Agenda Item 6

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 June 2013

Report of Assistant Director, Development Management and Building Control

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPEALS, COURT AND POLICY MATTERS

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

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

WR – Written Representation Appeal H – Hearing I – Inquiry ( ) – Case Officer initials * – Committee level decision

1. NEW APPEALS

Reference Proposal Procedure

BO/13/00799/TPA Harbour View, Shore Road, - fell 1no grey poplar tree (T1) within Group G1, subject WR to BO/12/00023/TPO. (H Whitby)

EWB/12/02461/FUL Land north east of Beech Avenue, Bracklesham Bay - construction of 50 residential dwellings, I new vehicular access, open space and other ancillary works. (G Pilkington) Inquiry to be held Tuesday 16 and Wednesday 17 July 2013 at 10.00am at EPH Agenda Item 6

Committee Rooms Reference Proposal Procedure

E/11/00286/ Orchid Answers, Limited, 113 Second Avenue, Batchmere, Chichester - Without planning I CONDWE permission, change of use of the building to use as a single dwellinghouse appeal against (E Lockett) Enforcement Notice.

SDNP/12/00109/ Land at Round Barrow, Woolavington Down, Beechwood Lane, - Without WR UNAWKS planning permission, the excavation of earth to form mounds and ditches (either side a public (C Boddy) right of way) - appeal against Enforcement Notice.

EWB/13/00214/DOM Beach House, East Bracklesham Drive - rear ground floor addition under existing balcony WR garage extension to include office and removal of shingle to level rear garden to the existing (A Weir) ground floor level of the dwelling. New roof dormer window a ground floor window to western elevation and the replacement of an existing window with a new door to the eastern elevation.

SDNP/12/00524/LDE Old Pipers, Ingram Lane, - Retention of temporary access in breach of the limitations I set out under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (R Hawks) Schedule 2. Part 4, Class A.

SDNP/13/00020/ Old Pipers, Ingram Lane, Treyford - Retention of temporary access in breach of the limitations I ENGOP set out under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (R Hawks) Schedule 2. Part 4, Class A - appeal against Enforcement Notice.

SDNP/12/03168/HOUS Bramble Tye, Shepherds Lane, - remodelling of the existing first floor plan and roof WR line. Replacement of existing windows and doors to match new fenestration. New (M Webb) weatherboard cladding and artificial slate roof tiles to dwelling.

SI/12/03584/FUL Windward Nursery, Chalk Lane, - proposed erection of agricultural dwelling. H (A Runciman/ P Kneen)

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Procedure

SB/12/00226/ Ickleberry Paddock. Thornham Lane, Emsworth - change of use to mixed use of equestrian and I CONDWE stationing of a mobile home for purposes of human habitation and residential use of building. (R Hawks) Appeal against Enforcement Notice. Inquiry to be held on Thursday 11 July 2013 at 10.00am, Committee Room 1, CDC

SB/12/03200/FUL Brookside Fruit Farm, School Lane, Nutbourne - removal of agricultural occupancy condition. H (V Colwell)

WI/12/04520/FUL Boat Store, Chandlers Reach, Itchenor - change of use of first floor of storage building to form a WR self-contained studio flat. (P Kneen)

WW/12/03484/FUL Thatchways, West Strand, - demolition of existing dwelling and construction of WR replacement dwelling. (A Runciman)

2. DECISIONS RECEIVED

Reference Proposal Decision

SDNP/12/00360/FUL Glendale, A286 The Croft to Bex Lane, Cocking Causeway - demolition of existing dwelling and DISMISSED erection of two new detached dwellings.

“ ...The design of the proposed dwellings is such that, in my opinion, their appearance would fail to respect the character and appearance of the area in an adequate way ... I... consider that the site is so conspicuous and prominent in the streetscene, and integral with and important to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, that its redevelopment should be in the form of a new building or buildings that more closely respects the presence of the historic and architecturally interesting dwellings present nearby in terms of scale, design and materials...the Agenda Item 6

development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cocking Conservation Area ... The proposed layout would have a materially harmful impact on the Reference Proposal Decision

living conditions of the occupants of both the adjoining dwellings because of the oppressive and overbearing impact of the houses to those situated to each side of the site ... In my conclusion on this issue the development would cause such damage to the amenities and living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining houses that it is unacceptable ... The Authority argues that further, follow-up survey work is essential ... current guidance from Natural ...advises that the use of planning conditions to ensure the carrying out of such survey work is inappropriate. ... The appellant acknowledges that no additional survey works have been undertaken in respect of either the bats or the reptiles because this is only possible at certain times of the year ... Merely imposing conditions on a grant of planning permission requiring further survey work and mitigation measures to be undertaken would not in itself afford adequate protection or mitigation as it would not be known if the nature and extent of such measures would be satisfactory as this would be dependent on the outcome of the survey. The proposal is therefore unacceptable on this issue and in conflict with the provisions of paragraph 113 of the Framework as well as Policy BE14 of the Local Plan …”

E/12/04407/DOM South Garage Barn, Almodington Lane, Almodington - erection of a two storey extension to the DISMISSED rear of the property.

