1 March 2021

For questions regarding this agenda please ask for Rosie Chase – email: [email protected]

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY – PLANNING COMMITTEE

A virtual meeting of the Conservancy’s Planning Committee will be held at 10.30am on Monday 1 March 2021. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic the meeting will be held virtually using Zoom.

Richard Craven Director and Harbour Master

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies

2. Declaration of Interests

Members and officers are reminded to make declarations of pecuniary or personal interests they may have in relation to items on the agenda and to make any declarations at any stage during the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.

3. Minutes

Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 15 February 2021 (page 1)

4. National Planning Policy Framework.

To consider the report from the AONB Manager (page 14)

5. Planning Principle 19 – Houseboats

To consider the report from the AONB Manager (page 17)

6. Development Applications a. Land East of The Trees, Main Road, Fishbourne, Chichester, West Sussex (page 21) b. Five Elms, Stumps Lane Bosham PO18 8QJ (page 32) c. Land at Flat Farm Hambrook West Sussex PO18 8FT (page 46)

7. Table of Delegated Actions

To consider the report from the Principal Planning Officers. (page 61 )

8. Quarterly report

To consider the report from the Principal Planning Officers. (page 65)

9. Date of Next Meeting

Monday 12 April 2021 by Zoom, from 10.30am ______Planning Committee members: Adrian Moss, Ann Briggs, Chris Emery, John Goodspeed, Keith Martin, Heather Baker, Pieter Montyn, Ken Smith, and Alison Wakelin.

2 CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2021 from 10.30am held virtually, via Zoom.

Present Keith Martin (Chairman)

Heather Baker Pieter Montyn Alison Wakelin Adrian Moss

Chris Emery Ann Briggs John Goodspeed

Officers

Steve Lawrence David Rothery Richard Austin Rosie Chase

In attendance

Penny Plant

1.0 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Ken Smith.

2.0 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

2.1 Pieter Montyn declared an interest in application 4b, the restoration of the oyster pond at Hook Lane as he is a County Council member of IFCA.

3.0 MINUTES

3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 25 January 2021 were agreed as a true record of the meeting.

4.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Mill Rythe Holiday Village, 16 Havant Road, Gable Head, Hayling Island, Hampshire

4.1 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) introduced his report to members. This is a full application pursuant to APP/16/01237 dated 5 May 2017, for the redevelopment of the holiday site including the demolition of redundant chalets, use of land for the siting of 112 holiday caravans with areas of open recreational space, cease the use of the land for pitch and putt purposes and retain the remaining pitch and putt area as a managed wildlife area including the provision of an ecology bund & ditch, landscaping, the siting of three bird hides with bat roost in their roof spaces and a mown 'circular wildlife walkway'.

4.2 He said that the site has had previous permission for 290 holiday lets, broken down into 87 self-catered chalets and 203 static caravans. The current proposal removes all but one of the self-catered chalets and replaces them static caravans bringing the number to 309 across the site. He went on to say that the application represented an increase of 19 holiday units on the previous permission which would be placed at various locations on site. He said the previous consent has not been fully implemented and all the spaces granted were not used. He said that his objection was since the proposed spread of the caravans would increase the developable area on the site.

4.3 A member said the applicant had said the pitch and putt was inside the AONB and asked the Principal Planning Officer if that was that a mistake. The officer said that according to the red line boundary the whole site is outside of the AONB but is adjoining it. Therefore, the applicant had made an error. The member went on to ask if there would be net benefit to the landscape with the proposed additional caravans having a lower roof line than the existing one and storey chalets. The Principal Planning Officer said he was comfortable with the removal of the chalets and agreed there would be an improvement, but his concern is the spread of the additional caravans outside of the developable area into a new area which, although is in parts wild and currently part of the soon to be defunct pitch and putt, is currently open and grass.

4.4 Members discussed the value of the developer’s proposed wildlife area. The Ecologist said that he welcomed the idea, however the plans submitted are not well thought through and the proposals were not that beneficial to wildlife, more to the visiting tourists. He said the design could be improved upon and that he would be happy to have further input into the design and ideally public access to the wildlife area would be limited. A member said if the units were to be used for 50 weeks of the year, he would not support the application, as there would be a negative impact on wildlife with additional human presence at times where previously the area would be vacated.

4.5 A member expressed concern about basing the objection on the disturbance of an additional 19 caravans as they felt it would not contribute to much more, but they felt that the argument for additional units on previously unused ground was a stronger basis for objection.

4.6 A member considered that the loss of amenity area within the site was more important than the increase in caravans. This could increase recreational activity in the surrounding AONB countryside.

4.7 The Principal Planning Officer said that the current consent says that caravan units cannot be occupied for more than ten months of the year and it was likely that if the LPA were likely to approve, this condition would be carried over so that there is continuity on the site.

Recommendation

The Planning Committee resolved to raise an objection due to the following.

 The proposal for the increase in holiday units on previously used recreational land would physically increase the developed area of the park resulting in the loss of a significant amount of the amenity area within the site. This would change the character of the eastern part of the site within the countryside area, creating a clearly tourism form of development in appearance which is an unwelcomed intensification of the activities with this countryside location and likely to increase activity beyond the boundary within the AONB with associated wild life disturbance on the fringe of the adjacent and visually important AONB protected landscape (contrary to ‘AONB Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area’ of the adopted Chichester Harbour Management Plan - April 2019).

4  Lack of land use justification for the increase in holiday let units within close proximity to the AONB protected landscape resulting in the subsequent pressure on the existing countryside and water resources of the AONB protected area (contrary to ‘AONB Planning Principle PP08: New Tourist Accommodation’ of the adopted Chichester Harbour Management Plan - April 2019).

 Prominent impact to the AONB protected landscape through the spread of holiday let static caravans into the eastern part of the site and consequential loss of adjoining open grassland that acts as important open space and supporting countryside to the AONB protected landscape (counter to ‘Part 17: Landscape’ of the adopted Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document - May 2017).

 Recreational wildlife disturbance within the AONB protected landscape resulting from the incursion of holiday letting units into the ‘undeveloped’ eastern area of the site.

 Wastewater sewerage systems capacity is not shown to be acceptably proven to cater for the increase in holiday let units.

 Nitrogen nutrient increase requiring mitigation measures not provided to demonstrate the impact on the natural environment of the adjoining AONB protected landscape.

 The current open space to the east of the development area is designated as Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), the proposed development and spread of the holiday village holiday units layout is likely to adversely impact on this part of the site.

 The additional requirement to artificially illuminate the additional areas catering for the spread of holiday let static caravan units results in the spread of illumination into unlit countryside areas contrary to the Dark Skies protocol (counter to ‘Part 30: Dark Skies’ of the adopted Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document - May 2017, and contrary to ‘AONB Planning Principle PP09: Dark Skies’ of the adopted Chichester Harbour Management Plan - April 2019).

Land at Hook Farm, Hook Lane, Bosham, Chichester, West Sussex

4.8 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) presented his report to members. The application is for the restoration of a former oyster pond. He said that the Ecologist had considered the proposals and submitted his findings to the report.

4.9 The Ecologist said the sluice that impounds the water will be over topped on every tide, and so the pond will be tidal but will hold water back at low tide. This will allow invertebrates and fish to come and go and will add complexity and diversity to the local habitats. He said he did not think there would be any adverse effects on the area, and he was satisfied it was a useful addition to the area.

4.10 It was confirmed that the oysters would not be for human consumption, no commercial activity was proposed, and the restoration is for conservation purposes

5 only. The Principal Planning Officer said that the proposal would also require a Conservancy works’ licence. The AONB Manager confirmed that one had not yet been submitted but one would be submitted for the April round of meetings.

4.11 The Ecologist said that Sussex IFCA have been involved in similar projects, trying to establish a sustainable oyster population. He went on to say that they have indicated that they do not object to the proposal. The Ecologist said that he had recommended that only native oysters be used. The AONB Manager said there had been no objection to the proposal from the Environment Agency.

Recommendation

4.12 The Planning Committee resolved to raise no objection. Should the LPA be mindful to grant planning permission, the Conservancy hereby recommends the following stipulations are applied:

 schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / approved drawings / approved plans.  that timing of the works to be carried out July-Sept to reduce impact on breeding and over-wintering birds.  any introduction of oyster stock to be agreed with Natural England and Sussex IFCA.  annual monitoring of the site’s invertebrate fauna of the lagoon.  annual monitoring of the oysters in the lagoon, to be shared with the Sussex IFCA and Solent Oyster Restoration Project.

Land east of Broad Road Nutbourne

4.13 The Principal Planning Officer (SL) presented his report to members. He said he proposed raising a strong objection to the outline planning application (with some matters reserved except access and layout) for 132 dwellings and provision of associated infrastructure. He went on to say that the site was outside of settlement boundary for Nutbourne East, the land was good quality agricultural land and should be given adequate protection.

4.14 He said that Housing Land Availability Assessment the applicant had referenced was a more recent document, not available on the Council’s website, which showed this site had been put forward before for housing development. The Council had previously found this land unsuitable for development. The Principal Planning Officer said that the site’s ecological value is in its hedges and there is an indent of TPO trees on the southern boundary. He said little mention had been made by the applicant to the strategic wildlife corridor. He went on to say that there was little in the way of local amenities, with only one shop and a small school and questioned the site’s long term sustainability.

4.15 Members discussed issues with regards wastewater treatment, which the Principal Planning Officer felt had not been adequately addressed within the application. It was recognised that there was an increased risk of overloading and increased stormwater discharges into Chichester Harbour, which Southern Water had themselves identified.

4.16 Members discussed wildlife corridors at length and agreed that the recommendations should be strengthened to emphasize their value. A member said that Sussex Wildlife Trust are very concerned about this proposal. The Ecologist said that there would be a particular impact on bats, due to the additional light caused by the development.

Recommendation

4.17 The Planning Committee resolved to raise an objection on the following.

 That insufficient headroom exists at the Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works (Twwtw) evidenced from a written report from Southern Water dated 27/02/21 when commenting on another major application close by (20/03319/OUTEIA). If the development were to be serviced by Twwtw it is likely that the number of stormwater discharges in Chichester Harbour would increase, adversely affecting the delicate ecology and protected European sites there.

 Proposals would erode a valuable countryside gap, providing an openness to the setting of Chichester Harbour AONB when viewed from Walderton Down and weaken the separate identities of Nutbourne and Chidham as individual settlements.

 The site is partly identified as a strategic wildlife corridor in the emerging local plan, under Policy SP30 and development - and impact from street lighting in times of darkness - would be likely to interfere with wildlife commuting across the site, especially bats.

 Proposals are premature to proper consideration of emerging local plan and any planned revision to neighbourhood plan.

 Proposals would develop on very good agricultural land given protection under paragraph170 of the NPPF, whilst marginalising other adjacent agricultural land and,

 Notwithstanding the developer’s commitment to a planning obligation to Bird Aware Solent and open space within the site layout, those occupying the new development would increase recreational disturbance to birds in Chichester Harbour.

If the Council is satisfied that sufficient capacity exists at the Thornham WwTw to treat sewerage from the development and is minded to grant planning permission, the suggested minimum requirements should be placed on the development going forward.

S106 clauses to secure.

