the Bognor Road roundabout. Highways England states that this arm of the roundabout already experiences severe delays. At the end of the Local Plan period, the delay per vehicle is anticipated to be 9 minutes as a result of the development (increasing from 8 mins 40 seconds).

8.29 The applicant has provided further information to address the concerns of Highways England. The applicant has submitted proposals to mitigate the length of the queue and delay on the south bound entry to the Bognor Road roundabout, by shifting the kerb line 70mm on the entry radius to the roundabout over a length of 20 metres, in order to change operational flows, based on the 2031 predicted traffic flows. This has the effect of removing the additional delay per vehicle at the end of the Local Plan period by widening the southbound entry to the roundabout, but not adding an additional lane. Highways England has re-considered the additional information put forward by the applicant and withdrawn its previous objection, and is satisfied that subject to this alteration, the proposal would not result in a worsening of traffic flows on the southbound approach to the Bognor Road roundabout. These works to the Bognor Road roundabout are recommended to be secured by a Grampian condition. Highways England would also require the applicant to provide a construction phase traffic management plan that restricts construction traffic movements during the peak AM and PM periods.

8.30 Subject to S106 Agreement and conditions, the proposal is not therefore considered to result in a severe residual impact on the operation of the Strategic Road Network at the A27/A259 Bognor Road roundabout or on the local road network, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the NPPF and policy 32 of the Adopted Chichester Local Plan.

Page 49

Residential Amenity

8.31 A number of objections have been received from local residents, located closest to the application site at Green Lane, 170 metres to the north west of the application site, in respect of the scale, nature, activity and intensity of activities to be undertaken on the site.

8.32 The applicant states that the location of the main building and adjacent HGV parking at the southern half of the site, has been selected in order to minimise, so far as possible, the impact on the visual and residential amenity of nearby residential properties on Green Lanes. The varietal crop trial beds will be located closet to this boundary and within the centre of the site.

8.33 The main building containing the packaging and processing equipment, along with laboratories, ancillary offices and education / resource facility, will be located at a distance of approximately 176 metres from the western and north-west site boundaries, occupying approximately 13% site coverage, at a maximum ridge height of 21.5 metres, reducing to 17 metres on the north and west elevation. The building, although large, is not therefore considered to have an overbearing impact on the residential amenities of nearby residential occupiers resulting in loss of outlook or sense of enclosure, owing to the intervening distance.

8.34 In terms of lighting, lighting columns are proposed around the parking areas at the southern end of the site and the lorry park, as well as floodlights for the lorry in-lines and hoppers to the north. The applicant has provided an isoline drawing that identifies the lux level of illumination and extent of light spill. The lighting columns will incorporate directional luminaries that will confine light spill to the building and carpark towards the centre of the development in the southern half of the site. The lighting will be on a timer, formed of photocells and will not be operational during unoccupied hours, but there will be a perceptible impact to nearby residents, owing to the height of the building. Full details of a lighting strategy could be secured by planning condition if all other elements were acceptable.

8.35 Turning to the issue of potential noise disturbance, the principal activities to be undertaken on the site will be predominantly haulage and distribution, the processing and laboratory testing of crops, packaging and storage, with a small education and resource centre, and office. HGV operations will operate from 05.00 to 19.00 and external plant on site is to operate 24 hours per day during peak season.

8.36 The applicant has provided an Acoustic Assessment to assess background noise levels and appropriate mitigation in respect of the impact on nearby sensitive receptors, identified at Green Lane Lodge, approximately 176 metres to the northwest of the site, and Whitewyke House, approximately 170 metres to the east. The Noise Assessment, as originally submitted, provided limited information on the nature and intensity of the activities to be undertaken on the site, and concerns were raised by the environmental health officer regarding plant and traffic noise.

8.37 The Acoustic Assessment has been amended during the course of the application and as updated sets out matters in relation to: filter fans, seed processing and plant, operations within the seed processing building, and vehicle movements, including HGVs. In terms of HGV movements, the hours of movement during the AM peak will be between 05.00-19.00, during which time, road traffic on the Bognor Road is significant, with high noise levels. For clarification, no externally mounted plant is proposed; any plant and associated silencers will

Page 50 be housed internally. Specific mitigation measures proposed include: heavily insulated panels for the main building fabric; large in-line attenuators for the filter fans; cladding for the filter fan cases; reduced plant operation between the hours of 23.00-07.00 hours; no HGV movements during the hours of 23.00-05.00 hours; and the closure of loading bay doors on the north elevation of the building between the hours of 22.00-05.00 hours, details of which could be secured by planning condition and to which the applicant is agreeable.

8.38 Environmental Health officers have reviewed the revised noise assessment and associated mitigation measures, and are satisfied that subject to this robust scheme of mitigation, there will be a minor to negligible impact caused by the proposal on the nearest noise sensitive receptors, subject to conditions to control the hours of delivery, and night- time background noise levels from the site and access road, to reflect other recent developments in the Food Park.

8.39 The site is located near to the former RAF Merston Airfield, but the land has been in agricultural use for many years; therefore, the likelihood of contamination is low and a watching brief would be recommended to be required by condition if all other elements were acceptable. A bunded oil tank is required for the lorry refuelling depot and again this may be secured by planning condition. Environmental Health Officers advise that traffic impacts on air quality, delay times and capacity at the Food Park entrance roundabout on the A259 are likely to be minimal.

Other Matters

Flood Risk and Foul and Surface Water Drainage

8.40 The applicant has provided a foul and surface water drainage strategy with the application. In terms of foul drainage, following clarification from the Environment Agency (EA), foul water is to be disposed of via a cess pit, which is to be emptied once a month. The EA has requested clarification that the refuelling tank, to be located in the centre of the site for use by the stationed HGVs, will be double skinned. The applicant confirms this to be the case. On this basis, no objection is raised by the EA to the application.

8.41 The site is located in Flood Zone 1, which indicates a low level of flood risk from tidal or fluvial sources, overland flows or groundwater. In view of the scale and size of the development proposed with this application, the applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment.

8.42 In respect of surface water drainage, the proposal seeks to discharge rain water from impermeable areas of the site via attenuation to a storage reservoir proposed to be located in the northwest corner of the site with a restricted discharge limited to the existing greenfield runoff rate, to an existing drainage ditch to the southwest of the site. The total impermeable drained area of the development amounts to 1.7ha and includes extensive areas of parking, the roof area of the building and new service road on the south and southwest perimeter of the site.

8.43 West Sussex County Council as the lead Local Flood Authority and the Council's Drainage Engineer have been consulted on the application. The strategy as submitted does not provide any evidence that ground conditions are unsuitable for infiltration or soakaways, to reflect the hierarchy of surface water disposal, which encourages a SUDs approach beginning with infiltration where possible. The CDC Drainage Engineer and WSCC Lead Flood Authority has therefore requested that winter groundwater monitoring is undertaking to

Page 51 confirm whether this is possible, as it may be possible for some areas of the site to infiltrate to ground while other areas drain to a reduced size pond.

8.44 The applicant has subsequently undertaken winter ground water monitoring for the period 11th January - 11th April 2016. The report demonstrates that the design of the drainage strategy, based on a restricted discharge to the ditch and storage via pond, is the most appropriate approach, and that infiltration is not possible on this site, owing to the high ground water levels.

8.45 Should the proposal be considered acceptable, full details of pond construction including the liner and outlet/control structure/headwalls could be secured by condition, if infiltration is not possible through the site, with all watercourses retaining a 3 metre easement for access and maintenance.

Ecology

8.46 The Council's Ecologist has assessed the proposal in terms of its impact on protected species and their habitat in relation to bats, reptiles and birds. The submitted Ecological Surveys identifies potential for sub-optimal habitat for great crested newt and water vole on the drainage ditch on the site. The applicant has undertaken further detailed site survey work following the initial site appraisal, which found no populations of reptiles. No detailed reptile mitigation is therefore proposed with the application, but ecological enhancement is proposed to incorporate linear areas of ecological herbaceous grassland around the site periphery on the western boundary as reptile habitat. If all other elements of the scheme had been considered acceptable, details of a comprehensive landscaping and ecological scheme and management plan could be secured by condition.

8.47 In respect of bats, the existing tree belts on the northern and western tree lines are to be retained. There are 2no. Ash Trees located on the western site boundaries which are identified as having low to moderate bat roost potential. Although these trees are to be retained as part of the development proposals, with development focused on the eastern side of the site, if the trees were to be removed at a later date, further bat emergence surveys would be required. The Ecologist advises that the lighting scheme proposed with the application, which focuses luminaires around the southern half of the site, should minimise impacts on bats using trees, hedgerows and buildings. A detailed lighting strategy could be secured by planning condition with the use of directional light sources and shields had the scheme been considered acceptable.

Archaeology

8.48 Initial site investigations by the applicant conclude that there is potential for some archaeological remains. The Council's Archaeologist has advised that this should be investigated further with the aim of identifying significant archaeological deposits present and appropriate measures for their preservation. A condition could be recommended, if all other elements were acceptable.

Infrastructure Requirements

8.49 The Community Infrastructure Levy was adopted by the Council on 26th January 2016 and implemented on 1st February 2016. The proposed development is not CIL liable, as the Council's charging schedule relates to new residential and retail floorspace only. In the event of planning permission being granted, it would, however, be necessary to secure a financial contribution towards specific off-site highway works and improvements for local bus

Page 52 infrastructure, in the form of a bus shelter, real time passenger information and associated maintenance for both, by way of a Section106 Agreement, in accordance with the Council's Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD. The works to the strategic highway network, required to mitigate the impact on queuing times could be secured by a Grampian condition.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

8.50 Officers have carefully assessed the considerations within local and national planning policy, specifically, whether the proposal constitutes a sustainable form of development and, as such, if the adverse impacts of the proposed development outweigh the benefits, when taking into account the NPPF as a whole (paragraph 14). In its favour, the proposal would provide and involve significant investment in an important sector of the District's economy, through the expansion of an established local business that would retain staff and jobs, and provide up to date facilities and equipment. This in turn will improve the efficiency of farming operations and help to achieve national food security. The proposal will not generate adverse environmental effects by reason of noise, contamination, air, ground or water pollution or vehicle movements, nor will it have a material detrimental effect on residential amenity, subject to conditions.

8.51 Adverse impacts to be weighed in the balance include the use of part of a field which is considered valuable for agricultural production and lies within an HDA, and the resultant scale of the building and its consequential visual and landscape impacts which will be only partly mitigated by design and material detail and planting over the medium to longer term. It is accepted that this area is designated for horticultural uses, but the proposal is for a very large building located immediately adjacent to the highway that would change the perception of the road corridor in the vicinity of the site from a rural landscape to an industrial character. The proposal is not considered capable of being assimilating satisfactorily into the landscape, despite the proposed landscape mitigation plans. Taking all matters above into consideration, it is concluded that the proposed development on balance does not comply with the purposes and policies of the adopted Local Plan and the NPPF. The application is therefore to be recommended for refusal, contrary to policy 45 and policy 48 of the Chichester District Local Plan.

Human Rights

8.52 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to refuse is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE

1 U03149 - Landscape impact 2 U03415 - Lack of infrastructure

INFORMATIVES

1 U03150 - INF: PLANS 2 W46F App Ref Following Discussion

For further information on this application please contact Katherine Rawlins on (01243) 534542.

Page 53 Agenda Item 8

Parish: Ward: Southbourne Southbourne

SB/16/01466/FUL

Proposal 1 no. replacement dwellinghouse.

Site Nutbourne Business Centre Main Road Nutbourne PO18 8RL

Map Ref (E) 477833 (N) 105530

Applicant Mr Chris Aguado-Navarro

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

Page 54 2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is an irregular shaped plot, located within the Settlement Boundary Area and the Parish of Southbourne, to the north of the A259. To the east and west lie residential properties and there is a PROW immediately east of the host property running northwards along the existing tarmacked driveway.

2.2 The existing property is brick built with a slate roof with a double gable roof - the ridge lines running from east to west

2.3 The building has been subject to a recent change of use from a business premises to a C3 dwellinghouse under Prior Approval (application reference14/01726/P3JPA). Following an inspection of the site officers are satisfied that it been converted to a dwellinghouse, the applicant is living on site and has registered to pay Council Tax appropriate to the C3 use as of the 30/03/2016.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The proposal includes the demolition of the existing main building and its replacement with a 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom and 2 w.c. property. The siting would be similar to that of the existing, as would the footprint. The existing single storey element, to the front of the site, would be retained and converted into a studio that would be connected to the main house and single bay garage.

3.2 The apex of the proposed property would measure 8m to the principle north elevation and 7.5m to the south elevations. The maximum height of the underside of the eaves would measure 5.8m. The ridge and eaves heights vary, given the slight change in levels over the site however; they would not exceed these measurements.

3.3 The outside space to the frontage would be retained for parking (as it currently is) and the driveway would be retained without impacting upon the PROW. The existing rear tarmacked car park would be landscaped to form a residential garden to the host property.

4.0 History

01/02668/FUL PER Variation of condition no.2 of planning permission SB/142/85, use of premises for B1 (business) use with occupancy unrestricted.

78/00006/SB REF Change of use - store for Roofing Contracters materials with office.

79/00185/SB PER Change of use.

85/00142/SB PER Businss computer system sales and software development.

85/00200/SB PER Resiting delivery access and staff car parking to existing premises.