“ ... The barn conversion has heritage value with particular regard to its vernacular, unspoilt form, as well as its setting as part of the larger group of former agricultural buildings. I consider that the scale and width of the proposed two storey projection would unbalance and detract from the rectangular form and proportions of the barn. It would appear as an overly dominant element in relation to the existing barn itself as well as the wider composition of buildings. Furthermore, the large extent of proposed glazing would exacerbate its undue prominence in relation to the existing form. The barn, as proposed to be extended would become a larger and more dominant structure and unbalance the existing composition of buildings. Given its location, the existing barn and the proposed extension would not be widely seen from public viewpoints but this would not, in my view, justify the proposed development given the harm I have concluded. The argument that a development would not be seen and would therefore lead to no harm, could be repeated too often with significant consequential changes to the general pattern of development which makes up the character of the local area. ...The proposed extension would not Agenda Item 6

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

respect the character and appearance of the host property, identified as a non-designated heritage asset, or of the local rural area. The would conflict with Policies RE1, BE11, BE12, BE4, RE14 and H12 of the Local Plan Review 1999. Whilst I have noted the date of this Plan, these policies in so far as they relate to protecting the character and appearance of existing buildings and of the local area accord with the Core Principles of the Framework. Whilst I appreciate, with reference to Policy RE14 that there is no suggestion that the property would not be habitable in its current form, and the conversion has already taken place, the policy approach is clear in terms of the very strict approach towards controlling further built development in the countryside. ... I have also taken into account the Appellant’s proposals to make the property more sustainable in terms of energy efficiency. Whilst this is to be supported and encourage and accords with a number of the environmental objectives of the Framework, it does not override the conclusions I have drawn in terms of the harm to the character and appearance of the existing buildings and local rural area. ...”

EWB/12/02328/FUL 1 The Parade, Bracklesham Lane, Bracklesham - Demolition of 3no A5/A1 units and construction DISMISSED of 3no A5 units and 4no self contained flats.

“ ... There is no objection to the principle of the development which would make a worthwhile use of a previously-developed site in a sustainable location. ... Whilst I have taken into account the fact that planning permission has already been granted for a re-development of the appeal site which has accommodation on two floors in a position close to the southern elevation of the recently completed development to its north, the appeal scheme would involve a new structure of a significantly greater height that already permitted. ... The adjoining block has five habitable room windows facing the appeal site at first floor level and three of these provide the only means of lighting to the bedrooms. With the distance between the opposing side elevations of the two blocks being about 3.6m, I consider that, in the context of the juxtaposition and relationship of the neighbouring buildings, the effect of the increase in height over and above that already permitted would result in a development of the appeal site that would have an unsatisfactory and materially harmful impact on the residents of the adjoining flats. The amount of daylight reaching the bedroom windows at first floor level would be severely restricted. Furthermore, the

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

introduction of a new building of the proposed height and depth in such close proximity would have an excessively overbearing and oppressive impact on the occupants of the adjacent flats giving rise to an unacceptable degree of dominance and physical enclosure. For these reasons I conclude that the development world be in breach of the terms of policy BE11 of the local plan as well as paragraph 17 of the Framework. ...”

SDNP/12/01301/FUL Wassell Mill House, , - erection of replacement dwelling with associated ALLOWED garage, store and additional landscaping (amendments to EN/10/04967/FUL - addition of 3no rear roof lights and conservatory).

“ ... The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area having regard to the location of the site within the South Downs National Park ... As far as the insertion of the rear rooflights is concerned, these would be visible across the open fields and from the footpath to the south ... the insertion of the rooflights proposed in the south roofslope is concerned, they would have very little effect on the scale, bulk and massing of the building as the Authority alleges. They would protrude by only about 20 mm above the roofslope and, with their modest scale and proportions in comparison to the very large roof area itself, their impact would be minimal. I acknowledge that the three rooflights proposed in the southern elevation of the dwelling would be seen over long distances, including four positions on the public footpath. However, and having regard to their profile and size, I do not consider that this would have the effect of increasing the perceived scale or height of the building in a materially harmful way taking account of the sensitive, rural location of the site. The house, and particularly its rear roofslope, is of such a size that it can accommodate the proposed form of alteration in this respect without causing undue harm ... I do not consider that the alterations to the building in the form of the rooflights now proposed would materially alter the visual impact of the development ... I do not consider that the alterations to the approved scheme in relation to the rooflights would conflict with the aims of any of these policies. The erection of the conservatory/orangery as proposed would, visually, be almost entirely contained within the area between the main house and the garage. It would be barely visible from the north and from the south it would be concealed for much of its height by the approved arbour wall ... only additional