7  Affordable housing delivery in perpetuity  Future maintenance of any sustainable urban drainage systems built out and

Planning conditions related to

 An application of the Reserved Matters, being submitted within 1 year of the granting of outline planning permission.  Limiting the scale of buildings to a 2 storey eaves height and those closest to the eastern boundary not to exceed a single storey eaves height.  All means of enclosure to be submitted and approved.  Any sanctioned hedgerow/ tree removal to be carried out outside March to September inclusive  Ensuring that the existing vegetated boundaries to roads, except where points of access to be formed to be safeguarded/retained/reinforced with new planting.  Any hard and soft landscaping design and planting specification agreed (especially for the eastern boundary) as a Reserved Matter to be fully implemented before occupation of the last dwelling to be built, with any planting failing in the first five years being replaced.  Safeguarding trees shown to be retained during the build process with protective fencing.  Delivery of the sustainable measures to be incorporated into each dwelling to demonstrated efficient use of water and energy to meet the requirements of local plan policy 40/test 8 of the council’s IHP shall be implemented/ retained.  Investigate/record/archive the sites’ archaeology.

Land West of Pottery Lane and Flatt Road, North of Main Road (A259), Nutbourne, Chidham and Hambrook, West Sussex.

4.18 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) presented his report to members in respect of the proposed outline application with all matters reserved except for access and layout for the erection of 94 dwellings with associated infrastructure. He said that many of the concerns discussed in the previous applications applied here as they were all from the same developer and close together. He said the application had a lack of justification as to why it was proposed so near to the protected landscape, that there would be a negative visual impact and recreational wildlife disturbance, which would need mitigation if the development were allowed.

4.19 He said that Southern Water had indicated that the headroom capacity could be available to support the development, but the necessary work would take up to two years. Following a question, the Principal Planning Officer said this site was not in the wildlife corridor and was further set back from the road.

4.20 Members agreed that a similar approach be taken in their response to the three applications in Nutbourne, Chidham and Hambrook.

Recommendation

4.21 The Planning Committee resolved to raise an objection. The proposal for this housing estate development on previously used agricultural land would physically change the character of the site within the countryside area, creating a clearly

8 urban form of development in appearance and form which is out-of-place and out- of-keeping with this countryside location on the fringe of the nearby but visually important AONB protected landscape (contrary to ‘AONB Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area’ of the adopted Chichester Harbour Management Plan - April 2019).

 Lack of land use justification for the increase in residential development within close proximity to the AONB protected landscape resulting in the subsequent pressure on the existing countryside and water resources of the AONB protected area (contrary to ‘AONB Planning Principle PP04: Creation of New Dwellings’ of the adopted Chichester Harbour Management Plan - April 2019).

 Prominent impact to the AONB protected landscape through the urban spread of housing and coalescence of residential development north of the A259 and consequential loss of adjoining open grassland that acts as important open space and supporting countryside to the AONB protected landscape (counter to ‘Part 17: Landscape’ of the adopted Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document - May 2017).

 Wastewater sewerage systems capacity is not proven and fails to demonstrate that no pollution or discharge of untreated wastewater into the Chichester Harbour would take place. It is known that insufficient headroom exists at the Thornham wastewater treatment works (evidenced from a written response from Southern Water dated 27/01/2021) and if the development were to be serviced by this facility it is likely that the number of stormwater discharges into Chichester Harbour would increase, adversely affecting the delicate ecology and protected European sites there.

 Prematurity against Local Plan / Neighbourhood Plan provision resulting in unplanned piecemeal development that not conducive to secure a comprehensive master planned development for the area.

 Recreational wildlife disturbance within the AONB protected landscape resulting from the incursion of housing estate development into the undeveloped supporting countryside to the AONB protected landscape (counter to ‘Part 2: Overarching Principle’ of the adopted Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document - May 2017).

 Absence of contributions towards Solent Bird Aware Protocol towards mitigation against recreational disturbance to the natural wildlife of Chichester Harbour. Notwithstanding the inferred commitment to a planning obligation to Bird Aware Solent and open space within the site layout, those occupying the new development would increase recreational disturbance to birds in Chichester Harbour.

 Failure to provide a structural external lighting impact plan or details of the proposed lighting scheme to illuminate roads, parking areas, garages, and dwelling doorways to demonstrate the steps necessary to reduce the adverse impact of artificial light, to protect and establish the provision of dark corridors for the use and protection of nocturnal wildlife (principally bats) (counter to ‘Part 30: Dark Skies’ of the adopted Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning

9 Document - May 2017, and contrary to ‘AONB Planning Principle PP09: Dark Skies’ of the adopted Chichester Harbour Management Plan - April 2019).

S106 clauses to secure.

 The SDMP/Bird Aware Solent contributions  Delivery of the open space – (to a specified amount in square metres and shown on a map annexed to the agreement) – before first occupation of the last dwelling to be built and provision for its future maintenance.  Affordable housing delivery in perpetuity  Future maintenance of any sustainable urban drainage systems built out and

Planning conditions related to

 An application of the Reserved Matters, being submitted within 1 year of the granting of outline planning permission.  Limiting the scale of buildings to a 2 storey eaves height and those closest to the eastern boundary not to exceed a single storey eaves height.  All means of enclosure to be submitted and approved.  Any sanctioned hedgerow/ tree removal to be carried out outside March to September inclusive  Ensuring that the existing vegetated boundaries to roads, except where points of access to be formed to be safeguarded/retained/reinforced with new planting.  Any hard and soft landscaping design and planting specification agreed (especially for the eastern boundary) as a Reserved Matter to be fully implemented before occupation of the last dwelling to be built, with any planting failing in the first five years being replaced.  Safeguarding trees shown to be retained during the build process with protective fencing.  Delivery of the sustainable measures to be incorporated into each dwelling to demonstrated efficient use of water and energy to meet the requirements of local plan policy 40/test 8 of the Council’s IHP shall be implemented/ retained.  Investigate/record/archive the sites’ archaeology.

Land north of A259, Flat Farm, Main Road, Nutbourne

4.22 The Principal Planning Officer (SL) Presented his report to members, in respect of an Outline planning application (with some matters reserved except access and layout) for 68 no. dwellings and provision of associated infrastructure.

4.23 He said that the site is set back from the swathe of development on the A259 and only the access point on main road which is near to the AONB. The site is just under 5 hectares, with separate field systems broken up by hedgerows.

10 4.24 A member said it would be disastrous to local wildlife if the hedgerow is removed. A member went on to say this development is very separate from the settlement policy area.

4.25 Members agreed that the loss of the wildlife corridor would be unacceptable and that the points made in the previous applications about wastewater treatment and recreational disturbance would also apply to their response to this application.

Recommendation

4.26 The Planning Committee resolved to raise an objection to the development on the following grounds.

 That insufficient headroom exists at the Thornham wastewater treatment works (Twwtw) evidenced from a written report from Southern Water dated 27/02/21 when commenting on another major application close by (20/03319/OUTEIA). If the development were to be serviced by Twwtw it is likely that the number of stormwater discharges in Chichester Harbour would increase, adversely affecting the delicate ecology and protected European sites there.

 The site is not contiguous with the defined settlement boundary for Chidham and Hambrook Parish and thus the proposed development is not fully compliant with the Council’s adopted November 2020 Interim Position Statement on Housing Provision.

 Proposals would erode a valuable countryside gap, providing an openness to the setting of the Chichester Harbour AONB when viewed from Walderton Down and weaken the separate identities of Nutbourne and Chidham as individual settlements.

 The site is wholly identified as a strategic wildlife corridor in the emerging local plan under Policy SP30 and development- and impact from street lighting in times of darkness- would be likely to interfere with wildlife commuting across the site, especially bats.

 The developers approach to developing the site has been to largely remove an existing hedgerow and drainage system crossing the site, rather than recognising and seeking to retain and enhance these natural features. The Conservancy considers these natural features-within the proposed strategic wildlife corridor under Policy SP30 in the emerging local plan- to be important and that they should be retained in the interests of nature conservation under Policies 48 and 49 of the adopted local plan.

 Proposals are premature to proper consideration of the emerging local plan and any planned revisions to the neighbourhood plan.

 Proposals would develop on very good agricultural land, given protection under paragraph 170 of the NPPF whilst marginalising other adjacent agricultural land and,

11  Notwithstanding the developer’s commitment to a planning obligation to Bird Aware Solent and open space within the site layout, those occupying the new development would increase recreational disturbance to birds in Chichester Harbour.

S106 clauses to secure.

Planning conditions related to

5.0 STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND

5.1 The AONB Manager introduced the item to members, which was added to the agenda as an urgent matter arising. Havant Borough Council is imminently due to submit its Plan for Examination-in-Public. To assist the independent Inspector in the Examination of the Plan, the Council has Statements of Common Ground with several key stakeholders. These Statements provide a written record and evidence base of where effective cooperation is or is not happening during the Plan’s

12 production. draft form and has been prepared by the Council. It relates to Northney Marina which remains a key area of disagreement between the two parties.

5.2 He said the objective of the document is to distil any difficulties with the emerging local plan and can be used to ascertain with the Planning Inspector whether any objections have merit or not. He said that one of the members of the committee had asked an independent person to review the document who had been dismissive of the arguments made by the Conservancy against the marina development.

5.3 A member noted that both parties to the Statement of Common Ground agreed that the proposed development represented a “major development” for purposes of the NPPF, clause 172. It was therefore up to the applicant to demonstrate that there were “exceptional circumstances” necessitating the development. In the member’s opinion additional housing sites as “a buffer” against targets was an insufficient reason.

5.4 The AONB Manager said that he had taken note of the members comments which he would write up and forward to the officer for Havant Borough Council. It was agreed that the AONB Manager would share his comments by email with the Committee.

6.0 DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING

6.1 The date of the next meeting will be Monday 1 March 2021, from 10.30am via Zoom.

The meeting closed at 12.45pm

Chairman

13 Agenda item 4

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY

PLANNING COMMITTEE

01 MARCH 2021

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK AND NATIONAL MODEL DESIGN CODE: CONSULTATION PROPOSALS

REPORT BY THE AONB MANAGER

1.0 Background

1.1 This English Government consultation seeks views on draft revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Several changes to the text of the NPPF are set out and explained, but they are not proposing a wider review of the NPPF in its entirety at this stage. A fuller review of the NPPF is likely to be required in due course, depending on the implementation of the Government’s proposals for wider reform of the planning system. The closing date is 27 March 2021.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy- framework-and-national-model-design-code-consultation-proposals

1.2 This paper only focusses on how the main proposed changes will affect Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.0 Changes to NPPF Paragraph 172

2.1 The proposed changes to paragraph 172 are shown in red in the box below. It is intended to divide the existing 172 into two new paragraphs, 175 and 176.

2.2 Whilst the above changes may seem insignificant, the explanatory note for prompting the changes is of concern, as shown below.

2.3 If this policy – which has been legally disputed – only applies to the development management stage it means that emerging Local Plans can allocate land within AONBs for major developments without having to justify exceptional circumstances. Those questions will need to be addressed further down the line when planning applications are submitted.

2.4 For example, in real terms, this would mean that the developments like the proposals at Northney Marina would be included in the Havant Local Plan – largely uncontested – and would therefore contribute towards their housing allocation target.

15 2.5 This is a concern because inevitably once a site has been accepted as suitable for development, the discussion progresses to form and function, and away from whether the development should happen at all.

2.6 It is therefore recommended that the Conservancy objects to this change and recommends that the Government clarifies that the new paragraph 176 applies to both to the planning policy stage and the development management stage.

2.7 There are other relevant changes proposed to the NPPF; however, the changes generally seek to strengthen the wording around sustainability and environmental matters.

3.0 National Model Design Code

3.1 The purpose of the National Model Design Code is to provide detailed guidance on the production of design codes, guides and policies to promote successful design. It expands on the ten characteristics of good design set out in the National Design Guide, which reflects the Government’s priorities and provides a common overarching framework for design.

3.2 Members are advised that this document is primarily aimed at Local Planning Authorities. Although it may affect a future iteration of the Joint Chichester Harbour Supplementary Planning Document, it is advised that the Conservancy does not respond to this consultation.