Page 55

14/01726/P3JPA YESPAP Part 3 (Class J) change of use of office building (Class B1(a)) to 1no. residential dwellinghouse (Class C3).

15/03695/FUL WDN Proposed 4 bed dwelling and retention of the existing single storey extension to the front of the property for redevelopment.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building No Conservation Area No Countryside No AONB No Strategic Gap No Tree Preservation No Order South Downs National No Park EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 Yes - Flood Zone 3 Yes Historic Parks and No Gardens

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Response dated 07/07/16

At its meeting on 7th July, as requested, Southbourne Parish Council's Planning Committee reconsidered the above application. It resolved to object on the following grounds: The loss of office space in the existing building is regrettable. This has happened without reference to Policy 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan and the need to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for the office space. No report has ever been submitted to show that the existing building is not viable as a business premises. Therefore this Committee requests that a marketing report and viability assessment is carried out before any further, substantial change is made to the building. Otherwise the Committee will only support continued use of the existing building as a dwellinghouse.

Page 56

Response dated 11/05/16

Objection -

1. The development is contrary to Policy 5 Employment of the Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan as it proposes the loss of existing employment floorspace;

2. It fails to provide the required assessment of viability in accordance with Policy 5;

3. It is questionable that the application correctly states that the property is an existing dwelling.

6.2 Environment Agency

Environment Agency Position According to the Environment Agency flood maps the proposed site is not shown to be at risk to fluvial or tidal flooding, and we therefore have no objection

However on the basis that localised flooding has been identified within the Design and Access Statement it would be appropriate to implement the identified mitigation measures.

6.3 WSCC Highways

I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.

West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under application reference SB/15/03695/FUL a proposed 4 bed dwelling and retention of the existing single storey extension to the front of the property for redevelopment. A response was provided dated 28/01/2016 raising no anticipated highways safety or capacity concerns.

Having inspected the latest plans, the highways elements of this application remain the same in terms of trip generation, access, visibility, sustainability and parking. Therefore highways safety and capacity comments provided 28/01/2016 would once again be considered appropriate and should be referred to when determining this application. I note WSCC Public Rights of Way have provided a consultation response to this latest application dated 09/05/2016.

If the LPA are minded to grant planning consent the following conditions would be advised:

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

Construction plant and materials No development shall be commenced until such time as plans and details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the site set up during construction. This shall include details for all temporary contractors buildings, plant and stacks of materials, provision for the temporary parking of contractors vehicles and the

Page 57 loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the implementation of this development. Such provision once approved and implemented shall be retained throughout the period of construction. Reason: To avoid undue congestion of the site and consequent obstruction to access.

Cycle parking No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies.

6.5 WSCC PROW

Response received 15/06/16

I can confirm we in rights of way are satisfied with the revised site plans as above which, came out of my meeting with Andy Young. It was agreed that the minimum width of 4m would be achieved by reducing the planted border slightly. Please could theses plans be attached to the application, the ones currently on the website show the 3.8m width for the right of way. On his basis rights of way have no objection to this application.

Response date 09/05/16

Please accept the following response to this application on behalf of PROW.

Firstly I would draw your attention to the comments made on the previous application shown below.

As previously explained, I researched back on our walkers report of 1985 which gives us further information regarding width, structures and surfacing etc. on rights of way. It records a width here of 15ft (4.5m) from the buildings to the fence line, which is what we would determine as the legal width over this length.

On plan number F113/3.101 for the current application 16/01466/FUL , the 4.5m width is confirmed and shown from the building to the eastern boundary. However, we note there is only a 3.8m width shown on the plan as being provided for the footpath on the access drive. We have said previously we could accept the loss of 500mm as long as the boundary to the new build consisted of planting a soft boundary, as long as a width of not less than 4m was provided for walkers to use and that the planting be regularly maintained for example cut at least twice a year to ensure that there is no encroaching onto the 4m width. We would also seek reassurance that the soft boundary of planting would not be fenced to create a hard boundary.

Until the applicant can confirm that a width of not less than 4m be provided over the access drive and agree to our recommendations above we must ask that you consider this response as a holding objection.

I would also offer the following standard comments

The granting of planning permission does not authorise obstruction of, interference to or moving of any Public Right of Way (PROW); this can only be done with the prior consent of West Sussex County Council (WSCC), as highway authority, through a legal process.

Page 58

Safe & convenient public access is to be available at all times across the full width of the PROW, which may be wider than the available route - advice on the width can be provided by WSCC Rights of Way (RoW) Team. The path is not to be obstructed by vehicles, plant, scaffolding or the temporary storage of materials and/or chemicals during any works.

Any down pipes or soakaways associated with the development should discharge into an existing or new drainage system and away from the surface of the PROW. No drainage system is to be installed through the surface of the path without the prior consent of WSCC's RoW team.

Any alteration to, or replacement of, the existing boundary with the PROW or the erection of new fence lines, must be done in consultation with WSCC's RoW Team to ensure the legal width of the path is maintained and there is no unlawful encroachment. PROW can advise on width.

Access along the PROW by contractor's vehicles, deliveries or plant is only lawful if the applicant can prove they have a vehicular right.

It is conceivable that the PROW will be affected by an increase in vehicular traffic either before or after the development is completed. Developers/landowners should ensure that public use of the PROW takes precedence over private/development vehicular traffic.

It is a criminal offence to damage the surface of a PROW and the prior consent and approval of the County Council to a specification must be secured, even if the surface is to be improved. The applicant will be liable for any damage to the surface arising from his exercise of private access rights.

6.5 Southern Water

Please find attached a plan of the sewer records showing the approximate position of foul sewer within the site. The exact position of the foul sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Please note:

-No development or new tree planting should be located within 3 meters either side of the centreline of the foul sewer. -No new soakaways should be located within 5m of a public sewer. -All existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of construction works.

Furthermore, due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served and potential means of access before any further works commence on site.

The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

Page 59 Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public foul sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.

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

“A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to services this development, Please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.”

The Council’s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

7.0 Planning Policy

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. The Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029 (September 2015) was made on the 15th December 2015 and forms part of the Development Plan against which applications must be considered.

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 20: Southbourne Strategic Development Policy 29: Settlement Hubs and Village Centres Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 47: Heritage and Design Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas

7.3 Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan:

Policy 1: Development within the Settlement Boundaries Policy 4: Housing Design Policy 7: Environment

Page 60

National Policy and Guidance

7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states:

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:

For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), 56, 58, 59, 64, 99, 100, 103 and 104, 109, 117, 119, 123 and 125.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Documents are material to the determination of this planning application: Chichester District Council's Planning Guidance Note 3, Design Guideline for Alterations to dwellings and extensions (revised September 2009) (PGN3) Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD

7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods

8.0 Planning Comments

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i. Principle of the development ii. Impact on visual amenities iii. Impact in neighbouring amenities iv. Highway Safety and impact on PROW v. Water Management

Assessment

i. Principle of the development

8.2 The site is located within the designated Settlement boundary in accordance with Polices 1 and 2 of the current Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029. In such areas the principle of the

Page 61 replacement of a single dwellinghouse is considered acceptable subject to other material considerations.

8.3 In this case it has been established that the a change of use of the offices to a C3 dwellinghouse has occurred, and therefore therefore the requirements of policy 26 of the Chichester LP and policy 5 of the SBPNP are not relevant to this proposal.

8.4 The site is within a sustainable location within the designated settlement and close to facilities and services within the Southbourne area. The development would not increase the need to travel by the private motor car in a detrimental manner.

8.5 Considering the above, on balance, the principle of the development is considered to meet current sustainability objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, Local Plan and Neighbouring Plan and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise and therefore the principle of the development is considered acceptable subject to other material considerations.

ii. Impact on visual amenities

8.6 The new property would lie within a siting and footprint to the existing. The form of the building would be gable ended with a continuous ridge line running north to south. The eaves to the east elevation would be higher that those to the west which would form a cat slide (in part). The wall of the west elevation would abut the boundary with Staffton House (in a similar manner to the existing) and the single storey flat roof element and existing single storey building to the front of the site would be retained.

8.7 The design, form, bulk, height, mass and scale of the proposed property would respect the character and quality of the site and surroundings in accordance with policies 33 and 47 of the current Local Plan.

8.8 The property would resulting in simple form with a minimalistic approach, in comparison to the existing. Given the variety of properties in the locality, in this context, the appearance of the new house is considered to respect the character and quality of the site and locality. There are not special designations in this location and the existing building is of limited historical and architectural merit.

8.9 In conclusion; the overall design and appearance of the property including its height, form, proportions, scale, bulk, mass and materials would respect the character and quality of the site and surroundings and would achieve a high quality design that would be in accordance with current design policies and guidance.

iii. Impact in neighbouring amenities

8.10 Although the main building would be increased in size and height, given the separation provided to the east, by the driveway and PROW, and the existing arrangement to the west the additional impact on the immediate neighbouring properties would not be overbearing or oppressive to their living conditions and/or general outlook from their property and/or gardens.

8.11 The east elevation would include glazing at ground and first floor and three rooflights. The ground floor would be screened and separated from the neighbour by their boundary treatment, raised level (from the application site) and driveway and therefore these windows

Page 62 would not cause harmful overlooking or loss of privacy. The first floor window would be obscured and fixed shut below 1.7m (condition recommended) and the sills of the rooflights would be conditioned in the same manner. Similar requirements to the above windows and rooflight would be required to the west elevation rooflights and first floor bathroom window - to limit overlooking and loss of privacy.

8.16 In conclusion and on balance; subject to the suggested conditions the proposal is considered acceptable to neighbouring amenities.

iv. Highway Safety and impact on PROW

8.17 The existing vehicular access would be utilised and there would be ample parking and turning space to the front of the site for at least three cars which is compatible with the existing arrangement. WSCC Highways have raised no objection to the scheme.

8.18 WSCC have also commented on the impact upon the PROW which runs along the existing driveway to the east of the application site (along the side of the building). Their original concerns regarding the width of the PROW have been addressed via substitute plans F113 / 3.001 rev 07, 3.002 rev 06 and 3.101 rev 06 as per their email received 15/06/16. These plans show a minimum of 4m width of the PROW is retained which is considered to retain to PROW as it currently exists in an acceptable manner.

v. Water Management

8.19 The far north western section of the proposed rear garden is located within EA flood zones 2 and 3. Within such areas the replacement of dwellinghouses on a one for one basis can be supported subject to an FRA and suitable mitigation measures. In this case it is proposed to increase the ground floor levels by 500mm above the existing which would be a betterment in terms of flooding resilience. The submitted DAS includes 5 points to assist with flooding mitigation to the site and property which are supported. In addition a reduction in hard surfaces and porous surfaces are proposed - alongside the management of surface water within the site.

8.12 On balance; the mitigation proposed in this case would be an enhancement and would manage water in an acceptable way.

Significant Conditions

8.15 External finish materials, landscaping, parking and drainage should be conditioned as part of the terms of the planning permission. Permitted Development rights are also proposed to be removed in respect of gates, fences, walls and other means of enclosure and outbuildings - to ensure such features are compatible to the visual amenities of the site and locality.

Conclusion

8.16 Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal complies with the Development Plan and there are no other material consideration that indicate otherwise therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Page 63 Human Rights

8.17 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U03331 Plans 3 U03318 Material details TBC 4 U03319 FRA 5 U03320 Surface water drainage 6 U03321 Parking 7 U03322 Construction details TBC 8 U03323 Bins and bikes details TBC 9 U0324 Sills of rooflights 10 U03325 First floor windows 11 U03326 PD removed outbuildings 12 U03327 PD removed - means of enclosure 13 U03328 Use of garage and studio 14 U03329 Balcony screen TBA 15 U03330 Porous surfaces 16 U03331 Landscaping details 17 U03332 Landscaping - implementation 18 U03333 Boundary treatment details TBC

INFORMATIVE

1 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions

For further information on this application please contact Maria Tomlinson on 01243 534734

Page 64 Agenda Item 9

Parish: Ward: Westhampnett Lavant

WH/16/01103/FUL

Proposal Proposed dwelling on land adjacent to Wherstead and proposed vehicular access to existing dwelling.

Site Wherstead Coach Road(North) Westhampnett West Sussex PO18 0NX

Map Ref (E) 488278 (N) 106174

Applicant Mr Adie Girdler

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

Page 65 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is located within the Settlement Boundary and Parish of Westhampnett - located on a corner plot to the south of Stane Street and west of Coach Road.

2.2 The application site is adjoined by residential properties and gardens to the south and west.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application proposes the retention of the existing two storey property and the construction of a further dwellinghouse within the garden of Wherstead. The proposed property would be sited to the east of the current main house beyond the river, set slightly forward of Wherstead and centrally between the east and west boundaries. The proposed dwelling would comprise of a one and a half storey detached dwelling, set back from Stane Street, with a pitched roof, cat slide to the principle elevations and slightly offset glaze gable element. The maximum ridge and eaves heights would measure 6.7m and 3.5m to the south east and west and 2.5 to the north.

3.3 Internally the proposed property would include a ground floor lounge, kitchen, dining room, family room, utility and w.c. with hall way and staircase leading to three first floor bedrooms and two bathrooms.

3.4 A vehicular access is also proposed from Stane Street that would serve the existing property. Connected to this access would be a driveway, parking and turning space. The existing vehicular access from Coach Road, to the new plot, would be retained and would also accommodate parking and turning space for the new property.