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

visible bulk of the structure when observed from the south. The additional built-mass thus created would be very small in relation to the totality of the new development taken as a whole. It would be subsumed visually within the overall scale of the new buildings. No additional harm of any materiality would arise from this revision to this large scale development ... it is necessary to impose conditions appropriate to a new development ... I am imposing conditions relating to the time duration of the permission, the approval of materials, landscaping, restriction on permitted development rights and ground levels. I am also repeating the conditions in relation to ecology considerations, refuse bins and cycle storage facilities, restrictions on external lighting and the use of ground source heat pumps ... new condition concerning the use of non-reflective glass in the rooflights to minimise glare and in the interests of visual amenity. I have also imposed a specific condition concerning the retention of the existing hedge situated alongside the southern boundary of the site, in the interests of visual amenity.”

SDNP/12/01927/HOUS The Dower House, Street, Graffham, Petworth - removal of existing steep tarmac ALLOWED drive and parking area. Construction of new two car garage and adjacent enclosed store with garden shed above and to the rear.

“ ... The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area having regard to the location of the site within the Graffham Conservation Area and the South Downs National Park ... With the screening effects of the natural vegetation and the recessing of the main structure into the bank following its excavation, the garage would only be fully viewed from the east. In my view the visual impact of the development on the streetscene, or in terms of the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area, would be acceptable. The character of the village setting is defined in large measure by the random sitings of the buildings set out unevenly on either side of the road. In my view, and due to its design, siting and scale, the development would not be overly intrusive in this location and as far as its visual impact on the streetscene is concerned, it would cause no material harm. In these terms I consider that the development would be neutral in respect of its effects on the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of the Conservation Area ... the appeal site lies within the hears of a built-

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

-up settlement and there are other examples of development similar to that proposed by this appeal within the vicinity of the site. I therefore conclude that the development is acceptable in all key respects and should be permitted ...”

HT/12/00088/FULNP Three Cornered Piece, East Hollow, East Harting – concrete base for two mobile ALLOWED IN homes, Package treatment plant. PART REFUSED IN “ ... The concrete plinth on site is an incongruous feature in this rural area and there is no PART justification for it being on the site in the absence of any permission to station a residential caravan on the land ... the plinth is easily seen as would be the second one proposed on the other side (north side) of the hard surfaced area ... I consider that the ... development would be intrusive and materially harmful to the rural character and appearance of the area and the natural beauty of the SDNP. In these circumstances the concrete plinths should not be permitted and I will dismiss this part of the appeal. Turning to the treatment plant ... I do not consider that it can be rejected on grounds of visual intrusion ... The stables are in an isolated location and someone tending to the horses might well wish to have some washing/toilet facilities on site ... I cannot see that any harm can be caused by leaving the treatment plant in situ in case such facilities are provided at some point in the future ... The appeal is dismiss insofar as it relates to the construction of two concrete plinths. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the installation of a package treatment plant and planning permission is grated ...”

LX/12/01922/DOM 4 Station Road, , Billingshurst - remove existing small double garage and erect a 3 DISMISSED bay post and beam timber garage.

“ ... The proposed garage would be a more dominant structure than the garage currently on site and of a substantially different appearance. Although allowing adequate rear garden space to be retained it would occupy a greater floor area and be considerably taller. The roof would be a markedly different gambrel design and the walls and roof would have a significantly different appearance being constructed of timber effect weatherboard cladding and brown roof shingles. In terms of size, design and materials the proposed garage would be out of accord with the development in its immediate surroundings. Although it would not be visible from Station Road it would be seen from the estate road Nicholsfield and from adjoining properties Agenda Item 6 to an extent that would detract from the character and appearance of the area ... The proposed

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

garage would create additional storage space that would enable the removal of some existing sheds from the rear garden. However, the sheds are not so intrusive that their removal would be greatly advantageous. It is concluded that the proposed development would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, it would be contrary to saved Policies RE5, BE11 and BE12 of the Chichester District Plan First Review 1999 insofar that they seek to ensure that development does not harm the visual amenity of the area or detract from its surroundings ...”

SDNP/13/00448/HOUS 3 Carron Lane, - two storey rear extension to loftspace to form habitable DISMISSED accommodation.