4.0 Recommendations

4.1 It is recommended that the Conservancy:

a) Objects to the proposed to changes to NPPF Paragraph 172 unless the changes cover both the planning policy and development stages.

b) Seeks the support of the wider AONB family in objecting to the proposed changes.

c) Does not respond to the consultation on the National Model Design Code.

Richard Austin

AONB Manager

16 Agenda item 5

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY

PLANNING COMMITTEE

01 MARCH 2021

PLANNING PRINCIPLE 19

REPORT BY THE AONB MANAGER

1.0 The draft text for the new Planning Principle is shown in the box, followed by the draft accompanying text, the Reasoned justification.

PP19 Houseboats Planning Principle 19 provides guidance for those seeking planning permission for a houseboat within the AONB. (A separate process governs the consent requirements as legislated for under Section 40 of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Act of 1971).

Within the Limits of the Harbour but not within a marina

It is very likely that the Conservancy will have compelling grounds to object to any new houseboat within the limits of the Harbour, unless they are in a marina, due to its likely impact on navigation, the AONB and nature conservation.

An objection will be raised where it is probable that the houseboat or its operation would be detrimental to navigational safety, landscape, or nature conservation, or unduly limit or constrain navigation or use of the open water by other harbour users and visitors and where conditions would not be adequate to remove or mitigate these impacts.

The factors listed below in relation to marina requests will be used to inform the decision-making process.

Marinas Impounded by a Seawall

New and replacement houseboats in marinas within Chichester Harbour will likely require planning permission and may also require an Appropriate Assessment. The marinas impounded by a seawall are: Birdham Pool Marina; Chichester Marina; Emsworth Yacht Harbour; and Northney Marina.

The Conservancy will consider all relevant facts information including but not limited to the following factors prior to determining a recommendation to the LPA and whether to request conditions to any permission granted. The same factors will be considered when responding to planning application consultations:

 The houseboat is required to enable the continued viability of an existing marine-related enterprise.  The houseboat does not displace recreational moorings now or in the future.

17  The houseboat would not be detrimental to navigational safety, landscape, or nature conservation.  The land associated with access for the houseboat (the linked land) does not have any environmental designations.  Where applicable, the design of the houseboat and any associated structures are consistent with the Supplementary Planning Document for the AONB (guidance on materials and finishes, colour and appearance, windows, soffits, fascias and guttering).  The houseboat design is unobtrusive to the wider landscape setting.  The houseboat does not unduly increase the likelihood of noise or light pollution.  The proposal, including any screening on the linked land, is not detrimental to the rural character of the area.  The houseboat will connect to mains sewage and electricity, or an alternative means that has no detrimental impact on the Harbour.  The houseboat does not pollute harbour waters.  A risk assessment confirms the safety of occupants.

The Conservancy will seek adherence from the owners to limit the maximum number of houseboats in any given marina impounded by a seawall to five vessels, or up to 1% of licenced berths if greater. The cumulative impact of multiple houseboats in a single location must not compromise Planning Principle 1.

Marinas Un-Impounded by a Seawall

Most new and replacement houseboats in marinas un-impounded by a seawall will require planning permission from the LPA. All will require an Appropriate Assessment. In Chichester Harbour, this applies to: Hayling Yacht Company; Sparkes Marina; and Thornham Marina.

These locations are much more prominent in the landscape and are adjacent to drying mudflats, which are important feeding grounds to overwintering wildfowl and sensitive to recreational disturbance. They also have a range of important environmental designations which the Conservancy must protect. Those designations are listed in the Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-24.

Un-impounded marinas will, in addition to all of the factors to be considered for impounded marinas, have a more stringent test of impact in order to assess their likely impact upon the physical and visual landscape and whether their operation, if permitted, should be limited from April to September so as not to interfere with overwintering birds.

‘Beds on Board’ and Similar Models of Hire

‘Beds on Board’ and similar models of hire will be required to meet the criteria detailed above in terms of the range of factors to be considered in response to a request for planning permission for change of use. Additional conditions to those applied to other houseboats may be imposed due to the likelihood of persons

18 inexperienced in the marine environment using such houseboats and the short- term nature of such occupation.

Chichester Canal

Houseboats along Chichester Canal are likely to require planning permission from the LPA.

The Conservancy is unlikely to object to proposals for a replacement houseboat along Chichester Canal where it can be demonstrated that it is within the same footprint and the elevation silhouette is not more than 25% greater than the existing houseboat. The replacement houseboat must be sympathetically designed and in keeping with the Supplementary Planning Document for the AONB, so it is not detrimental to the rural character of the area (guidance on materials and finishes, colour and appearance, windows, soffits, fascias and guttering).

The Conservancy is more likely to have grounds to proposals for new houseboats along Chichester Canal because the location of any new houseboats would be likely to extend into open countryside and be outside the settlement area. This will most likely have implications for the environmental and landscape value of the location and the designations applying to the area.

2.0 Reasoned justification

2.1 The Chichester Harbour Conservancy Act of 1971 defines a ‘houseboat’ as, “any vessel or structure lying in the water or on the foreshore of or banks abutting on the harbour all or part of which is used or capable of being used as a place of habitation (whether temporarily, intermittently or permanently), as a store or as a place for accommodating or receiving persons for purposes of shelter, recreation, entertainment or refreshment, as club premises or as offices and includes the remains of wreckage of a vessel or structure formerly so used or capable of being so used, but shall not include any ship registered under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, or any vessel bona fide used for navigation.” This definition would encompass all vessels temporarily being used as accommodation and incorporates ‘Beds on Board’ and other similar models of hire.

The Conservancy appreciates there is a growing need for marine businesses to diversify to remain vibrant hubs for the sailing and boating community and visitors. Providing the factors within Planning Principle 19 are fully considered and the aims of the policy and the listed factors for consideration can be met, the Conservancy is unlikely to object to applications for permission for new houseboats in the Harbour, relating to an existing marina business, that will not adversely and unreasonably impact on the wider AONB.

However, the Conservancy considers the main water body of the Harbour should be managed and maintained as a clear and open space for the safe and wider enjoyment of the public, as well as the conservation and enhancement of the environment. The open space is already shared among many water and landscape

19 users and must be seen in the wider context of the purpose and aims of the designation as an AONB.

The Conservancy is likely, when considering the factors set out in its Planning Principles, to object to any houseboat application within the wider Harbour outside marinas, since it would likely permanently deny space to others, interfere with the public right of navigation, compromise navigational safety and conflict with the AONB designation, wildlife, and special qualities.

Within impounded marinas, all requests for replacement houseboats must be carefully considered. Replacement houseboats, even if covering the same footprint, may add an unacceptable height increase, resulting in a detrimental visual impact. Larger structures may also result in the increased likelihood of noise and light pollution. In terms of the design and finish of a replacement houseboat, the Conservancy would seek compliance with the Supplementary Planning Document for the AONB, where applicable.

For all new houseboats, the Conservancy would expect to see details of screening proposals on land associated with, and linked to, the houseboat mooring, where applicable, as part of the planning application requirements.

Richard Austin

AONB Manager

20 Agenda item 6a

Local Planning Authority planning application reference: FB/20/02723/FUL

Site: Land East of The Trees, Main Road, Fishbourne, Chichester, West Sussex

Proposals: Proposed single dwelling with associated access and infrastructure

Application details on LPA webpage – https://publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QINRREERHRT00

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Chichester District Council, as local planning authority be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy raises objection to the proposed development.

(b) That the following planning issues impacting on the AONB are considered to justify an objection to the proposal.

Refusal Overview: The proposal for this housing plot on previously used domestic land would physically change the character of the site and visual gap within the countryside area, creating a continuous urban ribbon development to the road in appearance and form. This is out-of-place and out-of-keeping with this countryside location that overlooks the visually important AONB protected landscape.

 Lack of land use justification in close proximity to the AONB protected landscape  Noticeable impact to the AONB protected landscape.  Wastewater sewerage systems capacity is not demonstrated or proven  Recreational wildlife disturbance within the AONB protected landscape.

21  Required to secure contributions towards Solent Bird Aware Protocol  Lack of provision of an Appropriate Assessment as required by legislation.

Procedural Guidance : Planning Approach to the AONB

Chichester Harbour Conservancy, administer and safeguard the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The aim of conserving and enhancing the areas natural beauty requires the Conservancy to consider the proposal on its landscape character aspects and wildlife, ecology and biodiversity implications. Landscape covers both countryside and coastal areas as well as rural villages and market town urban environments.

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty.

The LPA should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

1.0 Chichester Harbour Policy Guidance

1.1 The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB. The guidance is based upon a number of planning related documents which the Chichester Harbour Conservancy will take into account in formulating its consultation response to the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

1.2 The AONB Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (update 2019) The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) The AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) These principles set a range of criteria to be addressed to warrant a favourable consideration in terms of likely impact within and on the AONB. Planning Principles’ applicable to this proposal include- - PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area - PP04: Creation of New Dwellings and Residential Institutions - PP09: Dark Skies The Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (2017)

Conservancy Officer’s comments and reasoned justification

2.0 Site Context and Existing Development

2.1 The planning unit / red-line application site is adjoining but outside the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protected national landscape, where development is subject to more stringent planning guidance to ensure that development respects and enhances the inherent qualities of such a sensitive location.

22 2.2 Other contextual setting considerations - - The red-line application site indicates the proposed residential planning unit - The proposed development area occupies the whole of the red-line site - The red-line site occupies the side garden to the host property, the blue-line land - The red-lines site lies within a countryside area, outside the nearest settlement - The site is not believed to lie within a LPA designated Conservation Area - The site is not indicated to be on or close to a building on the scheduled list of buildings of historic or architectural importance - The site is confirmed as being within Flood Zone 1: Low Probability of flooding - (CDC Coastal Engineer consultation comments 18 Dec 2020).

2.3 The 0.04 ha (0.09 acre) red-line site is north of Main Road (A259 - Emsworth to Chichester route) and west of the main Fishbourne settlement. The site is currently used as a vehicular access and parking area for the host dwelling located to the west half of the landholding, and as part of the domestic garden amenity area.

2.4 The road frontage (south) boundary is a 2m high close boarded fence, with a low brick wall to the retained blue-line host property. The proposed new west boundary is currently an open part of the domestic garden. The rear (north) and east boundaries are hedgerow. The site has a clear visual presence on the street scene.

3.0 Relevant planning history

3.1 92/00018/FB – Outline, detached dwelling and garage including new access and turning area for the existing property. LPA refusal. There is no record available on the LPA public access web page for this case reference.

4.0 Proposed development and Supporting Documents

4.1 The current application is for full permission for the erection of a dwelling together with a new vehicular access and associated service provision. The dwelling is shown as a two-storey detached house positioned to the front eastern part of the site with a private domestic garden amenity area to the rear (north) and car parking (3 bays) to the west part of the red-line site. The house would provide four bedrooms. 4.2 The design is for a traditional building with ridged roof. The roof arrangement gives a hidden gutter to the rear middle part of the roof. The materials are indicated as red stock brick to the ground floor and timber or fibre cement cladding to the first floor. The roof is to be clay tiles. No replacement vehicular access is indicated (in this submission) for the host property.

4.3 For surface water drainage, the submitted Drainage Statement infers that “the applicant is happy to accept a planning condition requiring winter groundwater monitoring and winter BRE365 soakage testing. These will inform the surface water drainage design. If the testing is favourable then standard Geocellular soakaways units will be located in the rear garden to deal with roof water runoff, with the driveway constructed in a porous surfacing discharging groundwater directly into the ground. If the testing finds poor soakage and/or high-water levels, then shallow soakaway units will be utilised to the garden and beneath the driveway as required.”