3.6 This is an amended scheme to planning permission 14/01895/FUL that was approved in the 13.11.2014 for; '1 no. detached dwelling, demolition of sub-standard garage, proposed new access for Wherstead and a double garage'.

4.0 History

04/03088/OUT PER Outline application for one detached dwelling, demolition of substandard garage, proposed new access for Wherstead and one double garage.

81/00024/WH PER Remove existing thorn hedge and replace with 4 ft high fence fronting Coach Road.

Page 66 14/01895/FUL PER106 1 no. detached dwelling, demolition of sub-standard garage, proposed new access for Wherstead and a double garage. 5.0 Constraints

Listed Building No Conservation Area No Countryside No AONB No Strategic Gap No Tree Preservation OrderNo South Downs National No Park EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 No - Flood Zone 3 No Historic Parks and No Gardens

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Response received 19.07.2016

The Parish Council wishes to sustain it's previous comments, thus, Objects to the proposed vehicle access from Stane Street and urges that the application is refused for safety reasons. Having reviewed the planning application, Westhampnett Parish Council endorses the safety concerns expressed by Mr & Mrs Craven in respect of the proximity of the proposed vehicle access from Stane Street, which is close to the very busy junction with Coach Road. Stane Street is already an extremely busy road and vehicle movements will increase when the 100 homes on the former hanging basket site to the east, WH/12/02360/OUT are completed (already under construction); and the 300 homes to the west between Stane Street / Madgwick Lane, WH/15/03524/OUTEIA, approved in the Local Plan, have been completed. Additionally, commercial and domestic vehicles associated with the Rolls Royce factory (east) and CDC depot and Transit site (west) exacerbate the dangers at the junction with Coach Road and vehicles turning to access the amenity tip. The Parish Council considers that vehicle access to the site should be from Coach Road, as approved under application 14/01895/FUL

Response received 06.05.2016

The Parish Council Objects to the proposed vehicle access from Stane Street and urges that the application is refused for safety reasons.

Having reviewed the planning application, Westhampnett Parish Council endorses the safety concerns expressed by Mr & Mrs Craven in respect of the proximity of the proposed vehicle access from Stane Street, which is close to the very busy junction with Coach Road.

Stane Street is already an extremely busy road and vehicle movements will increase when the 100 homes on the former hanging basket site to the east, WH/12/02360/OUT are

Page 67 completed (already under construction); and the 300 homes to the west between Stane Street/Madgwick Lane, WH/15/03524/OUTEIA, approved in the Local Plan, have been completed. Additionally, commercial and domestic vehicles associated with the Rolls Royce factory (east) and CDC depot and Transit site (west) exacerbate the dangers at the junction with Coach Road and vehicles turning to access the amenity tip.

The Parish Council considers that vehicle access to the site should be from Coach Road, as approved under application 14/01895/FUL.

6.2 WSCC Highways

Response received 18.07.2016

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 Strategic Planning 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.

Summary West Sussex County Council, as the Local Highway Authority (LHA), have been re-consulted on the above application for proposed new dwelling and new access point on to the public highway to serve existing dwelling. In our comments of 12/05/2016 the LHA requested modification to the new access width, pedestrian visibility and clarification on parking and turning arrangements for the existing dwelling.

Access The vehicular access point has been widened to approximately 3.4 metre to provide sufficient width for a car to pass in/out of the site. The applicant will need to apply for a licence from WSCC Highways for these works on to the public highway. It is also noted that an area of block paving approximately 4 metre into the site has been demonstrated to ensure that loose gravel/material does not disperse on to the highway.

The pedestrian access into the new dwelling from Stane Street appears to be approximately 1 metre wide. Department for Transport guidance on Inclusive Mobility advises that "…a blind person using a long cane or with an assistance dog needs 1100mm. A visually impaired person who is being guided needs a width of 1200mm. A wheelchair user and an ambulant person side-by-side need 1500mm width". The applicant may wish to consider the pedestrian accessibility in to the site. Any gate across this entrance should not open on to the highway.

Vehicular Visibility The applicant has demonstrated vehicular visibility from 2.4 metre back from the edge of the carriageway into the centre of the new access point. The plan annotates these splays at 43 metre as per Manual for Streets (MfS) standards for a road subject to a 30 mph speed restriction. However, the plan cuts these splays off at approximately 37 metre in the east and 22 metre in the west direction. Nevertheless, as stated in our previous response the LHA are satisfied that sufficient visibility is achievable in this location and that the required 43 metre

Page 68 could be demonstrated. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) may wish to secure this as a condition to ensure the full splays are demonstrated on a plan.

Pedestrian Visibility The applicant was advised to demonstrate a clear area of 2m by 2m (from the edge of the footway in to the site) to provide a pedestrian visibility splay so that vehicles can see users of the footway as they exit the site. This has not been demonstrated on the plan but can be secured via condition.

Parking and Turning The applicant has amended the plans to demonstrate the parking and turning of cars on site. Although a floor plan for the existing house has not been provided, the Application Form states that it is a 4+ bedroom property. On the basis of it being a four bedroom dwelling in this location the WSCC Car Parking Demand Calculator envisions that three spaces should be provided. The LHA is satisfied that three cars could park and turn on site and exit in forward gear.

Summary The applicant has addressed the LHA concerns regards access, parking and turning. Pedestrian visibility splays should be demonstrated to ensure the safety of users of the footway adjacent to the site; this can be secured via condition.

The LHA does not consider that the proposal would have 'severe' impact on the operation of the Highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 32), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal.

Response received 12/05/16

West Sussex County Council, as the Local Highway Authority (LHA), was consulted previously on Highway matters for this location under planning application 14/01895/FUL to which no objections were raised and was permitted by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The application proposed that a new vehicular access be created on to Coach Road for the existing dwelling and the existing access be used for the new dwelling. It is now proposed that the existing access on to Coach Road be used for the new dwelling and a new vehicular access on to Stane Street be created for the existing dwelling.

The LHA do not wish to raise any concerns to the proposals in principle, however further information is requested in relation to the parking, turning and access arrangements.

Access The new access point will be located approximately 20m from the junction of Coach Road with Stane Street. Stane Street is a 'C' classified road subject to a 30mph speed restriction in this location. The LHA has reviewed data supplied to WSCC by Sussex Police over a period of the last three years. There have been no recorded injury accidents at the junction. There is no evidence to suggest that the junction is operating unsafely, or that the proposed dwelling would exacerbate an existing safety concern.

The driveway is to be constructed from shingle. This may result in material being dispersed onto the public highway affecting the surface of the road. The applicant should provide a gravel trap or area of block paving, or other bound material, at the point of access onto Stane Street (on land within the applicant's control; not within the publicly maintained highway). This should me demonstrated on an amended plan.

Page 69 The access appears to be 2m wide at the point where it crosses in to the site. This is not sufficient for a single vehicle crossover. The applicant should amend the plan to demonstrate an access point of at least 3m in width to enable safe access and egress to the site.

Visibility Manual for Streets (MfS) quotes a standard of 43m of visibility in both directions from a 2.4m 'X' distance back from the carriageway edge for a 30mph road. From an inspection of the plans and local mapping the LHA are satisfied that visibility upon exiting the site is adequate. The trees/vegetation shown either side of the new access point should be cleared to an area of 2m by 2m (from the edge of the footway in to the site) to provide a pedestrian visibility splay so that vehicles can see users of the footway as they exit the site.

Parking and Turning The Proposed Site Plan demonstrates that the shingle parking area off Stane Street will provide space for the parking of four cars. The space appears restricted to enable four cars to park and turn to exit the site in forward gear. The applicant should amend the plan to enlarge the hardstanding area and demonstrate that cars can park and turn in the space available by way of a swept path analysis so they can exit on to Stane Street in a forward gear.

The WSCC Car Parking Demand Calculator envisions that three spaces be provided for the new dwelling. These spaces will be accessed via the existing crossover on to Coach Road and includes a single detached garage.

Sustainability Bus stops are within short walking distance on Stane Street with services on to Chichester. A cycle route runs along Stane Street and cycling would be an attractive and sustainable mode of transport in this location. The applicant should provide secure and covered storage for the new dwelling; this can be secured via condition.

Conclusion The LHA accept the use of the existing vehicle crossover (VCO) and parking area to be used in conjunction with the new dwelling. The new VCO on to Stane Street to be used for the existing dwelling should be modified on the Proposed Site Plan. The access should be widened at the point of entry in to the site. We also request that pedestrian visibility splays are demonstrated and that parking and turning are further considered. The off street parking area should be enlarged and it should be demonstrated where and how cars will park and turn to leave the site in a forward gear.

Please ask the applicant for this additional information and re-consult.

6.3 Natural England

This application is within 5.6km of Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and will lead to a net increase in residential accommodation. Subject to the financial contribution as required through Chichester District Council's interim policy, Natural England are satisfied that the applicant has mitigated against the potential adverse effects of the development on the integrity of the European site(s), and has no objection to this aspect of the application.

Page 70 6.5 1 x Third Party Objection

2 x letters from same household - concerns regarding safety of proposed vehicular access and accuracy of plans and therefore the available space to provide the proposed parking and turning.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. There is no made neighbourhood plan for Westhampnett at this time.

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 12: Water Resources in the Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Catchment Policy 17: Westhampnett/North East Chichester Strategic Development Location Policy 29: Settlement Hubs and Village Centres Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 47: Heritage and Design Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas

National Policy and Guidance

7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states:

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:

For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), 32, 56, 59, 60 and 64.

Page 71 7.5 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Documents are material to the determination of this planning application:

Chichester District Council's Planning Guidance Note 3, Design Guideline for Alterations to dwellings and extensions (revised September 2009) (PGN3) Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD

7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment

8.0 Planning Comments

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The key considerations in this case are whether the development would have an acceptable impact on; i) Visual amenities ii) Neighbouring amenities iii) Highway safety

Assessment i) Impact on visual amenities

8.2 The principle of a net gain in one dwellinghouse on this site has already been established via the previous permission, which remains extant.

8.3 The proposed property would be sited in a similar position (to the previous permission). However, it represents an increase in size, height, bulk, mass and scale. In comparison to the previous approval the ridge height would be increased by 0.5m in height. The eaves to the front and rear differ and would be comparable with the previous approval. The bulk,

Page 72 mass and scale increase would arise from an increase in footprint and change in form of the roof to an L shaped building with southerly gable end projection. The plot is considered to be of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed dwellinghouse without appearing cramped or overdeveloped. The staggered from of the roofs, walls, gable and dormer would break up the bulk, mass and scale of the development to an acceptable level. The submitted street scene elevation demonstrates that the proposed dwelling would remain subservient to the two storey properties to the west.

8.5 The alteration to the vehicular access to the existing (host) dwelling is proposed to move from the southern end of the site (on to Coach Road) to the front of the existing property, on to Stane Street. This repositioning of the vehicular access would open up the existing property to localised views from the road. However, many other residential properties take access from Stane Street and this would not be uncharacteristic of other properties in the area.

8.6 In conclusion; the increased size of the proposed property and new vehicular access would respect the character and quality of the locality in accordance with polices 33 and 47 of the current Local Plan and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise. ii) Impact neighbouring amenities

8.7 The proposals would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties with regard to loss of light or outlook. The proposed dwelling would be located within the same building line as the ‘donor’ property (Whersted) to the west and would be located a reasonable distance from this boundary, separated by an existing stream. In order to mitigate against a loss of privacy through overlooking it would be necessary to include a condition requiring the first floor glazing to the west elevation of the proposed dwelling to be obscure and fixed below 1.7m from finished first floor level. The sills of the rooflights would also be required to be above 1.7m from finished first floor level within the rooms/spaces in which they serve. The impact on Ramblers to the south would be limited given the depth of the rear garden (33m) of the application site, their open plan front garden and their set back position from Coach Road. To the east existing properties are separated from the application site by the road and therefore any additional impact this this direction would be limited. iii) Impact on Highway safety

8.10 The new vehicular access to Stane Street has raised concerns regarding Highway safety through third party comments and the Parish Council. WSCC Highway (LHA) have been consulted on this case and have not raised an objection on highway safety grounds. Conditions are recommended as per their suggestions to ensure the development meets the requirements of the LHA. Sufficient visibility and on site turning and parking would be possible. On balance, the new access would not cause significant harm to highway safety. iv. Other matters

Water Management

8.11 There is a stream running through the site. However the site is not within an EA flood zone 2 or 3 and this is not a designated main river. Surface water would be managed within the site and porous surfaces proposed.

Page 73 8.12 Foul water is proposed to be connected to the existing mains network. The site would drain to the Tangmere Wastewater Treatment works and it is not anticipated that the additional of one dwelling would be significant or cause capacity problems, in this case.

8.13 Broadband will be proposed to the new property via the existing network and the occupant's desired supplier.

Significant Conditions

8.14 Conditions are suggested regarding;

 External finish materials to be agreed with the LPA - notwithstanding the approved plans and those suggested by the LHA.  Landscaping - soft and hard  Obscure glazing windows to first floor – west elevation.

Section 106 Agreement

8.15 A Unilateral Undertaking was submitted and contributions paid to mitigate the likely significant impact on the Chichester Harbour SPA, in accordance with policy 50 of the Local Plan.