“ ... The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and on the Midhurst Town Conservation Area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 2 Carron Lane in relation to outlook ... The proposed development would involve demolishing part of the existing dwelling and constructing a two storey gabled ended addition to the rear ... The proposed extension would be a similar width to the main part of the building. The proposed width, combined with the lack of subservience of the extension to the main part of the dwelling, would result in substantial detriment to the essentially modest character of this semi-detached dwelling. The extension would be bulky and its shape and height would also not sit comfortably with the shape and form of the rear additions at no.4, its semi-pair. Whilst little of the proposal would be seen from public (as opposed to private) vantage points, the dwelling does nevertheless contribute to the character of the Conservation Area, reflecting the Edwardian architectural style ... proposed as cladding to the rear elevation and PVCu windows are proposed. Neither of those aspects of the development would be particularly sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area ... There would also be a failure to preserve the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park insofar as the Midhurst Town Conservation Area is situated within the Park. For the occupiers of no. 2 Carron Lane ... The length, height and close proximity of the proposed flank wall to the common boundary would result in a tunnelling effect in visual terms from the first floor rear bedroom window. This would be an unacceptable loss of outlook for the occupants of that property. The fact that a door and window at ground floor level would no longer look onto no.2 would not mitigate that harm ...”

Agenda Item 6

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

SDNP/12/012196/ Robins Hill, Lane, Iping, Midhurst - discharge of condition no 2 of permission DISMISSED DCOND ML/01/01703/FUL (materials).

“ ... The main issue in this appeal is that, having regard to the sensitive countryside location of the site within the South Downs National Park, whether the use of rendered panels in place of natural stone for the external walls of the dwelling would be so visually damaging to the character and appearance of the area so that such a solution would be unacceptable ... In his 2002 decision the Inspector placed great weight on the fact that the materials for the development as proposed at that time were acceptable stating that they ‘would be beautiful, long lasting ones, which would fit well with their natural surroundings. Such materials seem to me to be entirely appropriate for a new building of this type’ ... I attach great weight to the conclusions reached by the 2002 Inspector in granting planning permission for the development in respect of the importance he attached to the materials he was informed would be used for the construction of the dwelling ... I acknowledge that the natural stone that has been used in the construction of the tool store shows signs of premature deterioration and this is likely to be exacerbated with a passage of time. For these reasons I agree with the appellant that its use in the construction of the main dwelling may not now be appropriate - a fact that was not appreciated in 2002. Notwithstanding, I have serious reservations concerning the use of rendered panels. I was shown two examples of this type on construction at my site visit. These comprised individual panels with pointing. The panels differed in their patterns and individual segmental sizes. In my conclusion the resultant appearance was not one of natural stone and was materially different in character from the ponds that I saw which were constructed in the approved material. For these reasons I consider the use of the rendering in the manner demonstrated to me to be unacceptable ... my conclusion is that the rendering proposed as an alternative to the natural stone is unsuitable and unacceptable. Its use would be visually harmful and would lead to a form of development in conflict with the Local Plan and the Framework ...”

PW/12/01329/LBCNP The Hungry Guest Foodstore, Middle Street, Petworth - removal of 2no Hovis signs from ALLOWED exterior of premises.

“ ... I allow the appeal and grant listed building consent for the removal of 2 no. Hovis signs from the exterior of the premises at The Hungry Guest, High Street, Petworth, West , Agenda Item 6

GU28 0BE ... There are doubts over the dates during which the signs were in place and their

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

precise method and degree of attachment to the building ... On the information provided, by way of photographs, whilst the Hovis signs were evident, possibly prominent, they did not contribute greatly to the significance of the Conservation Area. Their removal, as with any other sign that comes and goes with changes in retailing and use, has not caused harm to the Conservation Area and the requirements of Section 72(1) of the 1990 Act have been accorded with the sale of that product is said to have ceased on these premises; there is even a case for saying that retention would be misleading ... Their aesthetic value is moderate, and by modern standards the method of fixing is crude and unattractive. There appears to be a communal value, described as nostalgia, but the national brand and the commonness of the signs nationally reduces the weight attaching to this ... Little weight attaches to the use of the name ‘Hovis House’ as that is clearly a later, and again, transient thing. Without the signs, as at the time of the site inspection, the building is attractive, well presented on the outside and a positive feature of the streetscene and the wider Conservation Area ... Conversely, there is no reason why the signs could not be put back, it appears that some replacement letters, or a whole sign, would need to be sourced, but they are commonly found ...”

PS/12/01973/FUL Oak Tree Store, Plaistow Road, Loxwood - demolition of existing shop and house and the DISMISSED construction of new shop and four flats.