4.4 For foul water drainage, the submitted Drainage Statement indicates that “There is a public foul water sewer located in Main Road, to which the proposed dwelling can

24 easily connect.” There is no verification that Southern Water has considered the proposal against the capacity of the nearest wastewater treatment Plant.

4.5 The submitted Nitrogen Neutrality Report indicates that there would be additional nitrogen resulting from the proposal of “0.7 kg N/yr for which mitigation is required. Due to the very small-scale nature of the surplus it is proposed that mitigation is provided from the Council’s own bank of schemes that provides for a small amount of ‘nitrogen credit’.”

4.6 The submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Opinion states from the CDC Ecologist that “the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect (or may have significant effects) from the increase in residential development in the 5.6km buffer for the Chichester Harbour SPA, where recreational disturbance is recognised to have a significant effect on some or all of the Qualifying Features of the European Site alone. An Appropriate Assessment is required.” There is no indication of an Appropriate Assessment having been submitted.

4.7 The submitted DAS indicates in para. 3.15 that “the proposed development will result in a net increase in dwellings within 5.6km of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA), or 3.5km of the Pagham Harbour SPA. The applicant agrees to a commitment to provide mitigation via a financial contribution of £768.00 plus a £100.00 monitoring fee to Bird Aware Solent (for Chichester & Langstone Harbours SPA) which can be secured by the Council’s standard Unilateral Undertaking in the usual way.”

4.8 Submitted in support of the application documents (forms, plans and drawings) and relevant to the AONB consideration are a Design and Access Statement (including a mitigation statement), Drainage Statement, Nitrogen Nutrality Report, and a Habitats Regulations Assessment.

5.0 Applicants Approach to the AONB protected landscape

5.1 The site lies outside but close to the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The submission has therefore made no consideration of the application proposal within the context and setting of the AONB.

6.0 AONB Planning Considerations

6.1 The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty (see procedural guidance note above). The overarching principle, PP01 is applicable to the proposal. Any development in, or affecting the setting of, the AONB should be guided by the four principles as indciated in Section 2 of the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) in order to protect, conserve and enhance natural beauty and wildlife.

6.2 The principle of the development to the AONB protected landscape needs to be considered. The AONB Planning Principles are applicable to the AONB protected landscape and development that impacts upon the protected landscape. The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to

25 the AONB protected landscape from or by this proposal.

6.3 The consideration would require a full and detailed assessment of the potential, possible, and probable impact to the character and appearance of the site and locality of the AONB protected landscape. The main AONB protected landscape Planning Principle policy assessment issues to be considered for this site relate to –

1. The principle of the use and activity of the development to the AONB landscape 2. The positioning layout design and visual character and impact to the AONB 3. The proposed physical works, scale, massing and bulk on the AONB landscape 4. The building design, character, appearance and finished treatment to the AONB 5. The impact on the tranquility and natural environment to the AONB landscape 6. The wildlife, biodiversity and environmental effects within the AONB landscape 7. Any measures to mitigate the impact of ecological and environmental disturbance 8. Consideration agaist the relevant AONB Planning Principle policy considerations

1. Principle of the use and activity to the AONB protected landscape

6.4 The principle of the proposed use and activity has to be considered alongside its relationship to the land which surrounds it. It is considered to be contrary to the protection of the countryside for its own sake. The proposal seeks a new residential development on the red-line site which is outside the main settlement area of the adjoining village. The land has not been allocated for residential development through the statutory Local Plan process.

6.5 The use and activity has the potential for meeting housing needs within the locailty. However, housing development beyond the essential requirements of the rural economy in the countryside can be catered for outside of the AONB, and beyond the surrounding countryside that supports and provides a setting to the designated AONB protected landscape. Given the other options for housing within the LPA administrative area, the case against the proposal is the undeniable impact the resulting use and activity would have on the AONB protected landscape.

2. Positioning, Layout design and visual character and impact of the site to the AONB

6.6 The principle of the proposed layout design character and appearance on the AONB supporting landscape environment would be a clear departure from the exisitng situation. The impact of the proposal on the gap within the ribbon development that exisits within the countryside character would be noticable along the street scene and erodes further the visually open gap within this setting. The proximity of the proposal to the AONB would create a visual association and impact on the protected landscape.

3. Physical works, scale, massing and bulk on the AONB landscape

6.7 The principle of the proposed physical works, scale and massing / bulk would be a recognisable change from the exisitng open countryside gap along this run of ribbon development. The two-storey building would have little screening to the AONB protected national landscape, giving a clear vista into the site and the dwelling

26 proposed.

4. Building design, character, appearance and finished treatment to the AONB

6.8 The design and finished treatment of the proposal are not considered to be sympathetic or reflect a countryside dwelling, or one that has a physical impact on the appearance of the adjoining AONB. There is no ‘beauty’ added to the natural setting by the proposed steril building design proposed. The building design is uninspiring having little character or sympathy to the countryside location on the fringe of the AONB.

5. Tranquility and natural environment qualities in the AONB

6.9 The use and activity associated with the proposal on the rural character and tranquility of the nearby AONB protected landscape would be difficult to measure, other than to agree that the additional household on the periphery of the AONB would generate additional traffic and human activity in the immediate locality.

6.10 The potential noise impact resulting from the proposed development and activity would have to be considered against the noise impacts from the exisiting road network (A259) and adjacent dwellings in this ribbon development strip. The usual noise profile of residential development is unlikley to be a significant issue in terms of any likely noise implications to the AONB protected landscape.

6. Wildlife, Biodiversity and environmental affects within the AONB

6.11 It is understood from caselaw that a local planning authority must not determine an application until the absence of protected species from the site or a method statement where presence is established has been undertaken.

6.12 The development will result in an increased level of human activity within the site and areas surrounding the site. This is likely to result in increased disturbance of wildlife. The likley direct effects of the proposal on the wildlife, biodiversity and general environmental quality of the AONB protected landscape environment is considered to be limited.

6.13 Although the exisitng domestic garden has relatively little ecological value, the scale of the development will significantly erode the open space available for local wildlife. This could be mitigated to some extent by the provision of on site ecological enhancements, such as the provision of bat and bird boxes. None have been indicated in the submission. Existing trees and hedges and any other green infrastructure should be retained, as the site currently is extremely poor from this perspective.

6.14 The proposal has made reference to surface water and a foul water drainage. The advice of the NPPF in respect of surface water run-off is that flow rates after the development should be no greater than the existing circumstance. The submission has not established this would be the result.

27 6.15 The submitted Drainage Statement does not clearly identify that there is enough headroom capacity existing in wastewater sewage treatment works infrastructure to serve the development of the housing estate (AONB PP04 criteria). The Conservancy needs to be persuaded by Southern Water that adequate headroom capacity exists at the Thornham waste-water treatment works and that water quality in and the delicate ecology of Chichester Harbour SPA will not be compromised.

6.16 Due to the uncertainty that the proposal can be accommodated by exisitng wastewater treatment infrastructure without causing harm to coastal designated sites, Natural England guidance is that all new development proposals should achieve nitrogen neutrality. The nutrient balancing assessment submitted indicates that the proposal would result in an increase in the Total Nitrate (TN) discharge. This has the potential to result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the Solent coastal sites. Mitigation measures are is needed, but whilst acknowledging this, the submission relies on the Council to address this identified environmental problem (submitted Nitrogen Neutrality Report).

7. Measures to mitigate the impact of ecological and environmental disturbance.

6.17 P.U.S.H. which includes Chichester District Council, have formed a partnership and commissioned studies into recreational impact and an interim mitigation strategy - the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Definitive Strategy – which has been adopted by partners, including the Conservancy, and has the support of Natural England. Under the European Habitats Regulations, such mitigation must be secured before affected development can be supported.

6.18 The proposal increases residential accommodation on the landholding. Therefore, there may be an increased pressure on the rural character of the area through visitations to the red-line site compared to the current situation. The requirement to make an appropriate wildlife mitigation through the Bird Aware initiative is a valid requirement in this situation. This is acknowledged in the submission.

6.19 The addition of an additional dwelling would lead to an increase in light pollution from the use and activity of the dwelling and from visits to and from the building. There are no proposals to limit unnecessary light generation from the site, contrary to the requirements of the Dark Skies protocol (Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD Section 30, and AONB PP09). Without external light limitation measures the effects on the scenic quality of dark night skies within the surrounds would be further harmed.

8. AONB Planning Principle policy considerations applicable to the proposal

6.20 The site is adjacent to, but outside the AONB protected landscape. The Chichester Harbour Management Plan Policy-1 Conserving and Enhancing the Landscape, Policy- 2 Development Management, and Policy-3 Diversity of Habitats, are relevant. The AONB Planning Principles and the policy considerations only apply to the protected national landscape.

6.21 AONB PP04 requires development to address key criteria. The proposal does not lie within the existing settlement boundary. The proposals surface water and foul water

28 drainage is not clear and fails to identify that there is enough headroom capacity exists in wastewater sewage treatment works infrastructure to serve the development.

6.22 AONB PP09:Dark Skies is applicable to proposals within a countryside, coastal or semi-rural location where light illumination would have a wider impact and influence than only to the site and immediate surrounds, and could create a visual impact to the AONB protected landscape setting. The proposal fails to make any concessions to this Planning Principle.

Conclusion

1. The site lies close to the AONB protected landscape and within the supporting wider environment. The development area of the red-line site lies outside of a settlement policy area and therefore within the countryside.

2. The proposal would introduce new residential development to the area. On this basis, the proposal should be considered against the published policy requirements for such development. This includes AONB PP04 policy guidance.

3. The proposal can be seen to compromise the aspects of the Chichester Harbour AONB protected landscape designation planning approach, and therefore is seen as being harmful to a UK National Landscape area.

CHC Planning Committee Process

DR - prepared for 01.03.2021 CHC Planning Committee (meeting via internet) Assessment 24-02-2020 LPA request reply 03-03-2021 LPA extension of time has been agreed Chichester Harbour AONB Case Assessor: David Rothery LPA Planning Case Officer: Calum Thomas

This recommendation is made having regard to the Policy framework: - Chichester Harbour Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024) - Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document SPD (2017) - National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) - National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) - Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015)

Visit our webpage – www.conservancy.co.uk/page/planning Chichester Harbour Conservancy manage and advise on the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty One of the UK’s National Landscapes

31 Agenda item 6b

Local Planning Authority planning application reference: BO/20/03326/FUL

Site: Five Elms, Stumps Lane Bosham PO18 8QJ

Proposals: Demolition of existing house and garage and the construction of new house and garage. Amendments to site levels and additional planting

Recommendation – No objection, subject to the following suggested planning conditions:-

 suitable external hard surfacing, facing and roofing materials being agreed.  permitted development rights relating to further extensions, outbuildings or roof alterations be removed;  that demolition of all existing buildings and their removal from the site, unless to be recycled and this agreed in writing with the local planning authority to occur.  that the existing hedge on the southern boundary to be safeguarded during construction and retained as part of the submitted landscape design.  specified planting within the design and access statement, including the planting of nine trees to heavy nursery standard, to be fully implemented prior to first occupation of the dwelling.  any new soft planting that fails, becomes diseased or is removed within 5 years of it being initially planted shall be replaced with similar species in the next planting season; and,  investigate/record/archive site archaeology.