Conclusion

8.16 Based on the above t is considered the proposal complies with the Development Plan and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Human Rights

In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U03341 Plans 3 U03342 Materials TBC 4 U03343 Obscure west first floor windows 5 U03344 Sills of rooflights 6 U03345 Landscaping – details TBC 7 U03346 Landscaping - implementation 8 U03347 Boundary treatments TBC 9 U03348 Parking provision 10 U03349 Visibility 11 U03350 Pedestrian Visibility 12 U03351 Vehicle parking and turning 13 U03352 Bins and bikes 14 U03353 Surface water 15 U03354 Construction plant and materials

Page 74 INFORMATIVES

1 U03355 Contact the Highway Licensing team 2 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions

For further information on this application please contact Maria Tomlinson on 01243 534734

Page 75 Agenda Item 10

Agenda Item Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 17 August 2016 By Head of Planning Services Local Authority Chichester District Council Application No: SDNP/16/00941/CND Validation Date 9 March 2016 Target Date: 4 May 2016 Applicant: Mr Edward Hutley Proposal: Variation of condition 14 of planning permission SDNP/15/01256/CND to remove reference to parking spaces 7 & 8. Site Address Old Court House Grange Road Midhurst West Sussex GU29 9LT Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision

Recommendation: That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.

Reason for Committee Referral: Parish Council Objection – Officer Recommends Permit

Executive Summary

This application seeks to amend Condition 14 of SDNP/15/01256/CND to remove the obligation to use land outside the ownership and control of the applicant for two car parking spaces (spaces 7 and 8). Whilst the applicant has entered into a licence agreement with the land owner (Chichester District Council) to enable the use of the land for this purpose, the terms of the licence do not give the long-term guarantee of provision that the condition requires. Given this situation, the condition as worded is considered to be unreasonable and ultimately unenforceable. It is material to note however, that the revision to the condition will still result in the provision of the six car parking spaces within the application site which was previously considered to be acceptable when the original application (SDNP/13/05841/FUL) was permitted.

Chichester District Council, East PallantPage House, 76East Pallant, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1TY Email: [email protected]

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site lies within the Midhurst Settlement Policy Area and Conservation Area and the South Downs National Park. The site abuts Grange Road to the north, the new Grange Leisure Centre and public open space to the south, the access road to the leisure centre and flank wall of the Post Office to the east and the former Grange car park access and business premises to the west.

1.2 The site is part occupied by the former Midhurst Court House building which is a mainly single storey building with a pitched roof element at the centre front and single storey brick built wings to either side. The rear part of the site is an informal gravelled parking area.

1.3 Planning permission was granted under SDNP/13/05841/FUL on 2nd September 2014 for the conversion of the existing building and the construction of new extensions to create 8 no. new apartments (2 no. 1 bed and 6 no. 2 bed). Subsequent design amendments, primarily relating to the roof, were sought and permitted on 13th October 2015 under SDNP/15/01256/CND. When this application was considered, two additional parking spaces were identified to the south of the site but outside the defined application site.

1.4 Parking provision for the scheme as a whole is provided in the side access road to the east of the development and a further two spaces on the north-west corner of the site close to the junction of the access road with Grange Road, as well as the two spaces south of the development site. The parking provision within the site was subject to a non-material amendment (SDNP/15/06522/NMA) to provide a more rational arrangement for parking and shared surface for pedestrians to the east side of the development.

2. Relevant Planning History

SDNP/13/01700/FUL - The demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site for 8 no. 2 bedroom flats. REFUSE 18.06.2013

SDNP/13/05841/FUL - The conversion of the existing building and construction of new extensions to create 8 no. apartments [2 no. 1 bed and 6 no. 2 bed] - alternative scheme. PERMIT 02.09.2014

SDNP/15/01256/CND - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission SDNP/13/05841/FUL. Amended plans amendments to the design and detailing of originally approved scheme. PERMIT 13.10.2015

SDNP/15/06458/DCOND - Discharge of condition 3 and 4 of permission SDNP/15/01256/CND. APPROVE 24.05.2016

SDNP/15/06522/NMA - Non-material amendment to planning permission SDNP/15/01256/CND - New parking plan and revised porches to Plots 2 and 5. PERMIT 02.02.2016

Page 77

3. Proposal

3.1 The application seeks a variation of condition 14 of the revised planning permission SDNP/15/01256/CND. This condition required the provision and maintenance of the parking spaces within the development to be maintained and used for that purpose. The condition goes on to require two further parking spaces that fall outside the application site (referred to as spaces 7 and 8 to the south east of the development) to be used in a similar fashion in connection with the development. The applicant is seeking to omit reference to spaces 7 and 8 from the condition as they do not own or control the land on which the spaces are to be formed.

4. Consultations

Parish Council Consultee

Midhurst Town Council objects to the proposed planning condition variation.

WSCC Highways

WSCC as the Local Highway Authority, are satisfied with this variation of condition 12. The parking spaces are not within the planning application boundary and as such are not considered to be part of the original application anyway.

CDC Estates and Valuation Manager

The applicant has submitted an 'Explanatory Statement' to support the request for the above. This statement contains a number of inaccuracies in relation to the applicant's explanation of the reasons for requesting the variation.

The applicant has been aware since July 2014 that land outside of its ownership would be required for the additional parking spaces and discussions with the Council as landowner took place from that time.

Following identification of suitable land for the parking spaces, terms were offered in November 2015 for significantly longer term lease, contrary to the applicant's statement that the 'Council have been unable to agree anything other than short term rights'. The applicant was not willing to agree terms for a lease and chose instead to take a licence; the option of the lease remained available.

The applicant's closing statement suggests they wish to 'use spaces 7 and 8 for as long as possible'; it is due to the planning condition that the Council as landowner has sought to accommodate the request for parking on its land and offered a longer term lease. The applicant is still able to agree terms for such a lease, giving them the longer term certainty they require.

From a planning merits perspective, the Council as landowner needs to ensure its land holdings are managed in an effective and appropriate way. Whilst not having a direct view on the retention or variance of the planning condition, it is important for the applicant to note that any continued use of this land must be on terms as agreed with the Council's Estates team. Page 78

5. Representations

1 Third Party Comment

Are there adequate turning areas for the proposed parking spaces in this development?

Agents Supporting Information (summary)

Car parking spaces 7 and 8 are technically outside the red line of the application site Applicant has not been able to acquire long-term use rights form the land owner (Chichester District Council) Can confirm that applicant has entered into a licence agreement to use the land for the stated purpose (car parking) but this is not considered to legally satisfy the terms of Condition 14 as drafted. The offer of a lease for up to 15 years considered prohibitively expensive and commercially unviable Material to note that the original planning permission SDNP/13/05841/FUL only required the provision of six on-site parking spaces. This proposed amendment does not alter that. This level of parking was considered to be an appropriate level of car parking given the town centre location by planning officers and the Highway Authority when that application was determined. As drafted, the condition involves land outside the boundary of the application site and outside the control of the applicant. Therefore raises issues regarding reasonableness and future enforceability. Suggested amendment of condition to remove the formal requirement to maintain spaces 7 and 8 is militated by applicant's willingness to maintain the spaces for as long as possible for the benefit of the scheme through entering into a licence agreement with the landowner.

6. Policy Context

6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010

Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks.

Page 79

6.2 National Park Purposes

The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

 To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas;  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.

6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010

In addition to the above, it is considered the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application:

Paragraphs 14, 17; Sections 7, 11, 12

It is also necessary to have regard to duty set out at s.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990.

The draft South Downs National Park Local Plan Preferred Options 2015 was approved by the South Downs National Park Authority on 16 July 2015. The public consultation on the document took place in September and October 2015. The document and the policies contained therein are now a material consideration when determining planning applications within the National Park, however at this stage the policies will carry limited weight.

The following policies are considered relevant to this application:

SD5 - Landscape Character SD6 - Design SD11 - Historic Environment SD39 - Conservation Areas SD43 - Public Realm and Highway Design SD44 - Car and Cycle Parking Provision

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan.

Page 80

The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures.

General Policy 9 The significance7 of the historic environment is protected from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited.

General Policy 50 Housing and other development in the National Park should be closely matched to the social and economic needs of local people and should be of high design and energy efficiency standards, to support balanced communities so people can live and work in the area.

7. Planning Policy

The following policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application:

 BE1 Settlement Policy Areas  BE11 New Development  BE13 Town Cramming  TR6 Highway Safety

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 The main issue with this proposal is considered to be whether the potential reduction in the parking provision would result in a development that is unacceptable due to a shortfall in car parking provision on the site and whether the variation of the condition which would mean that there would be two less car parking spaces provided would result in a form of development that would be harmful to the character or appearance of the Midhurst Conservation Area. It is also appropriate to consider whether the condition as drafted is reasonable or enforceable.

8.2 The original planning application was permitted on the basis that the six parking spaces proposed within the application site were considered adequate to service this town-centre conversion given its sustainable location, the availability of a choice of other transport modes and the small scale nature of the accommodation units. The Country Surveyor raised no objection to this proposal.

8.3 Various amendments were sought to the approved scheme, which included reference to two additional spaces as part of the revised package as the applicant sought to provide one car parking space for each of the proposed flats. These amendments were subsequently approved under reference SDNP/15/01256/CND. As part of this approval, the original condition relating to parking provision was re- drafted to include reference to the additional two spaces and states:

Page 81 No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the car parking spaces have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. At no time shall car parking spaces 7 and 8 as shown on Dwg No. 829/S4/002a Re. 05 be used other than in accordance with the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To provide the maximum level of car parking for the development in accordance with the District Council car parking standards.

8.4 Guidance on the use of conditions involving land not in the control of the applicant is provided in the National Planning Practice Guide (NPPG). This states:

'Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 21a-009-20140306

When can conditions be used relating to land not in control of the applicant?

Conditions requiring works on land that is not controlled by the applicant, or that requires the consent or authorisation of another person or body often fail the tests of reasonableness and enforceability. It may be possible to achieve a similar result using a condition worded in a negative form (a Grampian condition) - i.e. prohibiting development authorised by the planning permission or other aspects linked to the planning permission (e.g. occupation of premises) until a specified action has been taken (such as the provision of supporting infrastructure). Such conditions should not be used where there are no prospects at all of the action in question being performed within the time-limit imposed by the permission.

Where the land or specified action in question is within the control of the local authority determining the application (for example, as highway authority where supporting infrastructure is required) the authority should be able to present clear evidence that this test will be met before the condition is imposed.

Revision date: 06 03 2014'

8.5 The ownership of the land is not within the control of the applicant and in fact is owned by the District Council. Whilst the applicant has subsequently entered a licence agreement with the Council to use the land for parking spaces in connection with the development in the spirit of the condition, this arrangement is in essence on a rolling basis, with either party having the right to terminate the licence on three month's notice. An alternative position of leasing the land/spaces from the District Council was also considered but was, according to the applicant, prohibitively expensive and commercially unviable. Furthermore, such a lease would be for a maximum term of 15 years and would still not provide the long-term obligation to use the land for parking required by the wording of the above condition. Therefore it effectively means that the latter part of the condition cannot be complied with and in the circumstances it would also be considered unenforceable as the land ownership - and its control - is with a third party and not the applicant.

8.6 Revising the condition to omit reference car parking spaces 7 and 8 would still ensure that the original obligation to provide six on-site car parking spaces within the application site is not changed. It is material to note that this was the position Page 82 found to be acceptable to the Highway Authority when planning permission was first granted in September 2014 under reference SDNP/13/05841/FUL. The Highway Authority has again confirmed that this remains the case today.

8.7 Midhurst Town Council has objected to the variation in the planning condition but does not qualify why or on what grounds. Notwithstanding this, given that there is no objection to the variation of the condition from the Highway Authority and that the original requirement to provide six spaces as part of the development is safeguarded, it is concluded that there is no reasonable grounds on which to refuse an amendment to Condition 14 of SDNP/15/01256/CND to exclude reference to the provision of car parking spaces 7 and 8. The applicant has highlighted that the two spaces are to be provided through the licence arrangement with the District Council although because of the particular arrangements, their long term provision cannot be guaranteed.

The impact of the development on the Midhurst Conservation Area

8.8 The car parking spaces are formed from an area of land that already comprises part of the access road passing the east side of the development. The immediate surrounding are characterised by urban features such as road, pavements and areas of on-street parking. Removing the obligation to provide the two spaces will not have any material effect on that character. In the circumstances it is concluded that the variation of the condition would preserve the character and appearance of the Midhurst Conservation Area.

9. Conclusions

It is acknowledged that in view of the issue regarding third party ownership and control of the land on which car parking spaces 7 and 8 are located, the present wording of the latter part of Condition 14 is concluded to be unreasonable and ultimately unenforceable. The revision of the condition to exclude reference to those two spaces will not alter the previously accepted obligation to provide six car parking spaces within the application site itself.

10. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status Plans - Location plan. 829/P/001 09.03.2016 Approved Plans - Proposed site 829/S4/002A 25.02.2016 Approved plan. 08

Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Page 83 02. Approved plans

In addition to Condition 1 above, with the exception of Dwg No 829/S4/002A Rev 5, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans approved under Condition 1 of SDNP/15/01256/CND.

Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of planning permission SDNP/13/05841/FUL (02.09.2014).

Reason - Reason: In order to reflect the time limit imposed on SDNP/13/05841/FUL and to comply with Section 73(5)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and Section 51(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 04. No development shall be occupied unless and until details of the proposed lighting of all internal roads, footpaths, public and play spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All lighting shall be designed and shielded to reduced light spill beyond site boundaries, to reduce wildlife disturbance and to use energy efficient power.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

05. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development.

06. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Once provided, the works shall be retained in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development.

07. A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development.

Page 84 08. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no walls, fences, gates, or other means of enclosure shall be erected, or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling anywhere on the application site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

09. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no additions to, or extensions or enlargements of, or alterations affecting the external appearance of, the building(s) hereby approved shall be made or erected without a grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargements/alterations of the building(s) in the interests of the proper planning and amenities of the area.

10. The construction of the development and associated works shall not take place on Sundays or Public Holidays or any time otherwise than between the hours of 0700 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

11. No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the car parking spaces on the site have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.

Reason: To provide an acceptable level of car parking for the development in accordance with the District Council car parking standards.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications.

12. Human Rights Implications

This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

13. Equalities Act 2010

Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.

Page 85

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Case Officer Details Name: Derek Price Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Page 86 Appendix 1

Site Location Map

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale).

Page 87 Agenda Item 11

Agenda Item Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 17 August 2016 By Head of Planning Services Local Authority Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/16/01074/HOUS Validation Date 3 March 2016 Target Date: 28 April 2016 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Pearson Proposal: Proposed side extension. Site Address Moorlands Farm Cowdray Park Easebourne West Sussex GU29 0BA Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision

Recommendation: That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.

Reason for Committee Referral: Red Card: Cllr Hobbs - Important information/opinion to raise in debate.

Executive Summary

Moorlands Farm is a non-designated heritage asset first appearing on historic mapping in 1795 and is included on the Council’s Historic Environment Record. The dwelling whilst having been extended remains predominately unaltered in its basic form with the footprint as seen today clearly seen on historic mapping.

The proposal seeks to add a two-storey side extension on the north side of the property replacing an historic side element and link attachment which will be demolished. The proposal incorporates modern design features including the use of modern materials,

Chichester District Council, East PallantPage House, 88East Pallant, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1TY Email: [email protected] box windows and an unusual roof design. Whilst it is acknowledged that a modern approach to design can in some cases be appropriate, the proposal is considered to appear disproportionally large in scale with a strong linear form which adds significant depth to the extension in a west to east direction. The scale, unusual roof design, the height, width and use of materials of the extension and link are considered to dominate and detract the character and appearance of the farmhouse and its setting. The proposed development is considered to cause harm to the farmhouse and will neither conserve nor enhance the building which is considered to be an important asset to the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park.

Furthermore it is noted that the shallow pitch roof design of the front elevation of the building is too shallow for the use of plain clay tiles as proposed and therefore it is considered that the building as proposed could not be built using the materials specified.

1. Site Description

1.1 Moorlands Farm is a two storey dwelling constructed from local sand stone, it has red brick quoining and a traditional ‘Sussex’ hipped plain clay tile roof anchored by two chimneys to the north and south facing elevations. Moorlands Farm first appears on historic mapping in 1795 and subsequently on the OS surveyor's plan of 1800, although the exact building layout is not clear here. The current building position (footprint) is evident on the Lodsworth tithe map c.1841 and subsequent OS maps of 1875 and beyond. This indicates that the addition to the rear of the property appears to be historic and added to at a later stage. The position of what appears to be a fireplace within the playroom beyond would tend to support this. To the north a stone built outbuilding has also been linked to the main house.

1.2 The property has been identified on the LPA’s Historic Environment Record since 2011 and given that 'all' buildings pre-1700 in anything like their original form and the majority of those built between 1700-1840 are included on the National Heritage List for England and are statutorily protected, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the building (as a whole) should be considered as a non-designated heritage asset, particularly within the National Park where the protection of cultural heritage is a primary objective

1.3 As noted above the dwelling has been extended to the north by means of a single storey extension with a hipped roof and link attachment to the main dwellinghouse. To the rear is a single storey extension again with a hipped roof. To the west are several farm outbuildings leading to a courtyard driveway. Both elements form part of the historic footprint of the dwelling. Located to the west are a series of small agricultural outbuildings, which also appear on the historic mapping. These outbuildings have since been incorporated into the residential curtilage.

1.4 The dwelling is sited with a basin, with undulating hills surrounding. The gentle slope of the surrounding landscape has been altered within the curtilage to create a terraced rear garden decreasing in height from north to south. The dwelling occupies an isolated location accessed via a private track shared with 243 and 244 Moorlands Farm Cottages. Page 89

2. Relevant Planning History

SDNP/15/04062/HOUS. Proposed side extension. REFUSED

05/04501/FUL. Proposed refurbishment of one section of the existing barn to provide a staff bedroom, photographic studio and new park entrance gate. APPROVED

02/00958/FUL. Proposed improvements and refurbishment of farmhouse, Including linking the adjoining stone and tiled barn adjacent to the main house to provide a study. APPROVED

02/00957/LBC. Proposed improvement and refurbishment of the farmhouse, including linking the adjoining stone and tiled barn adjacent to the main house to provide a study facility. WITHDRAWN

3. Proposal

3.1 The application seeks to demolish the existing historic single storey side element and link to the north facing elevation and enlarge the historic footprint to incorporate a two storey side extension with a two storey link to the main dwelling.

3.2 The proposed extension is setback from the front elevation by 1.6m with a shallow 23 degree angle roof design. The proposal is 13.6m in length and 6.6m in width extending to 7.2m when taking into account the flat roof box windows to the north and south facing elevations. The proposal varies in height from 4.0-7.2 metres due to the changing levels of the site. The link attachment is 5.4m in height to the ridge and 2.1m in height to the eaves and requires an opening to be formed in the north elevation of the main house to secure access through to the first floor.

3.3 The proposed extension and link is to be constructed from black zinc, with stone on the west and east elevations, plain clay tiles and steel framed windows. Further soft and hard landscaping is proposed to the west, east and south of the extension.

3.4 The extension seeks to provide the following accommodation; boot room (which could also be considered to form a second kitchen), drawing room, link, ground floor WC, and first floor master bedroom, en-suite and dressing room.

4. Consultations

Parish Council

Lodsworth Parish Council held a planning meeting on Tuesday 22nd March where this proposal was discussed. There was no objection to this planning application.

Page 90

CDC Historic Buildings Advisor

Comments made to the original proposal (18 May 2016)

The depth of the proposed link between the existing dwelling and the proposed extension results in a ridge height that exceeds the height of the existing eaves line. Whilst this does not physically result in a break in the eaves line it does seem excessive and detracts from the character of the main dwellinghouse. Ideally the depth should be reduced, possibly omitting the ground floor WC in order to reduce the pitch height below the eaves line. The flat box gutter is also to be avoided.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the modern design creates a contrast to the historic fabric rather than trying to mimic, this should not go so far as to dominate the character or appear overly assertive in design.

Features such as the box windows are substantial in size and scale and in contrast to the small, proportionate openings of the heritage asset, appear as the prominent design feature and dominate not only the proposed extension but also the existing dwellinghouse. Furthermore the size and disproportionate scale of the windows is considered to conflict with the continued conservation and enhancement of the dark night skies of the South Downs National Park. Since the application was submitted the SDNP has been designated as a Dark Night Skies Reserve. Particular diligence is therefore required in the design of windows which conflict with this designation.

The size and scale of the extension is significant, whilst this has been highlighted in previous correspondence there is still some concern relating to the use of the extension and the ability of this to be used as a separate unit of accommodation. The implication of what is essentially two kitchens, two living rooms and first floor accommodation appears unjustified.

The size and scale of the extension remains of some concern in regards to the resulting dominance which competes with the main dwellinghouse. In order to reduce the dominance from the front elevation the extension should be reduced in width removing the width between the link and the proposed nibs within the kitchen/boot room and the length reduced to just east of the proposed south facing box window.

Comments made following the submission of revised plans (28 June 2016)

It is noted that the width of the proposal remains as originally submitted with a slight reduction in length and reduction in ridge height to the link section. It is unlikely that the revision will go so far enough as to overcome the concerns already outlined. Further to this the following observations/comments have been made:

 Concern remains at the overall scale and size and dominance of this against the soft lines of the existing dwelling

 The roof of the proposed extension and the gentle 23 degree slope does not provide the head height to create the full first floor accommodation Page 91 indicated on plan. In addition the roof angle (23 degrees) cannot be constructed nor will the proposed clay tiles work with such an angle. Consequently the proposed extension cannot be built nor does it provide the accommodation at first floor level that your client is looking for. Consequently some amendment to the overall design is required  It is likely that the steepness of the existing roof angle would need to be increased to overcome the above comment. This is likely to compromise the front façade of the dwellinghouse. Any amendment to the proposal should give consideration to the existing front building line of the single storey outshot and should not come forward of this line. This in turn would offer some subservience to the main dwellinghouse.

 Whilst the use of black zinc to the proposal may lead to some contrast between the historic fabric and the new it is considered that the use of material to the link section should reflect the use of materials noted to the existing dwelling providing a continuation of the rural vernacular. Ideally the link section would be constructed from stone and clay roof tiles. The difference in materials between the existing house and the link against the extension would enable the main bulk of the extension to stand alone in its appearance. The emphasis in the contrast of both the use of material and the colour may aid the legibility of evolvement of the dwellinghouse.

 The link should be kept below the existing eaves line of the main dwellinghouse again highlighting subservience

The above comments should be read in combination with comments already made.

CDC - Environmental Strategy Unit

We would expect an extended phase one habitat survey to be undertaken, this may lead to particular protected species surveys needing to be undertaken. We have records of Bat species, dormouse, watervole, barn owl and various other bird species of note.

Clearance of suitable nesting bird habitat (i.e. removal of trees, hedging, dense shrubs and dismantling / demolition of any building) should ideally be undertaken outside the breeding bird season, i.e. should be undertaken in the period September to February inclusive. Should it prove necessary to clear bird nesting habitat during the bird nesting season, then a pre-works check for nesting birds should be undertaken, by a CIEEM ecologist (with 24 hours of any works). If any active nests are found, activities (e.g. tree felling / vegetation clearance / building dismantling / demolition) should cease and an appropriate buffer zone should be established. This buffer zone should be left intact until it has been confirmed that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use.

We would like to see the placement of nesting opportunities for birds (species such as kingfisher, swallows, swifts, housemartins, house sparrows and starlings). Along with bat roosting structures being put on/around the buildings. Appropriate designs can be found in the publication "Designing for Biodiversity: A technical guide for new and existing buildings". Ecological advice should be sort in when deciding where and which of these structures should be placed for maximum effectiveness, because thermal tolerances of each species are very important. Page 92 Other ecological enhancements that could be put in place reptile refugia, new ponds/ditches and ecologically sympathetic planting schemes. Lighting will need to be kept to a minimum, as lighting levels have a effects on nocturnal species such as bats, flying invertebrates and various mammal species.

5. Representations

7 third party letters of support received making the following comments:

 The application creates a juxtaposition of the old and the new leading to a great addition to the property without detracting from the property or the surroundings  The design approach utilises concepts from surrounding barns  The scheme is subservient and enhances the property  The scheme does not lead to overdevelopment of the site

6. Policy Context

6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester District Local Plan First Review (1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010

Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks.

6.2 National Park Purposes

The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

 To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas;  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.

6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010

In addition to the above the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are also considered relevant to the determination of this application: Page 93

Section 7, 11 and 12 Paragraphs 14, 17, 28, 115, 128, 131, 134 and 135

The draft South Downs Local Plan Preferred Options 2015 was approved by the South Downs National Park Authority on 16 July 2015. The public consultation on the document took place between September and October 2015 and the National Park Authority is considering the responses received during that consultation period. The document and the policies contained therein are now a material consideration when determining planning applications within the National Park however, it is acknowledged that at this stage the policies will carry limited weight.

The following policies are considered relevant to this proposal:

SD1 - Sustainable development in the South Downs National Park SD5 - Landscape Character SD6 - Design SD7 - Safeguarding views SD9 - Dark Night Skies SD11 - Historic Environment SD12 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity SD45 - Replacement Dwellings and Extensions

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPNP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures.

7. Planning Policy

The following policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application:

 BE4 Buildings Of Architectural Or Historic Merit  BE11 New Development  BE12 Alterations, Extensions And Conversions  BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges And  H12 Replacement Dwellings And Extensions  RE1 Development In The Rural Area Generally

Page 94 8. Planning Assessment

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

1. The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling which is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset.

2. The impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park.

Issue 1 – The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling

8.2 Individually and cumulatively, heritage assets contribute to the character and distinctiveness of the local area, and the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park whose first purpose it is to 'to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area'. Accordingly, Paragraph 115 of the NPPF affords great weight to the conservation of cultural heritage within National Parks and more generally it is important to note that the NPPF places the conservation of heritage assets at the centre of its policies for sustainable development. Development which would cause harm to a heritage asset cannot be seen as truly sustainable. In this case it is considered that the proposal does not maintain these heritage values with regard to the character or setting of the existing dwelling.

8.5 The form and modern approach of the extension contrasts with the soft, ‘polite’ lines of the existing dwelling. This approach to the extension of an historic building can be acceptable and in this case is not discouraged. However the design, scale, massing and use of materials should not go so far as to dominate the existing building or appear overly assertive and this is where the concern of the Council’s HBA lies in this particular case.