“ ... In my view the scale, height and bulk of the proposed building possess the characteristics of a structure far more suited to an urban or suburban location rather than the countryside setting in which the site lies. The development would be highly visible within the rural scene. It would be visually unexpected, incongruous and jarring in its intrusiveness ... Insofar as physical impact is concerned, with a distance of only about 2.5m retained between the boundary with Manhattan and the western elevation of the new building at the closest point, and taking into account its height, width and bulk, an unacceptable degree of overpowering impact would be experienced, in my view. The separation distance between buildings would be a minimum of only about 3.5m in one position and the three storey height of the block would be very overbearing in terms of its effects on Manhattan’s garden area ...”

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

PS/12/03012/FUL Kogala, The Drive, - erection of 4no 4 bed houses following demolition of existing dwelling DISMISSED and outbuildings.

“ ... I am satisfied that the appeal may be determined on the basis of the amended plans ... Ifold remains a pleasingly low density residential area generally and in the vicinity of the appeal site ... there is no in principle objection to the proposal. Nor, unlike the Council, do I see any objection to the height of the proposed houses per-se ... This would result in what would be fairly bulky houses being grouped quite closely together in the four quadrants of the site and with a substantial part of the intervening area made over to hardstanding ... narrow gap between the two houses ... unduly cramped form of development ... the proposed development would not appear as spacious and in keeping with the low density character of Ifold ... the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area ... the proposed development would have no detrimental impact on matters of nature conservation importance ... proposed development would have no detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbours with special reference to those at Rosebank and a new bungalow permitted in the curtilage of Shelley. Nor would there be any harm to the living conditions of those at Maybank ... I have found no harm in relation to the impact of the proposed development on neighbour's living conditions or on interests of nature conservation importance. Nor should the local concerns referred to under ‘other matters’ stand against the proposal. However, I find the harm to the character and appearance of the area alone to be decisive in this case. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.”

SY/12/00419/ Arun Posts, Southern Road, - construction of an outbuilding tantamount to a SUCCEEDS ON CONHH dwellinghouse. Appeal against enforcement notice. GROUND (C) AND APP/L3815/C/13/2190378 ENFORCEMENT NOTICE “The appeal succeeds on ground (c) and it is directed that the enforcement notice be quashed QUASHED ...” “ ... In their reasons for issuing the notice the Council assert that the building has not genuinely been erected for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such and that … the building was completed in October 2010 ... He had previously sought and obtained from Agenda Item 6 the Council a LDC for a somewhat different building he then proposed to build. That LDC,

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

dated 2 April 2008, confirmed that on the date of the application (19 December 2007) that building would have been lawful within the meaning of section 191 of the Act ... Following changes to the size and position of the outbuilding that he subsequently was in the process of erecting, the appellant took the contents of the Council’s subsequent letter dated 19 September 2010 as confirmation that, despite these changes, which included the provision of an integral garage as an intended replacement for the existing adjacent detached one on site, its erection and proposed use remained within Class E as amended. The Council refer to a number of unsuccessful applications...This, they claim, was the real purpose of the outbuilding...in the Council’s view, the appellant undertook the minimum construction necessary to provide a substantially complete building that would require only limited intervention to adapt to a dwelling, as clearly desired ... Whether or not the building could easily be converted to a dwelling is not therefore of any direct relevance in the determination of this appeal ... It is clear that the outbuilding has been completed to extent necessary to enable use for the various purposes undertaken within it by the occupants of the dwelling ... There is no reason to doubt his contention that had it been his intention when erecting the building to convert it to a dwelling it would have been designed and built rather differently ... the Council confirmed at the Hearing that it was accepted that no commercial use of the outbuilding had occurred ... As a chalet-style property with limited space, the dwelling is clearly insufficient to accommodate the uses to which the outbuilding has been put. The need to provide basic living accommodation within it for the 6-person household, combined with the limited loft space, demonstrates the lack of room for storage, gymnastic and hobby activities ... the Council previously accepted that a building of this size was required for the use as a games room, workshop and WC. The subsequent uses for a period of time as both a gym and workshop required a significant amount of space. Given that the outbuilding also incorporates an integral garage, it is not unreasonably large for the uses to which it has been put. The appellant has explained that the keeping of chickens in the building was a temporary expedient and part of the intended use of the building ... the appellant refutes the Council’s contention that it is ‘surplus to requirements’ and now ‘largely disused’ ... evidence, including that from my site visit, is that it continues to be used by the occupants of the dwelling and is valued by them in connection with the uses to which it is currently being put. The Council make reference

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

to a failure to provide lighting, electricity or heating to the building, which they say indicates that it was not intended for any significant genuine use when completed to its current level at the beginning of winter 2010. However, the appellant has confirmed that from the commencement of its use, the building was lit and heated via an electricity supply connected the dwelling. The appellant has explained that, although the building has been fitted out adequately to enable its use, it is his intention to complete the fitting out and undertake the ancillary work necessary to enable the garage to be used for parking, following the demolition of the existing derelict garage. This will be done when time and finance permit … the evidence supports the conclusion that the uses to which the building has been put have occurred together with the primary residential use of the dwelling but have remained at all times subordinate to that use. The appellant has provided clear and comprehensive evidence to conclude, on the balance of probability, having regard the relevant test established in the Emin judgement, that the building was genuinely and reasonably required or necessary in order to accommodate the proposes uses/activities ...”