1.0 Site and its context

1.1 This 0.08ha roughly triangular site is within the Settlement Policy Area but within Flood Zone 3. The previous agent reported that in June 2012 and February 2014,

32 tidal flooding of 2.85m AOD occurred at the site. Five Elms is a part two/part single storey detached house with light coloured rendered ground floor and tile hung first floor elevations and hipped, plain tiled roof. Site levels vary from 2.3 AoD to 3.45m AoD at the northern boundary. The highest part of the existing dwelling is 9.64m AoD with an eaves line 7.2m AoD. The ground level of the site is about 1.4m lower than that of the adjoining house to the north in Stumps End). It is situated in a large, narrow plot which tappers to a point towards the junction with Taylors Lane. The street elevation of the existing house and some photographs of its current appearance are shown below.

1.2 It is within the ‘D: Rest of Bosham’ character area of the Bosham Village Design Statement (VDS). This notes that - “Houses are set back from sunken roads, often hidden by trees, hedges and well-tended gardens. The eye is drawn upwards to the roofscape which is, in general, pleasingly harmonious”. There is mature tree planting to much of its north boundary and mature hedge to most of the southern boundary, punctuated in two places by vehicular access points.

1.3 A pumping station exists to the west, in a single storey building set back from the street but raised up on an embankment. The open character of that land allows greater visibility of Five Elms, but longer views from the Harbour some 140m to the west are curtailed by a large Weeping Willow tree on the corner with Stumps End, a small residential cul-de-sac of mostly 2 storey dwellings, with some having created accommodation in their main roof spaces. The next nearest housing is some way north in Taylors Lane (Byways and Eastfield Cottage).

33 1.4 Being on an exposed corner, the site is highly visible from the south and east. A public footpath exists to the north/north-east of the site, part crossing open arable fields, raised up from the carriageway of Taylors Lane. Views here are somewhat curtailed by the trees to the northern boundary of the site.

1.5 Paragraph 5.9 of the VDS states – “‘Infill’ developments especially which lose garden or wildlife areas should be firmly discouraged due to the threat to the existing townscape and to avoid pressure on a periodically stressed sewerage system. Careful consideration should be given to the volume of ‘replacement’ buildings which affect the ratio between the built area to the open land and the rhythm of the existing perspectives. The style and siting of housing should be appropriate to the immediate environment as indicated by scale, shape, proportion and colour. In essence, the quality of streetscape should be maintained. There are developments locally which are now considered to be out of proportion with the area. This kind of ‘massing’ should be prevented in future developments”.

1.6 Paragraph 5.14 goes on to state –“For properties overlooking the harbour or open land, domestic extensions and other incremental additions to existing dwellings should restrict the increase in the ‘footprint’ and the ‘silhouette’ of any elevation of the original building visible from the wider landscape in accordance with the Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions; Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”. (That guidance is now reinforced/strengthened/superseded by the Joint CHAONB SPD).

1.7 A Neighbourhood Plan (NP) has been ‘made’ for Bosham. Policy 2 relating to new housing development is the most relevant.

1.8 The existing property is not Listed, and its modest architecture is not particularly noteworthy, with an unsympathetic roof addition having been added in the past.

1.9 The site is within a defined Settlement Policy Area and sits in the G4 (Bosham Peninsula) character area abutting the D2 (Fishbourne Channel). Key characteristics of the latter include:-

 Undeveloped and mostly tranquil character  This landscape has high sensitivity to change and the strategy is one of conservation.

2.0 Relevant planning history

2.1 Under application 99/01627/DOM permission was refused to demolish the detached garage form a larger guest annexe, with wide catslide dormer window above a new detached garage, increasing the ridge height to some 5.8m. This was refused owing to bulk and height causing harm to the AONB and loss of on-site turning.

2.2 Under application 99/02109/DOM permission was granted to form a larger guest annexe at the eastern end of a new detached garage/domestic workshop, increasing the existing roof ridge height to 4.8m, for the garage/workshop part of

35 the structure. This was subject to planning condition 3 requiring that the accommodation always be ancillary to Five Elms and never be used as a separate dwelling.

2.3 Under application 00/01297 permission was granted to form a larger guest annexe as part of the detached garage, increasing the approved roof ridge height from 4.8m to 5.5m, resulting on what appears on the site today. This was subject to planning condition 3 requiring that the accommodation always be ancillary to Five Elms and never be used as a separate dwelling. The Conservancy did not oppose that application.

2.4 Application 07/01809/DOM sought to convert the garage part of the detached structure to additional living accommodation for the annexe. This was refused as being tantamount to creating an additional dwelling and overdevelopment of the plot. Unacceptable flood risk was also identified.

2.5 An application was made for a Certificate of lawfulness for use as the annexe as a dwelling was applied for under reference 09/02333/ELD. With no evidence to dispute the applicant’s claim, the Conservancy offered ‘no comment’ on the application. A Certificate confirming lawfulness was issued 5 March 2010. The significance of this decision is that is recognises there are two lawful dwellings on this plot.

2.6 Application 10/05678/FUL proposed to convert the existing garage into additional living accommodation for the small dwelling, basically laid out as for 07/01809/FUL. The Conservancy had no objections. This was refused 22.2.2011. Reasoning related to overdevelopment, tantamount to the creation of 2 sub-standard plots, uncharacteristic of the area. This decision was Appealed but dismissed 8.8.2011. The Inspector found that formalising sub-division of the plot, was out of keeping with footprint to plot ratios locally, that poor living conditions would result, and flood risks be increased compared to surrounding dwellings, where occupants could at least retreat to first floor accommodation.

2.7 Application 14/02419/FUL - Demolition of 2 no. dwellings and the construction of 2 no. replacement houses - was withdrawn.

2.8 Application 14/04280/FUL - Demolition of 2 dwellings and the construction of 2 replacement dwellings, was refused for the following reason –

“The application site lies in a prominent position on the edge of the designated Bosham Settlement Policy Area within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed replacement dwellings by virtue of their height, massing, bulk and form would result in cramped and over developed plots, which would fail to respect or respond to its context and would not reinforce local distinctiveness. Furthermore, by reason of the height, massing, bulk, form, the design of the proposal would result in an incongruous form of development, which would be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the locality. The proposal would therefore be contrary to saved policies BE11, BE12, BE13 of the Chichester Local Plan 1999, Policies 1, 33, 49 of the Chichester Emerging Local Plan and paragraphs 17, 56, 58, 60, 61, 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

2.9 Application 15/01543/FUL - Demolition of 2 dwellings and the construction of 2 replacement dwellings was given conditional permission. The street elevation approved is shown overleaf.

2.10 17/02820/PREOT – This pre-application enquiry proposed a modernist 3 level replacement house, the bottom level being a semi-basement level. The house was shown with a pitched roof. A cautious no objection in principle was offered with some reservations which included:-

 No design and access statement has been put forward to support the design approach taken and how this would sit comfortably in its context.  The design put forward appears to be of contemporary design, with a uniform, rectangular, first floor floorplate, topped by a conventional pitched roof running parallel to the street, ‘floating’ over a number of ground floor ‘pods’ arranged at angles to the first-floor floorplate. It is hard to comment on the merits of such an approach since no elevations have been provided.  The floor plans suggest a high degree of glazing in the south elevation, presumably design to take advantage of passive solar gain and views over the open countryside beyond. That at ground floor would be mitigated to a degree by the first-floor floorplate oversailing it;  Usable garden space beyond the garage would be poorly related to the house in terms of intervisibility.  Bringing the dwelling footprint closer to the street, by deletion of the front/west steps and deck may be an option to improve the size of the rear garden, yet still keep a reasonable set back to the street.  No schedule of external materials has been put forward.  Clarification should also be sought regarding retention of the existing tree and hedge lined boundaries, as drawing P102 is silent on this point. The Conservancy supports their retention.  The Conservancy would like the sustainable credentials of the replacement buildings demonstrated.  A cautious approach needs to be taken with this prominent, but awkwardly shaped site. I am not convinced with the juxtaposition of the first floor to the ground floor, with a seemingly ordinary pitched roof sitting on a contemporary ‘box’ with a number of disparate elements projecting from it. A flat-roofed solution might be more appropriate in terms of keeping overall height down and presenting a unified architectural approach. More work needs to be done on justifying the design for a new dwelling here, driven by a proper contextual analysis of the site and its surroundings.

3.11 18/00806/FUL – Replacement (5 bedroom) dwelling and garage. This proposed a two-and-a-half-storey, flat-roofed dwelling finished in a mixture of red brick and timber cladding. A semi-basement level was also going to provide reception/family room spaces. Although a pitched, hipped roof set of amendments were submitted, the applicant later withdrew those and reverted to the original design, whose highest part would have been 10.3m AoD (lowest site level being 2.3m AoD). The Conservancy made the following comments at its 29.1.2019 Planning Consultative Committee meeting – “Continued objection, on the basis that no reasoned basis has been set out for the

37 replacement dwelling’s design, notwithstanding the amended plans showing a change to a pitched roof profile and then now back the previous flat roof profile, which is still very divergent in appearance to the surrounding character of dwellings adjoining it.” Notwithstanding those views the Council granted planning permission 15.3.2019. Your Officer is not aware of any works having been commenced to implement that permission. Some images of the approved scheme (which could still be commenced before 15.3.2022), are shown below. The pink indicates the existing lawful dwelling footprints.

38 3.12 18/01017/FUL - Demolition and replacement of 2 no dwellings. This basically renewed permission 15/01543/FUL before it lapsed. Permission 18/01017/FUL has not been commenced as far as you Officer is aware and could still be commenced up to 16.8.2021.

3.13 A pre-application, on-line meeting was held with the current site owner and their architect and planning consultant on 20.5.2020 and has led to the submission of this planning application. The applicant also approached the Council for pre- application advice under reference 20/01382/PASUR in June 2020.

4.0 Proposed development

4.1 Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a single, 5 bedroomed dwelling arranged on two levels, but raised up on a plinth to futureproof it from flood risk. The highest part would be 10.35m AoD (lowest site level being 2.3m AoD). Other level changes are proposed to create an integral double garage within half of the ‘plinth’ space and a detailed hard and soft landscape design has been submitted with the existing southern boundary hedge to be kept in place. The ‘plinth’ matches a vernacular approach to flood risk found along Shore Road and those part of Bosham High Street fronting the Harbour.

4.2 Some images of the submitted scheme are shown below.

40 4.3 A detailed contextual analysis of the site has been undertaken and the design informed by identified site constraints and opportunities. The scheme represents a transition between urban built form and the open countryside at the limit of the defined settlement boundary. Key in the project brief have been to improve on the design quality of extant permissions and create a synergistic design between house, landscape and site. The architect has won national design awards and sits on two Design Review Panels in London. A landscape architect, flood risk consultant and private planning consultant have also informed the design process.

4.4 Evolving from a single building mass, leaving the eastern end of the site clear of built form where the garage currently is, ends have been chamfered off to give a dynamic form and punctuated to provide an entrance dividing the mass into a single storey element over the semi-basement garage space. A roof terrace is provided over that, which has steps down to the lower eastern garden level. Existing gaps in the southern boundary hedge have been re-used to maintain the hedge. Gates are to be fitted to these gaps in the hedge to keep the dwelling curtilage secure and private. The main garden space is between the dwelling and Stumps Lane, with a more secluded and sheltered sitting space to be provided in the north-west corner of the site, fitted with a pergola. The two-storey element would sit to the left (west) with another 4 bedrooms sat underneath the main living spaces at first floor taking advantage of views, oversailing bedroom windows angled to enjoy views to the south-east over open countryside.

4.5 Circulation space has been located on the northern edge of the building to prevent overlooking of neighbours and generally orientate outlook to the south, west and east.

4.6 Footprint and silhouette analysis seen above shows the silhouette would not be more than 25% and that the footprint would barely increase above the existing dwelling and be less than the consented 18/00806/FUL dwelling. The height of the new dwelling would be marginally higher than the existing roof ridge height, but still less than 9 Stumps End to the north.