8.5 The HBA has advised that the proposed extension which is 13m in length, longer in length than the width or length of the main dwellinghouse appears disproportionate to the historic symmetrical form of the original and existing building. The perception of this length is exacerbated by the strong linear form of the building with the high ridge and eaves heights contributing to the mass of the building unbroken by design features.

8.6 It is considered that the dominating appearance of the extension is exacerbated by the increase in mass and bulk over the existing side extension. To the north the proposal appears long in its depth and bears little relationship to the modest dimensions of the dwelling or the existing single storey side element. This is particularly evident to the south elevation which is not sited within an excavated section of the surrounding landscape and adds to the perception of height in combination with the high eaves height and unusual roof design and the extension appears excessively bulky and contrived in comparison to the modest and polite form of the original dwelling.

8.7 The depth of the proposed link between the existing dwelling and the proposed extension results in a ridge height that exceeds the height of the existing eaves line. Whilst this does not physically result in a break in the eaves line it Page 95 does appear excessive and has lead to the requirement to include a flat box gutter at ridge height. The proposed link section exceeds the eaves height leading to some complexity to this junction. This adds to the perception of height and diminished subservience of the existing modest link. The HBA considers that the height of the eaves and the area of flat roof detract from the character of the main dwellinghouse.

8.8 In terms of the materials used in the extension the use of black zinc within the main bulk of the extension provides some contrast between the historic fabric and the new, adding to the legibility and evolvement of the listed building and is not objected to in principle. However the use of black zinc for a significant proportion of the link attachment is considered to diminish the legibility of the historic link. The proposal could be enhanced and improved through the use of stone and tiles which would provide a continuation of the rural vernacular and would ensure that the main element of the extension would stand alone in its appearance.

8.9 In consultation with the Building Control Service it has also been highlighted that the shallow roof pitch of the extension, at a 23 degree angle cannot be constructed from the proposed materials (plain clay tiles). Consequently there is some concern that the principle cannot be achieved placing future pressure on the Local Planning Authority to accept a variation in roof material at a later date if the proposal is permitted

8.11 Little information has been provided in relation to the proposed excavation works required to facilitate the extension. As such there is concern that the excavation works required to implement the development have the potential to cause significant harm to the integrity of the main house. Furthermore, the applicant has provided little information with regard to the significance of the outbuilding and therefore the loss of this structure has been highlighted as a concern by the HBA.

8.12 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF considers the impact of development on non- designated heritage assets and advises that a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Cumulatively, the proposal by virtue of its scale, massing, design, siting and relationship to the existing dwelling is considered to neither conserve nor enhance the existing dwelling or the historic setting of this heritage asset and as such it is considered to cause great harm to its significance. On balance therefore and whilst the modern approach to the proposal is not objected to in principle, given the concern that has been raised by the HBA and the harm to the significance identified above it is considered that the proposed development is not acceptable and cannot in this case be supported.

Issue 2 – The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park

8.13 A high priority is placed on the conservation and enhancement of buildings of architectural and historic interest including locally designated and non- designated heritage assets. It is recognised that such buildings and the cumulative combination of listed building and non-designated heritage assets add to the full understanding of this historic landscape and the historic functionality in Page 96 this rural area. The fact that such high quality, unaltered buildings are not listed is a true testament to the quality of the historic stock within this district.

8.14 When assessing the proposal it is necessary to give due regard to the purpose of the designation of the South Downs National Park, which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. The proposal by virtue of its design, scale, siting and materials used is considered to neither conserve nor enhance the historic fabric or setting of the building. Consequently the proposal is considered to result in harm to the cultural heritage of the Park resulting in the wider erosion of its character and conflicting with the first purpose of its designation.

Other Matters

8.15 It is noted, through consultation that a phase 1 ecology survey is required due to recordings of Bat species, dormouse, watervole, barn owl and various other bird species of note in the immediate area. Comments have been passed on to the applicant’s agent however a phase 1 survey has not been submitted. Therefore the full impact of the proposal on wildlife habitats within this area of the South Downs National Park are currently unknown. In this respect the proposal conflicts with the objectives of policy BE14 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and emerging policy SD12 of the Draft South Downs Local Plan 2015.

Conclusions

9.1 The proposed extension by virtue of its design, scale, siting and use of materials is considered to dominate and detract from the setting and character of a non-designated heritage asset. Individually and cumulatively, heritage assets contribute to the character and distinctiveness of the local area, and the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park whose first purpose it is to 'to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area'. Accordingly, Paragraph 115 of the NPPF affords great weight to the conservation of cultural heritage within National Parks.

9.2 The proposal is considered to be at odds with this objective and as such conflicts with local policies BE4, BE11, BE12 and H12 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and paragraphs 115 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01. The proposed side extension and link by reason of its design, scale, form and materials used is considered to dominate and detract from the rural vernacular and historical significance of the dwelling which is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset, appearing overbearing, visually intrusive and incongruous. Furthermore the design of the extension and its prominent siting to the historic front elevation would diminish the legibility of the historic function of the site and its relationship to existing outbuildings. The proposal is therefore considered to lead to harm both the setting and Page 97 character of the dwelling in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework: Sections 7 (Good Design), 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) and 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment), the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 First Review policies: BE4, BE11, BE12, H12 and RE1, the South Downs Local Plan - pre-submission draft 2015 policies: SD6, SD11 and SD45 and, the purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park.

02. Insufficient information has been provided with regard to the impact of the proposal on ecology and biodiversity within the immediate/local area. The extent of harm to protected species is therefore unclear. The proposal would therefore conflict with the objectives of policy BE14 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and the purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park.

10 Crime and Disorder Implications

It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications.

11 Human Rights Implications

This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

12 Equalities Act 2010

Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Case Officer Details Name: Jenna Shore Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Page 98 Agenda Item 12 Chichester District Council

Planning Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Report of the Head of Planning Services

Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters

This report updates Planning Committee members on current appeals and other matters. It would be of assistance if specific questions on individual cases could be directed to officers in advance of the meeting.

Note for public viewing via Chichester District Council web site To read each file in detail, including the full appeal decision when it is issued, click on the reference number (NB certain enforcement cases are not open for public inspection, but you will be able to see the key papers via the automatic link to the Planning Inspectorate).

WR – Written Representation Appeal H – Hearing I – Inquiry FT - Fast Track (Householder/Commercial Appeals) ( ) – Case Officer Initials * – Committee level decision

1. NEW APPEALS

Reference/Procedure Proposal LX/15/03623/PA3Q Mallards Farm Buildings, Guildford Road, Loxwood, West WR (F Stevens) Sussex, RH14 0QW - Part 3 Class Q application for prior In Progress approval. Change of use from agricultural building to dwelling (C3 Use class). SDNP/15/03433/FUL Danley Hill, Danley Lane, Linchmere, West Sussex GU27 LYNCHMERE 3NF - Demolish fire damage cottage and re-build as existing WR (C Cranmer) before fire damage. (Renewal of permission reference In Progress LM/09/03061/FUL). PS/15/03095/FUL Hardnips Barn, Crouchlands Farm, Rickmans Lane Plaistow, WR (A Miller) Billingshurst, West Sussex RH14 0LE - Retention of wood In Progress store and general garden store on land adjacent to Hardnip's Barn PS/15/03745/FUL Dale Farm, The Lane, Ifold, Loxwood, RH14 0UL - Change WR (F Stevens) of use from stable to dwelling and associated works. In Progress