COSTS DECISION

“ The application succeeds and award of costs is made ... The applicant’s case .... is that ... the Council have failed to investigate thoroughly the facts and establish the true position as accurately as practicable ... The Council had consistently ignored repeated explanations of the position ... The Council felt they had sufficient justification for issuing the enforcement notice and had made a reasonably strong case in response to that of the applicant ... the applicant contended that the Council had no evidence of their own to contradict his case or make it less than probable ... In reaching a decision on the costs application it is necessary to consider whether the Council had reasonable grounds for concluding that there had been a breach of planning control and the adequacy of their stated reasons for serving the enforcement notice ... central to the Council’s approach was their focus on the applicant’s attempts to obtain planning permission for a dwelling on the site of the outbuilding ... However, none of this was relevant to the matters for determination at appeal. The enforcement action appears to have been

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

informed by conclusions made by the officer from the Council who visited the site on 15 October 2012 ... The applicant has explained in detail what uses have taken place in the building and the Council have produced no evidence of their own to contradict his version of the use to which the building was put prior to the visit on 15 October 2012. From the file note of what the Council’s officer noted was in the building at the time of the officer’s visit, it is clearly not the case, as was stated in her conclusions in that note, that there was no specific use of the building taking place ... The officer’s note of the site visit in question and the quoted extracts in the applicant’s witness statement from a subsequent report to the Area Development Control Committee (South) on 7 November 2012, contains confusing and inaccurate references in relation to a workshop use of the building ... Mr Alan’s witness statement draws attention to a statement in the Committee report that, in the view of officers, the applicant had not shown any requirement for an incidental building at the time of its construction ... the Council either overlooked or chose to ignore the fact that they had issued a LDC confirming that the similar building for uses including a (domestic) workshop would be permitted development under Class E ... The reasons for serving the notice state, among other things, that there was no evidence to indicate that the building was intended for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. That plainly contradicts the previous position adopted by the Council in their letter dated 19 September 2010, which can only be taken as an acceptance that they were satisfied on this matter ... the Council clearly attached weight to irrelevant considerations ... evidence was clear and comprehensive and was supported by a neighbour. The Council supplied no evidence of their own in relation to the use of the building between its erection and the time of the site visit on 15 October 2012 to contradict or otherwise make the applicant's version of events less than probable. The snapshot from the limited evidence of the site visit of 15 October 2012 was an insufficient basis on which to conclude, and did not in fact demonstrate, that Class E could not apply ... Committee report both contained inaccurate and irrelevant comments. The Council did not have reasonable grounds for concluding that there had been a breach of planning control ...”

WI/12/02285/FUL Land south of Goose Barn, Itchenor Road, - erection of 3 bedroomed detached DISMISSED cottage.

APPEAL DECISION “ ... The Council have relied heavily on their local plan policies and the NPPF. ... RE1 explains Agenda Item 6 that everywhere is considered to be ‘rural’ if it is outside a settlement policy area. The site is

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Decision

thus in a rural location for policy purposes. ... The proposal is thus contrary to this policy. ... In the context of this part of the village the development of this site on its own would look out of place. It would not be related to the barn conversions, and so would appear isolated in design terms if not physically. ... A public right of way (RoW) runs along the edge of the site between it and the barn conversions. ... The RoW which would have run next to an open field, would now be constrained by development, not just of a fence but also a taller house immediately beyond it. ... I am not convinced it is so harmful as to warrant a refusal, but it does add further to the sense of overdevelopment. I have already found the proposal to be contrary to policy RE1, and I also consider the development of this plot would harm the character of the area and so would be contrary to policy BE11. It would harm the AONB, and so is contrary to policy RE4. It follows that it would impact negatively on the setting of the Conservation area and partly fill the important rural gap identified in the village design statement. For all these reasons the appeal will be dismissed.