41 4.7 Proposed materials are specified above and follow the advice of the CHAONB SPD with darker hues and a solid stone base topped by timber boarding.

4.8 The garden has been broken into six distinct zones, each with its own character, function and connectivity to both the adjacent zones and in some cases, directly to the house. The main roof may be considered a seventh (non-accessible) zone as it will be a green or biodiverse roof. Planting is chosen to be suited for the coastal climate, unirrigated, adapted to climate change and beneficial to local biodiversity. 9 new trees are indicated within the design including the eastern end of the site as suggested by your Officer in his pre-application advice.

Policy framework*

NPPF - 1-3, 6-15, 28, 30, 34, 38-42; 47-48, 54-56, 59-70, 71, 73-79, 91, 96- 97, 102- 103, 105-106, 108-110, 117-118, 122-128, 130-131, 148-150, 155, 163- 164, 170-172, 174-177, 180, 212-213; NPPG - IDs 6-8, 15, 18a, 20, 21a, 21b, 26, 31, 34, 56, 65, 66; CLP –1, 33, 39-40, 43, 48-49; POCLP - S1-S3, S20, S23, S26-S27, S31, DM8, DM16, DM18-DM19, DM23, DM28-DM29, DM31; BMNP – 2 and 5-9; CHMP – 1-2; PP – 01, 03, 09; SPG/SPD.

5.0 Key issues

5.1 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of AONB/biodiversity from inappropriate development –

5.1.1 Planning permissions 18/00806/FUL and 18/01017/FUL are still extant and could be implemented, so represent the fallback position and material planning considerations. The Council has accepted that a flat-roofed dwelling design at this site.

5.1.2 The new house, will not be visible from the harbour but there would be longer views across fields from the south and the east (where there is a public footpath). They would be seen partly screened by mature vegetation, but the increased massing and height above existing built form would be most noticeable within the AONB, on this very exposed corner of the settlement boundary.

5.1.3 The applicant has carefully considered the site’s context, constraints and opportunities, markedly improving on 18/00806/FUL, taking on board the advice of The Conservancy and the Council. A large rooflight has also been scaled down to 3 smaller skylights which are more respectful of the Conservancy’s dark skies agenda, under its Planning Principle 9.

5.1.3 There would be just over a 25% footprint increase. Silhouette calculations/comparisons are comparable to the approval under 18/00806/FUL and less than 18/01017/FUL. Because of its orientation, the new dwelling would have a much wider silhouette than the existing, thus making it more prominent in the landscape when viewed north close up, or at distance across fields from Taylors Lane. The amount of glazing to the southern elevation tempered by brise soleil, recessed angled bedroom windows are considered appropriate and proportionate to the elevation as a whole.

5.2 Heritage –

5.2.1 There are no heritage assets close to the site.

5.2.2 There is potential for ground bearing archaeology to be disturbed by the construction of new foundations the council will ultimately take a view on this, but it is recommended that at the very least a watching brief is prepared and any finds recorded and appropriately archived in the council’s Historic Environment Record, if the council is ultimately minded to support a formal planning application.

5.3 Flood risk –

5.3.1 According to the Environment Agency’s flood maps, the stores building lies within Flood Zone 3 (highest risk). The applicant’s solution to raise up the built form is understood, and the raised ground floor level would be set at 4.5m AoD (EA in its pre-ap response September 2020 had specified 4.4 m AoD). A full flood risk assessment has set out how the building is to be made flood resilient. By signing up to EA flood risk alerts it would be possible to evacuate the site before a flood event, or if an exceptional event occurred without warning all habitable accommodation would be above the modelled flood levels. These measures will no doubt be conditioned by the local planning authority if it is minded to grant permission and represent an improvement on the existing circumstance. The green roof and reduction in hard (non-permeable) surfacing at the site would lead to reduced surface-water run-off.

5.4 High quality, low carbon design –

5.4.1 The Joint CHAONB SPD to the design of new dwellings around the harbour recommends the use of low visual impact claddings to the elevations in the AONB,

43 as they blend well into the natural landscape. The proposed schedule of external materials put forward does accord with the AONB SPD.

5.4.2 Sustainable construction could ultimately be delivered through a planning condition, but the Conservancy would have liked to have seen the sustainable credentials of the replacement buildings demonstrated.

5.5 Residential amenity –

5.5.1 This is really a matter for the Council to determine.

5.6 Nitrate neutrality-

5.6.1 A net reduction of one dwelling would occur at the site, so it is concluded that a net reduction of foul flows from the site would result and therefore no further assessment or likely adverse impact to the European sites in Chichester Harbour is likely.

6.0 Conclusions

6.1 It is concluded that the house, as now designed would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB and that the submitted detailed landscape design would bed the new dwelling into the landscape, replacing built form at the eastern end of the site with new tree planting and an open garden space.

6.2 The existing dwelling relates poorly to the street and has had an unsympathetic roof addition during its lifetime. Replacement dwellings have of course been accepted in the past and the fact that only one is being proposed now is to be welcomed in principle. The Conservancy would wish to see demolition of the 2nd ‘dwelling’, prior to occupation of a new dwelling required by a planning condition if a consent is to ultimately be given.

6.3 In conclusion, a thoughtful design has evolved to create a striking and attractive contemporary dwelling at an important gateway into Bosham, whilst softening built form at the site, which would only be 5cm higher than the approval under 18/00806/FUL.

SRL - For 1.3.21 CHC Planning Committee

Comments requested by: 15 March 2021.

*Abbreviations used

NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (Revised February 2019)

NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014 onwards)

CLP –Chichester Local Plan (2015)

POCLP – Preferred option Chichester Local Plan 2035

BMNP – ‘Made’ version Bosham Neighbourhood Plan (2016)

CHMP – Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024)

PP – Planning Principles (first adopted by The Conservancy 17.10.16 and since modified)

SPG/SPD – Planning guidance published by Chichester District Council relating to:-

44 • Bosham Village Design Statement (2011)

• Parking standards (2007)

• Joint CHAONB SPD (2017)

45 Agenda item 6c

Local Planning Authority planning application reference: CH/20/03378/OUT

Site: Land at Flat Farm Hambrook West Sussex PO18 8FT

Proposals: Outline application for erection of 30 dwellings comprising 21 market and 9 affordable homes, access and associated works including the provision of swales, with all matters reserved other than access

NB – your Officer has altered the description of development, as that advertised implies planning permission exists at the site for new housing, which it is not the case.

Recommendation - Objection:-

(i) That insufficient headroom exists at the Thornham wastewater treatment works (Twwtw), evidenced from a written response from Southern Water dated 27/1/21, when it as commented on application 20/03319/OUTEIA in Nutbourne. If the proposed development were to be serviced by Twwtw, it is likely that the number of stormwater discharges into Chichester Harbour would increase, adversely affecting the delicate ecology and protected European sites there; (ii) That until Natural England withdraws its holding objection in relation to the issue of nitrate neutrality and the Council has satisfied itself that from undertaking an appropriate assessment, no significant harm would result to Chichester Harbour under the Habitat Regulations 2017, a precautionary approach should be taken to avoid environmental harm; (iii) Proposals would erode a valuable countryside gap, providing separation between the settlements of Hambrook and Broadbridge (Bosham); and, (iv) The land is designated countryside where development will only be permitted where it requires a countryside location and meets an essential, small scale and local need which cannot be met within the existing settlement. The application

46 is therefore considered to be prejudicial to the proper consideration of the existing and emerging local and neighbourhood plans.

If the council is however minded to grant outline permission, the following conditions are suggested as well as planning obligations to deliver ecological mitigation for likely recreational disturbance at Chichester Harbour and the open space within the new housing layout to a minimum specified area.

 That the recommendations of the site investigation report be implemented.  That the fitting of bat boxes, hedgehog ‘igloos’ and reptile hibernaculum, set out in the submitted ecological reports by ‘ecosupport’ that accompanied an earlier application at the site, be implemented before the first occupation of each respective dwelling and thereafter retained in situ.  That any works to existing trees be carried outside the bird breeding/nesting season.  That all existing trees shown to be retained be safeguarded during construction in accordance with the submitted arboricultural method statement.  That the ‘dispersal’ of any reptiles onto adjoining farmland, found during site clearance and regimen set out in the previous ‘ecosupport’ report that accompanied an earlier application at the site.  Agreement of materials samples and implementation with the approved details (Reserved matter – Appearance).  Agreement of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, to include new mature tree planting to heavy nursery standard to the numbers suggested by the submitted site layout plan, but also to the site’s eastern boundary (concluded in the submitted LVIA). This should include the promotion of native species soft planting, which again secures biodiversity enhancement at the same time (Reserved matter – Layout and Landscaping).  Implementation of the agreed landscaping scheme in first planting season following completion or first occupation and maintenance thereafter with any failed planting re-planted within 5 years of first being planted.  Agreeing a satisfactory surface water drainage solution, whereby no such run-off would be discharged into the public sewer and preferably to a SUDS.  That any street lighting to be installed achieve full horizontal cut-off to the azimuth and be adopted by the council and operated to be sensitive to the hours of darkness, including British summertime variance.  That any external lighting to be fitted at any time in the life of the development be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.  Removing permitted development rights for any outbuildings, save garden sheds not exceeding a floor area of 10 square metres measured externally, to provide bicycle parking;  That a scheme of investigation into below ground level archaeology is undertaken and any finds properly recorded/archived.

47 Conservancy Officers’ reasoned justification

1.0 Site and its context

1.1 The 1.3 ha site falls outside but contiguous with the defined settlement boundary for Chidham and Hambrook. The site location is shown below edged red.

1.2 It is noted that the applicant has promoted the site as part of the council’s ‘call for sites’ exercise in connection with the emerging local plan. The latest 2020 Council HEELA map for the Parish indicates the site (marked with a red star below and referenced HCH0019b) is described as ‘developable’.

1.3 The southern boundary of the site is some 0.5km north of the Chichester Harbour AONB boundary (A259) and some 1.1km away from the nearest part of Chichester Harbour. Located in Flood Zone 1 (least risk). The site is currently an agricultural field. There is a north-south public bridleway (No. 260) some 500m to the east of the site. A static caravan park (Hambrook Holiday Park) exists to the north behind a dense treed/vegetated screen, beyond the electricity pylon crossing the northern part of the site. Housing lies to the west, including a newly constructed development of 11 dwellings (Hambrook Place).

1.3 .

49 1.4 There are some trees on the site, mostly along the southern boundary and south- west corner (see photograph below), albeit the applicant sets out that at least 3 trees, elsewhere on the site will need to be felled, if the illustrative site layout is to come forward in a Reserved Matters application. Only one common lizard was found on the site during previous ecological surveys, where suitable habitat is estimated at 300 sq.m and would be wholly lost if the development were to proceed. That ecological report does not seem to have been submitted with this new application, although the design and access statement says a Phase II ecology report has been submitted.

1.5 Some other photographs of the site are seen below.

1.6 The site is within 350m of Nutbourne railway station, where an hourly train service operates to Chichester to the east and Portsmouth to the west. Your officer queries the submitted transport statement though which concludes the site is in the second lowest WSCC accessibility isochrome and has made no analysis of nearby amenities, other than to say public transport would allow access to high order settlements. There may be a post office/stores further north in Broad Road, but other than that a car journey is required to reach any convenience store to obtain day to day provisions.

2.0 Relevant planning history

At the site

2.1 Under application CH/19/00874/OUT, outline permission was sought for a residential Development of 42 Dwellings with all Matters Reserved other than Access. This application was withdrawn on 1 July 2019.