Page 99 2. DECISIONS RECEIVED Reference/Decision CC/15/02885/FUL Interactive Transactions Solutions Ltd, Midland House, WR (P Hunt) 1 Market Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1JU - Allowed Retrospective installation of 4 no. air conditioning condenser Costs Refused units to rear wall in service yard area. “The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted… The condenser units are in a courtyard that provides service access and parking with access from Market Avenue and Old Market Avenue surrounded by buildings. However, visibility into this courtyard is restricted by the orientation of the surrounding buildings such that their rear elevations are screened by the surrounding buildings from public view. On this basis any effects on the character and appearance of the conservation area are restricted to that courtyard... The air conditioning condenser units subject of this appeal are arranged in a line above a service entrance to the rear of the building, reflecting the location of the units over the other service entrance adjacent that appear to have been granted permission under reference 09/02329/FUL. I understand the Council’s concerns about a proliferation of plant and that such plant may dominate the rear elevation of the building. However, the manner in which the units subject of this appeal have been arranged reflects those above the adjacent service entrance such that these units do not unacceptably add to the clutter to the rear of the building and do not dominate the building...For these reasons, I conclude that the air conditioning condenser units subject of this appeal preserve the character and appearance of the Chichester Conservation Area...” COSTS DECISION “… relevant policies refer to the development preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation area and do not necessarily relate to whether such development is visible from the public domain… Whilst [a hidden location] may affect the weight attributed to the harm, it is not unreasonable to suggest that such harm exists. The appellant suggests that the Council failed to fully consider the proposed development in light of the three dimensions to sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that sustainable development is defined as development in accordance with the Framework as a whole … whilst the Council did not explicitly deal with the three dimensions to sustainable development, it was not unreasonable for them to conclude that the proposed development would not constitute sustainable development by reason of being contrary to the development plan (policy 47) The Council did suggest an alternative location for the air conditioning units on the roof of the building in their report. I note that this alternative is not considered satisfactory by the appellant, but does indicate a reasonable willingness by the Council to consider alternatives…” CC/15/03784/FUL 3 Whistler Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 6DL - WR (R Ballam) Proposed glazing to terrace openings. Allowed Costs Refused "The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed glazing to terrace openings at 3 Whistler Avenue, Chichester, PO19 6DL... The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area...Significantly No 3 is in the south west corner of this block, with no properties between it and Broyle Road...there are several semi-mature trees and substantial flint wall between No 3 and Broyle Road, intervening features that largely obscure views of the property from surrounding vantage points outside of Roussillon Park...The homes of Roussillon Park share a very strong consistency of scale and finish. Whilst windows are consistent in their vertical emphasis and frame colour, there are nonetheless differing window designs present in the immediate vicinity of No 3...At the time of my site visit Broyle Road appeared to be relatively heavily trafficked commensurate with its role as an arterial route to and from the centre of Chichester...its balcony....is not screened from vehicular noise or emissions by the intervening boundary wall or by other properties (particularlyPage given 100 that it lies to the south west, in the direction of the prevailing wind). The proposal would therefore clearly better insulate the balcony and internal rooms of the property in respect of vehicular noise and emissions, and making the balcony a more useable and comfortable space. Whilst I appreciate that Roussillon Park was designed with precise attention to detail as a whole, given the extending vertical emphasis of the balcony openings, and as the glazing proposed would contain no visible transoms or glazing bars, I cannot find other than that proposal would be broadly in line with the consistent proportions of windows present in Roussillon Park. Moreover given the variety of window designs in the immediate vicinity of No 3 and the highly limited visual impact of the proposal, which would be essentially confined to glazing frames and mullions, the proposal would not appear incongruous in this context subject to a condition related to the appearance of the glazing frames, transform and mullions... on account of the boundary wall and inventing trees, that No 3 is substantially screened from many viewpoints (unlike nearby Royal Sussex House or other properties within Roussillon park where no such substantial screening is present). The proposal would consequently be of minimal visual impact beyond the confines of Roussillon Park... I find that the proposal would not be inappropriate in respect of its effect on the character and appearance of the host building or surrounding area...I acknowledge the concern of Chichester City Council that allowing this proposal may set a precedent. However I have set out above that it is the specific location and surrounding context of this particular proposal that makes it acceptable, and each proposal must be determined on its particular merits. COSTS DECISION The application of an award of costs is refused... whilst policy 1 'Sustainable Development Principles'...sets out that the Council will 'work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions' this is qualified by the following phrase 'wherever possible'...evidently there is no assurance therein that all development proposed will ultimately prove acceptable... in my view it is not unreasonable for the Council to have failed to arrive at mutually agreed approach with the appellant... I agree with the appellant, however, as detailed in appeal decision, that policy 40 'Sustainable Design and Construction' of the Local Plan cannot reasonably be said to be relevant to the development proposed in that appeal by virtue of appearing to apply only to 'new dwellings' rather than existing dwellings. Council suggest that the 'general thrust' of policy is in line with the design objectives within the National Planning Policy Framework (the 'Framework') this does not sufficiently justify its application in that case. Where this was the sole policy conflict cited by the Council in respect of the proposal, this may have amounted to unreasonable behaviour... Council has also explained that the proposal would in their view conflict with the design requirements of policy 33 'New Residential Development' of the Local Plan, which is not expressly limited to applying to 'new dwellings' ...is consistent with various relevant elements of the Framework in respect of requiring good design... although the Council's reasoning in respect of the policy context relevant to the proposal is convoluted, this does not in my view amount to unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense. I acknowledge that no explicit regard is given in the Council's reasoning in in respect of the development proposed to the benefits that would arise to the appellant. However, the benefits of the proposal are self-evident and integral to the development proposed. I also accept that the proposal would not be readily apparent from Broyle Road, it would nonetheless be visible from vantage points within Roussillon Park, and its degree of prominence and consequent impact is a matter of planning judgement rather than absolutes. Council could have demonstrated more clearly the consideration that they gave to these issues, and indeed I have reached a different view on the appropriateness of the proposal to them, nonetheless it appears to me that they reached a balanced judgement in respect of the proposal with reference to its intended objectives and having taken account of its effects upon the surrounding environment... Council has consequently undertaken no action or inaction that would amount to unreasonable behaviour to justify an award of costs against them. Page 101 Reference/Decision CC/15/04093/ADV Wagamama’s, 26 South Street, Chichester, West Sussex FT (M Tomlinson) PO19 1EL - Projecting sign, wrought iron style hanging Dismissed bracket fixed back to the building fabric. ”…Although projecting signs are not unusual in South Street, the majority of buildings do not have such signs. As such, the sign adds to the visual clutter of the street and does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. It is suggested that the historic importance of the street is derived from the appearance of the upper floors of buildings, but the proposed sign is attached at upper floor level and detracts from the simple appearance of this elevation of the building. The sign attracts attention toward this building and away from the neighbouring listed buildings, harming their setting. I understand that the sign has been installed to make the restaurant more visible in longer views on South Street in order to promote and grow the business. Given the width of the street and of the shopfront, the projecting sign has minimal effect on the visibility of the restaurant in views along the road, so this does not outweigh the effect of the projecting sign on the character and appearance of the conservation area or setting of surrounding listed buildings…” SDNP/15/04111/FUL Nyewood Timber Yard, Greenfields Close, Nyewood, South HARTING Harting, West Sussex GU31 5JQ - Demolition of existing WR (J Shore) buildings and structures. Erection of semi-detached pair of Dismissed dwellings, parking and access. “…Although the dwellings would be in a much more central part of the site than the existing structures and storage area shown on the CLEUD plan, they would be more obvious to adjoining residents due to their position and size. The dwellings would also be noticeable from the turning head of Greenfields Close and the adjoining dwellings. The site slopes gently down from Greenfields Close but it would be possible to see the higher parts of the proposed dwellings from further away as one approaches the site. I am mindful that if the lawful use were to be re-introduced, the presence of machines, vehicles as well as the storage of materials would have a greater visual impact than the present situation. However, I do not consider that this would be as noticeable from adjoining properties or the wider area as two permanent dwellings along with the paraphernalia associated with residential use…However the proposed development would appear as an incursion of further sub-urban development into the woodland and into a distinct gap between dwellings. The dwellings would not be in line with the neighbouring houses and the development would not appear as a natural infill as suggested by the appellant. The proposal would harm the pleasant woodland backdrop to the built up area of Nyewood. A similar conclusion was reached by the Planning Inspector in dealing with the previous appeal on this site in 1998 (Ref T/APP/L3815/A/98/298713/P4) in relation to that outline proposal for 2 dwellings. That scheme was intended to be for 2 storey dwellings and the current proposal would involve the first floor being partially within the roof space. That does not however overcome my concerns. The dwelling and the use of land surrounding them would still be very noticeable from outside of the site. The NPPF at Paragraph 115 makes it very clear that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks which have the highest status of protection in relation to these matters. This reflects the statutory purposes of the SDNPA. In relation to the first main issue, the proposals would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area failing to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the SDNP. This would not comply with the saved policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan – First Review, adopted April 1999 (LP)…The proposal would provide 2 additional dwellings that would be a modest benefit to housing provision in the area. My finding that the development would fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the SDNP means that this is a case where specific policy in the NPPF, at Paragraph 115, indicates that development should be restricted. In these circumstances, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Framework, the fact that relevant policiesPage are 102 out of date is not, in itself, a reason to grant planning permission…The site is close to existing built up development within this rural settlement. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF seeks to avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. The site is not isolated from dwellings. However, that fact does not make this a sustainable location when looking at the NPPF as a whole. Isolation needs to be considered with respect to accessibility to services as well. Nyewood includes some commercial buildings that could be reached by foot or by bicycle over level roads and footpaths within a reasonable journey time. They would be potential places of employment for prospective occupants of the dwellings. I also noted the position of the bus stop within a short walk from the site on the main road through the settlement. The appellant draws attention to the bus services which appear however to be limited. Whilst they link Nyewood with Petersfield, Midhurst, South Harting and other local towns as well as villages, the services do not appear to me to be sufficient to make up for the lack of facilities nearby such as schools and shops…” KD/15/03896/FUL* Emily’s Wood, Roundwyck Copse, Scratching Lane, Kirdford WR (C Boddy) West Sussex - Erection of storage shed. Dismissed Costs Refused "The appeal is dismissed....Planning Background an ‘Article 4 direction’, dated 14 January 2013, applies in respect of forestry permitted development rights throughout Roundwyke Copse, and hence planning permission is required for the development proposed....the main issue is...whether the development is reasonably necessary for the purposes of forestry....and would be fairly and appropriately related to the forestry management requirements of Emily’s Wood, and whether its effect upon the surrounding environment would be acceptable visually and environmentally....Permission has previously been granted by the Council for a tool shed within a plot of woodland named Lovers’ Landing approximately 500 metres distant from Emily’s Wood....There is no strong evidence... indicating why,...this facility could not be used jointly by the appellant...no quantification provided by the appellant of the extent of the forestry works proposed in Emily’s Wood, the frequency of such works or the working hours involved....and that it is necessary to house certain tools on site rather than to import them from time to time as required....therefore....on the basis of the evidence before me that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed storage shed would be fairly and appropriately related to the forestry management requirements of Emily’s Wood...Turning to the second main issue...it would...result in man-made development in what is presently an area of ancient woodland...bringing the proposal into conflict with policy 48 ‘Natural Environment’ of the Local Plan... concern...that such development would cumulatively prove detrimental to the character of the area....As such I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the approach within paragraph 118 of the Framework and with policy EM.2 of the Kirdford Neighbourhood Plan...." SDNP/15/01349/HOUS & Lower House Durleighmarsh Rogate Petersfield West SDNP/15/01351/LIS Sussex GU31 5AX - Oak framed glazed garden room ROGATE extension to side. Linked to SDNP/15/01351/LIS WR (R Grosso Macpherson) Dismissed “ 3129777 & 3129778 Lower House Durleighmarsh Rogate Petersfield, SDNP/15/01349/HOUS & SNDP/15/01351/LIS…dismissed…main issues…effect of the proposed development…on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building…and the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park…The extent of the proposed glazing would be much greater than the existing windows and would have a vertical emphasis in contrast to the horizontal emphasis of the existing…the contrast…would allow the extension to be read as a distinct, separate element without competing with or distracting from the original building…strong concerns regarding the proposed dormer window…existing rear elevation of the house…large expanse of roof…This is a prominent feature of…thePage very large 103 and prominent new dormer would be disproportionate to the roof of the extension and to the only other dormer window in the rear elevation. It would disrupt the rear elevation and would be unduly imposing. This would be evident from both the rear and the side view of the house…I am not persuaded that the dormer is necessary to bring additional light into the room given that the extension would have three glazed elevations and two rooflights. The energy efficiency benefits suggested by the appellant would be limited by virtue of the small scale of the proposal…additional living space provided would be a private benefit and is not necessary to secure the…optimum viable use as a dwelling…the limited public benefits…do not outweigh the identified harm…not preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building…” SY/15/04091/DOM Summerdown, Medmerry, Selsey, West Sussex, PO20 9BJ. WR (M Tomlinson) Removal of condition 3 of permission SY/15/01787/DOM. Dismissed “Summerdown is a detached dwelling located within a large holiday park and is orientated so that its rear elevation faces directly towards the beach and the Solent beyond. The holiday park is mainly occupied by static caravans but there are also a number of permanent residential dwellings. There is a static caravan, known as Four Winds, set within in a relatively large plot immediately to the east of the of the appeal property and which has an area of timber decking constructed to provide a terrace for sitting out with direct access from the side and rear doors. The evidence tells me that Four Winds is used as holiday accommodation for about 9 months of the year. In seeking to protect the privacy of those staying at Four Winds, the Council has granted permission subject to part of the new obscure glazed balcony surround being of a height that would prevent any overlooking of next door’s terrace from the balcony. It is clear from the relative positioning of the two properties that some of the outdoor space around Four Winds would still be visible from the balcony…I note the fall-back position raised by the appellants but it is unclear exactly what form this would take. It is stated within the appeal statement, that the existing balustrade would be retained and the permission part implemented. However, it is also stated that the balustrade would be replaced on a like- for-like basis. Nevertheless, I am not convinced, given its relatively poor condition, that the existing balustrade would be suitable for reinstatement without a substantial amount of remedial work. In addition, regardless of whether the balustrade was reused or replaced, the newly erected posts would need to be removed, which would cause disruption to the surface of the balcony. I therefore have no substantive evidence to indicate that there is a significant likelihood that the existing balustrade would be reinstated or replaced with a like-for-like item, which limits the weight that I can attach to it as a fall back position.…. the removal of Condition No 3 would not accord with the principles of creating a high quality living environment sought by Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015). Furthermore, for similar reasons, the identified harm would not accord with the Development Considerations set out in the Selsey Neighbourhood Plan Part 1 Audit Final version for submission (February 2015) (NP). Although not yet adopted, the NP is at an advanced stage, having been through independent examination and therefore carries moderate weight…”

Page 104 Reference/Decision SI/14/04249/ELD Magnolia Cottage Cloverlands Chalder Lane Sidlesham PI (R Hawks) Chichester West Sussex PO20 7RJ- To continue use of Dismissed building as a single dwelling. "The use for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is the use as a single dwelling without any planning constraint....The key issues are therefore what was the situation in December 2004 when Magnolia Cottage was first occupied and has that changed over the intervening years?...The position in 2004...I have no doubt that the original intention was to create a single planning unit with Magnolia Cottage occupied effectively as a "granny annex", albeit not with a granny, but similar to the manner of occupation in Uttlesford....when Magnolia Cottage was first occupied in December 2004 it was occupied as part of the single planning unit of Cloverlands and it was the intention of the joint family members to occupy the building as a single planning unit in accord with the planning permission granted. Utilities and bills... the utilities are primarily to service Cloverlands...it does suggest that Magnolia Cottage was being used as an annex to Cloverlands rather than as a separate planning unit. Maintenance and curtilage...the parties...until the breakdown of relations, treated the property as a shared responsibility....Conclusions...There was no separate curtilage, no separate utility supplies...a large shared garden and plenty of evidence of shared maintenance of the property as a whole.... it was treated as a single planning unit....Although the degree of interconnectivity between the two sets of occupiers has clearly weakened since the falling out, there would seem to be no actual evidence that Magnolia Cottage has been used as separate planning unit during the 10 year period and certainly not in the early years prior to 2009. Consequently I shall refuse to issue the LDC applied for." SI/16/00184/OUT Land North Of Swan Cottage, Selsey Road, Sidlesham WR (M Tomlinson) West Sussex - Outline Application for 2 no. detached Dismissed dwellings with garages, parking and access from B2145 Selsey Road. “…The appellant refers to a need for additional residential development in the area, but there is no evidence of what the nature and extent of this need is…The appellant suggests that the proposed development should be considered as windfall development that contributes to the need for dwellings in the area. However, windfall development would normally be expected to meet the terms of all other development plan policies. Given that the only previous use of the site was as residential garden land but it is now blending back into the landscape, I do not consider it comprises previously developed land as defined in the Framework…[the proposal] does not comprise sustainable development as defined in the Framework’…The proposed dwellings would introduce additional buildings within the ribbon of development on Selsey Road that would provide continuous development for a substantial stretch along this side of the road. That would alter the rural character of the area and space between development, consolidating it and thereby adversely affecting the character and appearance of the open countryside in the area… conclude that the proposed dwellings would adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area…in particular the local landscape character.in the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the development would harm the Chichester and Langstone Harbours and Pagham Harbour SPAs…” SB/14/00313/CONMHC Land North Of Marina Farm Thorney Road Southbourne H (S Archer) - Stationing of a mobile home. Appeal against Enforcement Dismissed Notice. “…The unauthorised development on the appeal site and ancillary uses elsewhere on Janine Loader’s land are, in my assessment, an incongruous and unacceptable form of development in the AONB. By its very nature the mobile home does not meet the highest standards of design that are required in such an attractive, open and undeveloped landscape. Clearly, the introduction of the unauthorised development does not reinforce or respond to the attractive and undeveloped character and appearance of the AONB….Accordingly, it is contrary toPage the relevant 105 parts of the Local Plan….The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination in wider society…Ricky Ramsey is a gypsy or traveller as defined in PPTS….however, to allow this appeal and to grant planning permission for development that is wholly unacceptable in planning terms and which would not be in accordance with the Development Plan would fail to foster good relations between the occupiers of the Appeal Site and the settled community….The appeal is dismissed and the Enforcement Notice is upheld. Planning permission is refused on the application deemed to have been made under Section 177(5) of the 1990 Act.” WR/15/02080/FUL Goose Cottage, Durbans Road, Wisborough Green, WR (M Tomlinson) Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0DG - Change of use of Dismissed existing store building to residential. “…In the development strategy the Council have categorised the village of Wisborough Green as a service village where sustainable development would be able to be accommodated. However the appeal site lies outside the settlement boundary of the village and therefore, in planning terms, is in open countryside. In addition, the recently adopted Wisborough Green Neighbourhood Plan has selected specific sites in conjunction with a settlement plan based on an approximate five minutes walking distance to the centre of the village3. However the appeal site lies outside the five minutes walking distance to the centre of the village, and neither has the appeal site been selected in the Neighbourhood Plan process….I acknowledge that Durbans Road has a pedestrian pathway linking the site to the centre of the village, and that the distance by road from the site to the Settlement Boundary is about 700m. I also acknowledge that the site is not isolated from other dwellings, that the existing storage building would be able to be converted and that the design of the storage building is appropriate to its surroundings….Notwithstanding these factors, I have found that the proposed development would be located in open countryside remote from the majority of day to day services. It would therefore not be in a sustainable location…the conversion of it to a residential use on a back land site would make the new residential unit together with associated domestic paraphernalia appear as an anomaly in the street scene compared to the surrounding residential properties, resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area…Given the close proximity of the adjacent properties such an increase in activity on the site would lead to noise disturbance and harm to the living conditions of adjacent residents [from the use of the driveway]….” CC/15/00331/CONCOM 46 South Street, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1DS - WR (S Archer) Works to shop front and grill on the north elevation. Appeal Withdrawn 11.7.16 against enforcement notice.