COSTS DECISION

“the application for an award of costs is refused. The Council contend that the proposal was so obviously contrary to the NPPF and to their local plan policies that it had no chance of success. ... The proposal was clearly contrary to RE1, which is a very restrictive policy concerning development in rural areas generally. It is unclear how this policy relates to RE4 which it would seem could allow some development in an AONB which would be precluded by RE1. As I suggest in the decision letter I do not consider the remainder of the Council’s policies to be quite as determinative as they think. ... Although I did not agree with the appellants’ arguments, it was not self-evident the appeal would fail. ... Consequently, I do not think it was so unreasonable to make this appeal that an award of costs is justified.”

NC/11/04809/FULNP Hillgrove Stud Farm, London Road, - removal of condition no 10 attached to WITHDRAWN planning permission NC/08/00200/FUL to allow the retention of 1no static caravan, 1no dog kennel and mobile field shelters.

Agenda Item 6

3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS

Reference Proposal Procedure Status

AP/12/00291/ Land north west of Chichester Marina, - without planning WR In progress CONREC permission the use of land for tented camping/activity camp. (C Boddy)

BI/12/00209/CONENF Land at Cowdry Nursery, Sidlesham Lane, Birdham – Without planning PI Awaiting decision permission, change of use of the land to the stationing of a mobile home for (R Hawks) the purposes of human habitation and storage of a touring caravan. Appeal against enforcement notice.

CC/12/04056/COU 26 South Street, Chichester - change of use from A1 to A3 restaurant use as WR Awaiting decision Wagamama restaurant. (V Colwell)

CH/12/01036/FUL Paddock View, Drift Lane, Bosham – change of use of land to a single PI Awaiting decision permanent Gypsy and Traveller site for the stationing of a single static (S Archer) mobile home; single shed; dog kennels and stable building.

CH/12/01266/FUL Plot F, Pond Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling - full application for PI Inquiry held on permanent retention of change of use of land to a single pitch gypsy site (S Archer) Tuesday 11 June including stationing of one mobile home to provide settled accommodation. 2013 and (TO BE LINKED WITH CH/12/01282/FUL) Wednesday 12 June 2013 in Committee Room 1 and Ravenna Room, Westgate

CH/12/01282/FUL Plot C2A and C2B, Pond Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling - change of use PI Inquiry held on of land to a Gypsy transit site to provide settled accommodation for a (S Archer) Tuesday 11 June temporary period of three years. 2013 and (TO BE LINKED WITH CH/12/01266/FUL) Wednesday 12 June 2013 in Committee Room 1 and Ravenna Agenda Item 6

Room, Westgate

Reference Proposal Procedure Status

SDNP/12/00977/FUL 210 A286 The Croft to Bex Lane, Cocking Causeway, Cocking, Midhurst - WR In progress construction of a single dwelling including parking and access. (S Crease)

EL/10/00712/EBCNP Popple Meadows, Graffham, Petworth - erection of brick piers, wing walls WR In progress and entrance gates. Appeal against Enforcement Notice. (S Archer)

FH/10/00560/EENGNP Land north east of Courts Farm, Miggs Lane, - stationing of a WR In progress mobile log cabin for human habitation - appeal against Enforcement Notice. (R Hawks)

FH/11/00487/EAGRNP Brackenwood, Telegraph Hill, Midhurst - change of use of the land to a I Inquiry to be held mixed use for agriculture and equestrian purposes, namely keeping and (R Hawks) on Wednesday 31 trading of polo ponies - appeal against Enforcement Notice. July and Thursday 1 August 2013 at 10.00am in Committee Room 1, CDC

FH/11/01324/FULNP Land to south of Lake House, Valewood Road, Fernhurst – erection of 1no I Awaiting decision residential dwelling and associated landscape works. (D Price)

SDNP/12/00935/FUL St Magnus, Marley Lane, Marley Common – construction 2/3 story side WR Awaiting Decision extension to create 20 additional ensuite bedrooms. (L Oliver - SDNP) FU/11/00604/CONENF Castorfield, West Ashling Road, Hambrook - use as a dwellinghouse with I Inquiry to be held residential curtilage - appeal against Enforcement Notice. (S Archer) on Tuesday 3 (TO BE LINKED WITH FU/12/02119/ELD) September 2013 at 10.00am in Committee Room 2, CDC

FU/12/02119/ELD Castorfield, West Ashling Road, Hambrook – refusal of 11/03084/ELD - use I As above Agenda Item 6 of a dwellinghouse with residential curtilage. (S Archer) (TO BE LINKED WITH FU/11/00604/CONENF)

Agenda Item 6

Reference Proposal Procedure Status

SDNP/12/02580/FUL Land adjacent Bridge Lodge, Haslemere Road, , Liphook - WR In progress erection of 2 dwellings, 1no single storey and 1no 1 1/2 storey each with (S Crease) detached double garage both to utilise existing access with shared driveway.