2.2 Under application CH/20/00412/OUT, outline permission was sought for a residential development of 42 - (entry level, NPPF paragraph 71) - dwellings, with all Matters Reserved other than Access. The number of dwellings was later reduced to 35. An Appeal for non-determination has been lodged on 17.9.2020. The Council is contesting the Appeal, with a ‘start date’ issued 17-2-21 by the Planning Inspectorate. The layout for that scheme is shown on the next page.

2.3 An amended nitrates report forms part of application 20/00412/OUT. The nitrates report does offer some further information, but the Parish’s written concerns here are understandable. Is land in Hampshire to deliver the solution on nitrates reasonably related to the site in terms of a planning obligation. I believe all practitioners are ‘feeling their way’ with this issue. The north Solent coastline is

51 extensive and such matters are about achieving nitrate neutrality across its length. If properly delivered through an obligation and carefully monitored into the future to ensure the land in Hampshire is not put back to growing a crop, Conservancy Planning Officers would broadly support such an approach, although taking cropped land which drained to Chichester Harbour out of production would have been preferred. That the specified 2.5ha piece of land in Hampshire - Broadreed Farm, Stansted Park, Rowlands Castle, Hants PO9 6DZ - is taken out of agricultural crop production in perpetuity by re-afforestation and monitored into the future, for the life of the development proposed, or other such period which is acceptable to Natural England.

Other relevant decisions/undetermined applications where new housing has been proposed in the Parish since 2009

2.4 Marshalls Yard, Broad Road – 09/04314/OUT & 11/01764/REM (86 dwellings, 35 provided on an affordable basis).

2.5 Land west of Broad Road – 12/04778/OUT (allowed at Appeal – APP/L3815/A/13/2205287) & 14/03490/NMA (28 dwellings, including S.106 off- site affordable housing contribution equating to 11.2 units).

2.6 30 dwellings were allowed 1.7.2014 at Wakefords Field, Broad Road, Hambrook. These have been built out (13/03376/OUT/15/02436/FUL & 17/00033/OBG).

2.7 28 dwellings were allowed 14.4.2014 at Appeal on the west side of Broad Road, Hambrook, PO18 8RB. The development has been built out (12/04778/FUL).

2.8 On 13.2.2015, 26 dwellings proposed under 13/03157/OUT at Pottery Field, Land West of Pottery Lane, Main Road, Nutbourne were dismissed at Appeal. The Conservancy’s Planning Committee considered an application for 94 dwellings on a larger site area under reference 20/03319/OUTEIA at its 15.2.21 meeting. An

52 objection was made to those proposals. That application is undetermined at the time of writing this report.

2.9 On 25.6.2015, 25 dwellings proposed under 13/03978/FUL at land East of Cot Lane, Chidham, West Sussex (Maybush Orchard) were dismissed at Appeal.

2.10 25 dwellings had been proposed under 14/01342/FUL, in place of previously approved commercial floorspace at Buildings B, C & D, Lion Park, Broad Street, Hambrook, Chichester, PO18 8RF. These were dismissed at Appeal 16.11.2015.

2.11 On 16.11.15, 120 dwellings that had been proposed under 14/02138/OUT at land east of Broad Road, Hambrook, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8UA, were dismissed at Appeal, following a public inquiry. The Inspector found the primacy of the Council’s development Strategy under Local Plan Policy 2 to be valid to prevent development outside of the defined settlement boundary. More recently a fresh application for 118 dwellings under reference 20/01826/FUL, remains undetermined at this time. The Conservancy resolved the following in respect of that application at its 21.9.2020 Planning Committee meeting –

“Conservancy Members wanted to be assured that demonstrable capacity existed at Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works before the council grants planning permission, subject to a Grampian condition relating to the proposed pumping station which appears to have been central to Southern Water’s 20-8- 2014 emailed strategy in relation to application 14/02138/OUT, to create sufficient capacity to support a housing development of this scale at the Thornham Works.

Subject to that being the case, the following was resolved in terms of the above planning application –

No objection subject to the applicant entering into a S.106 Planning Obligation to deliver –

(a) the necessary financial contribution per dwelling towards the mitigating recreational disturbance at the Chichester Harbour SPA shoreline; (b) taking the specified agricultural land at Lavant - (as shown on the Cooper Baillie drawing CB_75_207_902, June 2020) - out of production in perpetuity to achieve a nitrogen neutral development; and, (c) provision of public open space, as set out in the submitted land use plan, designed to attract use by residents, including circular walks and links to open countryside away from Chichester Harbour; and,

- the local planning authority imposing planning conditions related to –

• Full implementation of any protected species mitigation/enhancement set out in the section 6.10 of the ‘eocsupport’ 16-7-2020 preliminary ecological appraisal and further submitted phase II reports by ‘ecosupport’; • Safeguarding of retained trees during the construction period in accordance with Appendices 1-3 of the submitted arboricultural report - SJA air 20179-01; • Removal of any tree or portion of existing hedgerow to take place outside the bird nesting/breeding season. • Implementation of any agreed soft planting scheme with provision for its future maintenance.

53 • Full implementation of the submitted surface water drainage strategy, to be retained and maintained in accordance with the table in paragraph 7.5.2/Section 10 of the drainage strategy. • Given the landscape’s interconnectivity with Chichester Harbour, any archaeological finds to be recorded and appropriately archived. • Sustainable measures, such as electric vehicle charging points, new planting, solar panels etc. specified in the submitted planning statement paragraphs 7.100 to 7.102 to be fully implemented and subsequently retained, but that all solar panels to be fitted shall be submitted for approval to ensure that no glare occurs or is visible in the wider landscape, especially from views across the site towards Chichester Harbour AONB from Walderton Down within the South Downs National Park.”

2.12 6 dwellings that had been proposed under 15/02332/FUL at land north of The Avenue, Hambrook, were dismissed at Appeal 21.7.2016.

2.13 5 dwellings were allowed 22.3.2017 at Appeal at the site of Moola House, Main Road, Nutbourne. The development has been built out (16/01087/FUL).

2.14 11 dwellings (net gain of 10) were consented 31.8.2017 at land forming part of Flat Farm, Broad Road, Hambrook under reference 16/04148/FUL. These have been built out and are now known as Hambrook Place. The current application site will utilise the access spur off Broad Road that services Hambrook Place.

2.15 An Appeal related to 17/03626/OUT for 10 dwellings at Chas Wood Nurseries, Main Road, Chidham was dismissed 18.8.2017. A High Court challenge was also dismissed by the High Court in June 2019. The focus for the Appeal centred on Neighbourhood Plan Policy LP1, versus the Council’s Development Strategy under Local Plan Policy 2. Since that time application 20/01854/OUT has been submitted at the same site for 19 dwellings and at the time of writing this report is undetermined, with The Conservancy having raised no objection to those proposals on 21 September 2020, before IHP came into force.

2.16 Under application 20/03320/OUTEIA, The Conservancy’s Planning Committee considered an application for 132 dwellings on land north of Main Road (A259) east of Broad Road, Flat Farm, Nutbourne, at its 15.2.21 meeting. An objection was made to those proposals. That application is undetermined at the time of writing this report.

2.17 Under application 20/03320/OUTEIA, The Conservancy’s Planning Committee considered an application for 68 dwellings on land north of Main Road (A259) west of Drift Lane, Flat Farm, Nutbourne, at its 15.2.21 meeting. An objection was made to those proposals. That application is undetermined at the time of writing this report.

2.18 The Council adopted an Interim Housing Position in November 2020, owing to it not being able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land in the District, outside of the South Downs National Park. The emerging local plan is considering an option of 500 additional dwellings in Chidham & Hambrook Parish up to the year 2036 under Policy AL10 (SA10 in an earlier iteration of the plan). No plan basis of where such land is to be allocated has been produced by the Council at this time, because it is for the Parish Council to determine through a review to its Neighbourhood Plan where the settlement boundary might be extended to. The figure of 500 dwellings

54 has also to be found ‘sound’ at a future Examination in Public. Whilst public consultation has occurred on the emerging local plan, little weight can be assigned to it at this time.

3.0 Proposed development

3.1 The applicant proposes to construct 30 dwellings, a density of 39 dwellings per ha, which is greater than the original surrounding urban grain abutting to the west fronting Broad Road, save for the northern part where a recent development of 11 dwellings (Hambrook Place, originally approved under council reference 16/04148) has been built out to a density of 26.5 d/ha.

3.2 The housing mix now proposed is 2 x 4 bed, 11 x 3 bed 93 units described as bungalows), 11 x 2 bed and 6 x 1 bed. 62 car parking spaces (10 as visitor spaces) and 43 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. 9 of the dwellings are to be provided on an affordable basis.

3.3 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment as the site exceeds 1 ha, to seek to demonstrate that if the development went ahead, the risk of flooding off- site from surface water run-off would not be likely to occur.

3.4 The ‘illustrative’ layout is shown below, with its access, via Hambrook Place to an existing T-junction with Broad Road.

55 3.5 The illustrative site sections below indicate single and two storey dwellings.

3.6 The application is supported by a number of other technical reports relating to –

 Landscape visual impact assessment (LVIA);  Energy and sustainability assessment.  Site assessment for prescribed contaminants.  Parking statement.  Planning statement.  Tree survey, indicating trees to be lost.  Design and access statement.  Travel Plan statement; and,  Transport statement.

3.7 Access is to be maintained to the retained agricultural fields to the east (or of course facilitate the potential for future housing development).

3.8 The design and access statement says it will be possible to provide electric vehicle charging points and following is also proposed in terms of sustainable construction.

56 Policy framework*

*NPPF – 1-3, 6-15, 28, 30, 34, 38-42; 47-48, 54-56, 59-70, 71, 73-79, 91, 96- 97, 102-103, 105-106, 108-110, 117-118, 122-128, 130-131, 148-150, 155, 163- 164, 170-172, 174-177, 180, 212-213; NPPG - IDs 2a, 3, 6-8, 12, 18a, 20, 21a, 21b, 23b, 26, 31, 34, 37, 41-42, 56, 65, 66, 68; CLP – 1-2, 4- 5, 8-9, 12, 22, 33-35, 37, 39-40, 42-43, 45, 47-50, 54; CHNP – LP1, EM1- EM3, CDP1, H1-H2, DS1-DS3, R2, AP1; POCLP – S1-S6, S18, S20, S22-S24, S26-S27, S29-S31, AL10 (Chidham and Hambrook Parish), DM2- DM3, DM8, DM16, DM18-DM19, DM22-DM23, DM27-DM32, DM34; CHMP – 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12, 15; SPG/SPD.

4.0 Key issues

4.1 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of the setting of the Chichester Harbour AONB/open countryside/biodiversity from inappropriate development, set against the Council’s obligation to ensure a 5-year supply of housing land and its recently adopted IHP (see Appendix ‘A’ to this report) –

4.1.1 It would seem that insufficient headroom exists at the Thornham wastewater treatment works, based upon comments Southern Water has made 27-1-21 in relation to a proposal for 94 dwellings at land west of Pottery Lane under reference 20/03319/OUTEIA. It is feared that further stormwater discharges would be likely from an overloading of the sewerage system, causing harm to the European sites in Chichester Harbour. At the time of writing this report, Southern Water has not yet commented on application 20/03378/OUT.

4.1.2 Your Officers are satisfied that if the development were to proceed it would not be likely to visually impact on the setting of the AONB, especially if the scale of development carried out was limited to only two storey eaves height. However, the concern remains that this application and a number of other in the Parish (especially those reported to you at the last meeting) are seeking to pre-empt the proper statutory plan-making process. At the current time, the proposals stand contrary to local plan policy 45, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own intrinsic worth. Whilst not within a proposed strategic wildlife corridor, this piece of land is part of an open gap between Hambrook and Broadbridge (Bosham), which is considered worthy of preservation as a strategic objective.