Page 106 3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS

Reference/Status Proposal AP/15/00465/ELD Crouchers Farm, 163 Birdham Road, Appledram, WR (C Boddy) Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 7EQ - Certificate of lawful Awaiting Decision use in respect of the constituent parts of the above property. BI/15/00139/CONSH Land North West Of Premier Business Park, Birdham Road PI (S Archer) Birdham, West Sussex – Access track, hardstanding and In Progress fencing. Appeal against enforcement notice. 7th – 9th February 2017 Linked to BI/15/01288/FUL and BI/15/00194/CONTRV BI/15/00194/CONTRV Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road PI (S Archer) Birdham, West Sussex - Use of land as a Traveller Site. In Progress Appeal against enforcement notice Linked to 7th – 9th February 2017 BI/15/01288/FUL and BI/15/00139/CONSH BI/15/01288/FUL Land north west of Premier Business Park, Birdham Road PI (S Archer) Birdham, West Sussex PO20 7BU - Proposed single pitch In Progress site including the provision of a utility building for settled 7th - 9th February 2017 gypsy accommodation together with existing stables. Linked to BI/15/00194/CONTRV and BI/15/00139/CONSH BO/14/03677/PLD Land west of Sweet Meadow Bosham Hoe Bosham H (F Stevens/D Price) Chichester PO18 8ET - Use of site for 1no. dwelling. Awaiting Decision SDNP/14/04865/FUL Land North of Junction with B2138 Bury Road Bury West BURY Sussex - Change of use from agricultural land to a Gypsy I (D Price) and Traveller's site. Linked to SDNP/15/00336/COU. In Progress 13th-16th September at Bury Village Hall SDNP/15/00336/COU Land North of Junction with B2138 Bury Road Bury West BURY Sussex - Stationing of two caravans for human habitation. I (R Hawks) Appeal against enforcement notice Linked to In Progress SDNP/14/04865/FUL 13th-16th September at Bury Village Hall CC/15/02449/FUL WKB Toyota, 117 The Hornet, Chichester, West Sussex H (N Langford) PO19 7JW - Redevelopment of car garage site to form a In Progress development comprising 35 one and two bed sheltered 8th September 2016 at apartments for the elderly including communal facilities The Old Court Room, (Category II type accommodation), access, car parking and Chichester City Council landscaping. CC/15/04197/DOM 39 Ormonde Avenue, Chichester PO19 7UX – Proposed FT (H Chowdhury) Conservatory Awaiting Decision E/14/00348/CONCOU 107 First Avenue, Almodington, Batchmere, Chichester WR (S Pattie) West Sussex, PO20 7LQ. Change of use of land to storage Awaiting decision of caravans, motorhomes, boats and containers. Linked to E/15/01644/FUL E/15/01644/FUL 107 First Avenue, Almodington, Batchmere, Chichester WR (M Tomlinson) West Sussex, PO20 7LQ. Retrospective application for Awaiting decision extended hard standing to the north of the glasshouse and change of use of land to south of glasshouse for the storage of caravans, boats and storage containers. Linked to E/14/00348/CONCOU

Page 107 Reference/Status Proposal FU/15/00237/CONTRV Land South of The Stables, Newells Lane/Scant Road East,, WR (S Archer) West Ashling West Sussex – Creation of a hardstanding – In Progress appeal against enforcement notice. FU/15/02504/FUL Land South Of The Stables, Scant Road East, Hambrook, H (K Rawlins) West Sussex, PO18 8UB - Change of use of land from In Progress equestrian use to half equestrian and residential gypsy and 11th October 2016 at traveller site with the erection of barn and 2 no. stable Vicars Hall, Chichester building Cathedral SDNP/15/02792/HOUS 3 Loppers Ash, Elsted Road, South Harting, Petersfield HARTING West Sussex, GU31 5LR - Replacement shed. FT (R G Macpherson) In Progress SDNP/15/03829/CND Copper Beeches Torberry Farm, B2146 Ditcham Lane to HARTING Hurst Mill Lane, Hurst, South Harting, Petersfield, West WR (J Shore) Sussex, GU31 5RG - Variation of condition 1 of permission In Progress HT/02/69. To remove agricultural occupancy from Copper Beeches, Torberry Farm. SDNP/16/00382/HOUS 29 Northside, Mid Lavant, Chichester West Sussex, PO18 LAVANT 0BX - Retention of arctic cabin. FT (J Shore) In Progress LX/15/00498/ELD Beech Farm, Roundstreet Common, Loxwood, Wisborough I (C Boddy) Green, West Sussex, RH14 0AN. The siting of a mobile Awaiting decision home for the purposes of human habitation independently to Beech Farm House SDNP/15/05454/FUL Courts Yard, Jobsons Lane, Windfall Wood Common, Lurgashall Haslemere, West Sussex GU27 3BX - Erection of 2 H (D Price) detached dwellings and garages following the cessation of Awaiting decision the current use and demolition and removal of all existing buildings, hardstandings. NM/15/00306/CONCOU Nurses Cottage, Post Office Lane, North Mundham, PI (S Archer) Chichester, West Sussex PO20 1JY - Erection of a 11th -12th October at North buildings, play structure and garden items Mundham Village Hall NM/15/02119/FUL The Chalet, Southgate Farm, Fisher Lane, North Mundham, WR (M Tomlinson) Chichester, West Sussex PO20 1YU - Erection of In Progress replacement dwelling. O/15/00277/CONHH Tapners Barn Marsh Lane Merston Oving Chichester WR (R Hawks) West Sussex PO20 1DZ - Erection of side extension without Awaiting Decision planning permission. Appeal against enforcement notice. O/15/02834/DOM Tapners Barn, Marsh Lane, Merston, Oving, West Sussex, WR (C Boddy) PO20 1DZ - Retrospective orangery extension to side of Awaiting Decision existing barn. Linked with O/15/00277/CONHH SDNP/14/06285/MPO Land At Laundry Cottage Woodlea and Grass Mere PETWORTH Horsham Road Petworth West Sussex - Removal of H (J Saunders) affordable housing obligation attached to planning 17th August at City permission SDNP/12/02721/FUL. Council SDNP/16/00360/HOUS Trevornick, 65 Sheepdown Drive, Petworth, West Sussex PETWORTH GU28 0BX - Double storey rear extension. FT (B Stubbington) Awaiting decision Page 108 Reference/Status Proposal PS/13/00015/CONCOU Crouchlands Farm, Rickmans Lane, Plaistow, Billingshurst I (R Hawks) West Sussex, RH14 0LE. Use of anaerobic digestion tanks In Progress and equipment for importation of waste and export of 25th-28th April & 3rd-4th biomethane. Construction of a digestate lagoon without May 2017 planning permission. Appeal against enforcement notices. WSCC CLU Appeal : Linked to s78 appeal against refusal of planning permission Appeal Allowed 22.6.16 by WSCC. SY/14/00304/CONHH 100 Beach Road, Selsey, Chichester West Sussex, PO20 WR (S Archer) 0SZ - Erection of a fence adjacent to the highway. Appeal In Progress against enforcement notice. SY/15/00074/CONHH 47 Wellington Gardens Selsey Chichester West Sussex WR (S Archer) PO20 0RF - Without planning permission, erection of a Awaiting Decision single dwelling house. Appeal against enforcement notice. Linked with SY/15/02518/DOM SY/15/02518/DOM 47 Wellington Gardens Selsey West Sussex PO20 0RF - WR (P Hunt) Self-contained annexe. Awaiting Decision Linked with SY/15/00074/CONHH SI/14/00397/CONMHC Land at Church Farm Lane, Sidlesham, West Sussex - WR (R Hawks) Stationing of caravans. Appeal against enforcement notice. Awaiting decision SB/16/00092/FUL Land West Of Fieldside, Prinsted Lane, Prinsted, Emsworth, WR (M Tomlinson) Hampshire - Proposed two bedroom gatehouse dwelling In Progress with car parking. WE/15/00135/CONWST Land South East Of Hopedene Common Road Hambrook WR (R Hawks) Westbourne West Sussex – hard surfaced access track Awaiting Decision without planning permission. Appeal against enforcement notice. WH/15/04038/FUL Land North Of March Primary School, Claypit Lane, WR (F Stevens) Westhampnett, West Sussex - Erection of two storey In Progress detached dwelling house and detached single storey double Site visit 16th August 16 car port with attached storage. WW/15/01408/FUL Ullswater, Malden Way, Selsey, Chichester, West Sussex, WR (F Stevens) PO20 0RW. Construction of chalet bungalow on land east of Awaiting Decision Ullswater. WR/15/03504/DOM Park Cottage, Kirdford Road, Wisborough Green, West WR (R Ballam) Sussex, RH14 0DF - Demolition of existing incongruous rear Awaiting Decision dormer. New rear dormer, rear extension and connecting walkway to existing bothy. Linked to WR/15/03505/LBC WR/15/03505/LBC Park Cottage, Kirdford Road, Wisborough Green, West WR (R Ballam) Sussex, RH14 0DF - Demolition of existing incongruous rear Awaiting Decision dormer. New rear dormer, rear extension and connecting walkway to existing bothy. Linked to WR/15/03504/DOM

Page 109 4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS

NONE

5. CALLED-IN APPLICATIONS

Reference Proposal Stage NONE

6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS

Injunctions Site Breach Stage Birdham Farm Unauthorised The defendants have appealed the Development enforcement notices (Public Inquiry to be held in Feb 2017). This has affected the timetable of the injunction proceedings. There is evidence of further works on the land since the court proceedings in June 2015. Counsel’s opinion was sought on 02.08.16 on how to proceed. This case is complicated by the large number of defendants and the need for precision in the way it is handled. .

Prosecutions Site Breach Stage Nell Ball Various unauthorised Letters before action were sent developments and breach (25.07.16) in regard to 3 Enforcement of statutory notice Notices. No reply has been received. After a short further period summonses will be issued.

Prosecutions Site Breach Stage Wassall Barn Various unauthorised A draft statement has been prepared developments & breach of but no decision has been taken on statutory notice whether to proceed with a prosecution (for failure to comply with a Stop Notice) pending collation of the key evidence in this matter to finalise the officers witness statement. In the meantime an enforcement has been issued to require removal of the unauthorised development from the land.

7. POLICY MATTERS

NONE

Page 110 Agenda Item 13

ITEM 13: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE (April 2016 to June 2016)

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform the Planning Committee of the recent performance of the development management service.

2.0 Recommendations

2.1 That the report is noted.

3.0 Development Management Performance

Determination of applications within agreed timescales

3.1 It is vital that the Planning System is proportionate, efficient and responsive to the needs of all users to avoid time consuming, costly and unpredictable delays to the detriment of the economy and wider society.

3.3 The Council seeks to determine CDC SDNP planning applications in line with nationally set targets; 60% of Major Total no of apps 13 4 applications within 13 weeks (16

weeks for EIA development), 65% No of apps where of Minor applications within 8 extension of time 10 3 weeks and 80% of Other Majors agreed

applications within 8 weeks. Where Percentage within 100% 75% the Council agrees an extension of agreed timescale time to the determination of an application with the applicant,

provided the application is then Total no of apps 102 39 determined within the agreed No of apps where timescale, this is recorded as extension of time 21 20 Minors having been determined within the agreed requisite period. Extensions of time Percentage within facilitate a greater scope for 69% 87% agreed timescale negotiation on an application to enable it to be amended

satisfactorily and to grant Total no of apps 297 165 permission rather than a refusal No of apps where within the 8 or 13 week national extension of time 48 65 target. Others agreed

3.4 Within the both the CDC plan area Percentage within 89% 93% and the SDNP the targets were agreed timescale exceeded in all categories. Table 1: Determined applications – Apr 2016 to Jun 2016

Page 111 Appeals

3.5 Whilst the figures provided above outline the Development Management performance with regard to speed of decisions, the Council’s performance at appeal is a nationally recognised measure of the quality of decision making. The government has set a performance indicator that no more than 30% of those decisions that are appealed should be allowed.

3.6 Within the period April to June 2016, within the CDC plan area, 40% of appeals were allowed which uncharacteristically high for CDC, which is normally below the national average of some 33%. Officers are currently analysing those decisions that were allowed to establish whether a pattern exists. In the National Park only 10% of appeals were allowed which is well below the national average and demonstrates a good level of performance.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 In relation to time taken to make decisions, The Development Management Service continues to perform well as a whole, performance targets in relation to the speed of decision making are significantly exceeded. Within the CDC plan area the number of applications over 26 weeks is low. Unfortunately, appeal performance has fallen and officers are currently attempting to establish the reason for this.

Contact Officer: Tony Whitty

Page 112