LX/12/01577/FUL Orchard Cottage, Plaistow Road, Loxwood - installation of a 3.68kw solar WR Awaiting Decision panel on a static frame. (M Webb)

LX/12/03092/DOM Oakhurst Farm, Oakhurst Lane, Loxwood - insertion of dormer window in WR In progress north roof pitch to replace an existing velux roof light. (S Crease) (TO BE LINKED WITH LX/12/03093/LBC)

LX/12/03093/LBC Oakhurst Farm, Oakhurst Lane, Loxwood - insertion of dormer window in WR In progress north roof pitch to replace an existing velux roof light. (S Crease) (TO BE LINKED WITH LX/12/03092/DOM)

PS/10/00761/CONMHC Land north of Ifold Copse, Dunsfold Road, Plaistow - stationing of a mobile H Awaiting decision home for the purposes of human habitation. Appeal against Enforcement (R Hawks) Notice.

SDNP/12/00017/FUL Coloured Ponds, Bull Hill, - new entrance walls and gates. WR In progress (C Cranmer)

SY/11/04954/OUT Park Farm, Park Lane, Selsey – outline application for 50 dwellings, access, I Awaiting Decision landscaping and associated works. (J Bushell)

SI/11/00517/CONENF Enborne Business Park, Selsey Road, Sidlesham - refusal of planning WR In progress application SI/11/ 02862/FUL - use of car park for the display of cars for (R Hawks) sale. Appeal against enforcement notice.

SB/12/00431/ Land south of 8 West View Cottages, Southbourne - appeal against WR In progress CONENF Enforcement Notice. (W Sowman)

SB/12/02861/COU Land adjoining 8 West View Cottages, South Lane, Southbourne - change of WR In progress Agenda Item 6

use of land from agriculture to residential garden. (A Weir)

Reference Proposal Procedure Status

TG/12/01739/OUT Land on the east side of Meadow Way, - outline planning H In progress permission for development of the site comprising 59 residential units, (G Pilkington) associated public open space, landscaping, access and car parking. UW/12/00886/FULNP St Mary’s Farm, - formation of new vehicular access and closing WR Awaiting Decision existing, making this pedestrian only. (S Crease)

WH/12/02360/OUT Maudlin Nursery Hanging Basket Centre, Stane Street, - I Awaiting decision outline application for a community extension comprising of 100 new homes, (J Saunders) including 40% affordable accommodation, a village hall, a village green and a restaurant/public house (Class A3/A4), with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping.

WI/12/02629/FUL Sea Urchin, Spinney Lane, Itchenor - proposed replacement two storey WR In progress green oak framed dwelling with single storey ancillary/garage/utility and (S Harris) living room.

WW/12/01793/FUL The Ark, 35 Marine Drive West, West Wittering - erection of 2no semi WR Awaiting decision detached houses and garages. (A Runciman)

WW/12/03484/FUL Thatchways, West Strand, West Wittering - demolition of existing dwelling WR In progress and construction of replacement dwelling. (A Runciman)

WW/13/00076/DOM Pagewood, East Strand, West Wittering - dormers to rear (south) and side WR In progress (west) elevations, additional level to existing external staircase (re- (M Tomlinson) submission of WW/11/00611/DOM).

4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS

NONE

Agenda Item 6

5. CALLED IN APPLICATIONS

Reference Proposal Stage NONE 6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS

Injunctions

Site Breach Stage

NONE

Prosecutions

Site Breach Stage

The Old Post Office, West Untidy land Court proceedings issued for non-compliance with Ashling a Notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Court hearing in Chichester Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 2013

High Court

Site Matters prohibited by the Order Stage

Agenda Item 6

Planning injunction:

Newells Lane, Injunction for unauthorised residential and ancillary uses. Report to members outstanding but a summary of the Chidham situation is set out below: Plots A & B – planning permission granted at appeal for settled gypsy accommodation Plot C now divided into 4: ELD for whole of Plot C received in relation to sheds, stables and pigeon lofts; Plot C1a – application received for mobile home – pending decision Plot C1b – application received for mobile home– pending decision Plot C2a – refused – Inquiry to be held on 11 and 12 June 2013 Plot C2b – application refused – appeal made and Inquiry arranged Plot D – subject to investigation Plot E not occupied Plot F – application refused - linked to Inquiry for Plots C2 a & b on 11 and 12 June 2013 Plot G – not occupied Plot H known as Paddock View – application refused - Appeal decision awaited Plot I – not occupied Plot J – five year temporary planning permission granted at appeal for settled Gypsy accommodation Appeals to be decided before further Court proceeding are instigated

Agenda Item 6

Magistrates Court

Site Breach Stage

NONE

7. POLICY MATTERS

NONE