.4.1.3 The preferred option version of the emerging local plan does not show any revised settlement boundary under Policy AL10, which is being left to the review of the Neighbourhood Plan. As such, the application is speculative. Notwithstanding Policy LP1 of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP), the NP is to be read as a whole and other policies serve to protect the environment from such proposals.

.4.1.4 As the site is well outside the AONB boundary but does involve new dwellings within 5.6km of its boundary, the Conservancy request that the requisite Solent Disturbance/Bird Aware Solent Mitigation contributions be sought from the developer, should the council be minded to grant planning outline planning permission. The proposed areas being offered as open space within the layout Should be secured through a legal agreement and specified as a minimum area to be delivered, with no further development to be contemplated on those areas. Such areas are considered to offer potential alternative dog exercising opportunities, in preference to digs being brought to the harbour shoreline. Finally, the promotion of native species soft planting should be delivered through a suitable

57 planning condition, which again secures biodiversity enhancement at the same time. The design and access statement refers to Phase II ecology reports but they are not currently on the Council webpage for the case, so your Officers have not been able to review them. The agent summarises that …

” assessments demonstrate that with appropriate mitigation measures/ecological enhancements, the proposed scheme would not adversely affect Protected Species. The proposed new hedgerow and tree planting along the proposed landscape buffers would provide an ecological enhancement to the site.”

4.1.5 Given what happened under application 18/02650/OBG for Hambrook Place, the illustrative layout shows housing in similar proximity to overhead electricity lines, so the applicant’s aspiration that all housing may be for first time home ownership may ultimately not be tenable. Earlier consents seem to have provided 68 affordable dwellings in Hambrook in recent years. Notwithstanding the arguments advanced by the applicant and reliance on paragraph 71 of the NPPF, the Parish seem to be of the opinion that this housing need has been satisfied in the Parish. Additionally, the fact that an off-site affordable housing contribution occurred under 12/04778/OUT, leads one to conclude that it was the need for affordable housing locally had been satisfied at that time and the council was seeking to provide for such need in the District as a whole.

4.1.6 In respect of the IHP tests, The Conservancy considers tests 2 (settlement hierarchy), 3 (erosion of countryside gap between settlements), 7 (infrastructure), 10 (sustainable location of development), 12 (case on nitrates not proven at this time) are not met. Tests 8 and 9 would need to be reviewed at the Reserved Matters stage if the Council - (or indeed an Inspector in terms of the Appeal related to 20/00412/OUT) - was minded to grant planning permission.

4.2 Heritage –

4.2.1 There are no heritage assets close to the site.

4.2.2 There is potential for ground bearing archaeology to be disturbed by the construction of new foundations. The council will ultimately take a view on this, but it is recommended that at the very least a watching brief is prepared, and any finds recorded and appropriately archived in the council’s Historic Environment Record, if the council is ultimately minded to support a formal planning application.

4.3 Flood risk –

4.3.1 The site is in Environment Agency flood zone 1 (least risk). If the council is minded to grant outline permission, it should be satisfied that an adequate surface water drainage solution is agreed – preferably through the use of SUDS which could offer some biodiversity enhancement. The illustrative layout indicates the use of swales is intended and with 12 less dwellings that the last submitted application, it is argued the amount of hard surfacing would reduce too.

4.4 High quality, low carbon design –

4.4.1 As only access is listed for consideration it is not possible to comment on the appearance of the development.

4.4.2 Sustainable construction could ultimately be delivered through a planning condition, to deliver those matters recommended in the applicant’s sustainability report.

58 4.5 Nitrate neutrality and best and most versatile agricultural land-

4.5.1 A net reduction could be likely from taking the field out of arable production, but the updated Baker Consultants report referred to by the agent is not currently on the Council webpage for the case, so your Officer has not been able to review it. The amended nitrates report for 20/00412/OUT is summarised in paragraph 2.3 above. It is noted that Natural England in its comments 17.2.21 has made a holding objection until it has seen such a calculation and has advised the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations 2017.

4.5.2 No assessment of the contribution the site makes to agricultural production has been undertaken. The Conservancy AONB Management Plan shows the site to be Grade II agricultural land, the second most productive grading.

4.6 Means of access.

4.6.1 Your Officer has no views on the adequacy of the proposed means of access, except to observe that it would utilise a junction to Broad Road that has already been found to be adequate by the County Council as Highways Authority.

5.0 Conclusions

5.1 The preferred option version of the emerging local plan does not show any revised settlement boundary under Policy AL10, which is being left to the review of the Neighbourhood Plan. As such, the application is speculative and premature. Notwithstanding Policy LP1 of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP), the NP is to be read as a whole and other policies serve to protect the environment from such proposals. Policy LP1 also only talks of schemes of up to 10 dwellings.

5.2 The uncertainty around headroom at the Twwtw does not give confidence to support this application and be assured that water quality in Chichester Harbour would not be adversely affected, especially during stormwater events.

5.3 In conclusion, the proposed development is considered speculative and premature to the proper consideration of the site for housing within an overall strategy for the district outside South Downs National Park and indeed the determination of the Appeal for 20/00412/OUT. Protection of an area of countryside outside the defined settlement boundary is called for, in accordance with adopted local plan policy 45.

SRL - For 1.3.21 CHC Planning Committee

Comments requested by: 3 March 2021.

*Abbreviations used:

NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (March 2012)

NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014)

CLP – Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015)

IHP – Chichester District Council Interim Housing Position (November 2020)

CHNP – Chidham & Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan (2016)

POCLP – Preferred option Chichester Local Plan (2019)

CHMP – Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024)

59 SPG/SPD – Planning guidance published by Chichester District Council relating to: -

Parking standards and accessibility zones (2007)

Planning Obligations and affordable housing (2010)

Other abbreviations

TWwTW - Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works

LVIA – Landscape visual impact assessment

FRA – Flood risk assessment

SUDS – Sustainable urban drainage system

https://www.chichester.gov.uk/interimpolicystatement

60 61 62 63 64 Quarterly Report 1 January 2020 to 31 March 2020 Date CHC L/A Application No Site Application Details Recommendation Considered PO Decision 21/01/2020 CH/19/03015/FUL DR CUT MILL HOUSE, CHANGE OF USE AND OBJECTION Permit CUT MILL. CHIDHAM, ASSOCIATED ALTERATIONS TO 1. Unnecessary development within the with PO18 8PS VACANT DOMESTIC BOATHOUSE countryside adjacent to the AONB. S106 FOR USE AS TOURIST 2. Physical Appearance to the AONB / Prominent ACCOMMODATION Impact to the AONB A new tourist development which would 10/03/2020 SUBSTITUTE PLANS increase recreational activity and the erosion of the rural character of the locality therefore considered to be unduly prominent and to be detrimental to the character of the AONB. 3. Prominent Impact to the AONB and other designated sites Failure to conserve or enhance the natural environment of the countryside as the site lies in close proximity to the internationally important Ramsar site, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), as well as the nationally important Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone. 4. Wildlife mitigation contribution No provision for any contribution towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Strategy and would bring human activity into or close to protected wildlife designations to the detriment of wildlife.

65 Quarterly Report 1 January 2020 to 31 March 2020 Date CHC L/A Application No Site Application Details Recommendation Considered PO Decision 23/01/2020 SB/19/03014/DOM SL 7 GORDON ROAD, ROOF EXTENSION TO SIDE Holding objection, subject to negotiating Permit SOUTHBOURNE, ELEVATION AND ROOF alterations to the size and roof treatment of the PO10 8AZ CONVERSION WITH DORMER proposed rear dormer window WINDOW TO THE REAR ELEVATION AND ROOF WINDOWS TO THE FRONT ELEVATION 28/01/2020 BO/19/03087/DOM DR 1 ELM TERRACE, REAR AND SIDE EXTENSION Chichester Harbour AONB Recommendation – Permit GREEN LANE, OBJECTION BOSHAM, PO18 8NU 1. Physical Appearance to the AONB / Prominent Impact to the AONB The full width rear two‐storey flat roof extension is dominant, unsympathetic and out of keeping and character with the local area, resulting in the erosion of the rural character of the locality 2. AONB Size and Scale Assessment Criteria Proposed extension represents a building with a silhouette in excess of the 25% maximum increase permitted when viewed from both the north/south and the east/west elevations and a footprint greater than 50% of that of the original. 3. Excessive window openings and impact on night‐time Dark Skies Large vertical full height window openings at ground and first floor level, and the installation of roof‐lights: ‐ unacceptable increase in artificial internal light spillage into this otherwise unlit (no street

66 Quarterly Report 1 January 2020 to 31 March 2020 Date CHC L/A Application No Site Application Details Recommendation Considered PO Decision lighting to this dark roadway) and rural location, ‐ ‐ overly dominant, unsympathetic and out of keeping with the character of the period dwelling and the open rural surroundings 05/02/2020 APP/20/00003 SL 20 WITTERING ROAD, SINGLE STOREY FRONT AND SIDE Objection: disproportionate amount of glazing Permit HAYLING ISLAND, EXTENSIONS; EXTERNAL TIMBER and glazed balustrade to enlarged first floor PO11 9SP CLADDING; REPLACEMENT terrace, with no compensatory planting for that TERRACE AND GLASS recently removed BALUSTRADE; REPLACEMENT EXTERNAL STAIRCASE. 17/03/2020 BO/20/00198/ADV DR MARINERS 2NO. EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED Objection Permit TEAROOMS, 1 HIGH FASCIA SIGNS AND 2NO. ‐ unnecessary additional illuminated signs within STREET, BOSHAM, EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED this part of Bosham Conservation Area in the WEST SUSSEX, PO18 HANGING SIGNS. AONB 8LS illuminated signage of six signs (three on each main elevation) is generally considered to be out‐of‐keeping with the rural character of the village and this location close to the harbour waters, and counter to the Dark Skies policy promoted by the Conservancy.

Total applications considered: 65 Note: there were five cases where the Conservancy objected and the LPA In accordance with LPA: 60 approved and a further four where the Conservancy raised no objection but the LPA did. The latter cases have not been listed as the reason for refusal is not Percentage in accordance: 92% related to AONB planning matters.

67 Quarterly Report on Applications where the Conservancy have not objected but the LPA have refused 1 Jan to 31 Mar 2020

Date L/A Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered Decision 04/02/2020 BO/20/00128/FUL CDC LOWER HONE NORTH, CHANGE OF USE OF STORAGE BARN No objection Refuse LOWER HONE LANE, TO DWELLING HOUSE AND BOSHAM, CHICHESTER, ASSOCIATED WORKS INCLUDING WEST SUSSEX PO18 NATURAL SWIMMING POND AND 8QN LANDSCAPING 24/02/2020 WW/19/02403/FUL CDC 4 SUMMERFIELD ROAD, EXTENSIONS, ALTERATIONS AND No objection Refuse WEST WITTERING, SUBDIVISION OF THE EXISTING ‐ schedule/samples of materials to be agreed CHICHESTER, WEST PROPERTY TO TWO BUNGALOWS. ‐ contribution is made to SRMP SUSSEX, PO20 8LY 02/03/2020 FB/19/03141/FUL CDC LAND SOUTH OF IVY CONSTRUCTION OF 35 NO. No objection Refuse LODGE, BLACKBOY AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL • LPA satisfied re need for entry‐level LANE, FISHBOURNE, DWELLINGS FOR FIRST TIME BUYERS affordable housing WEST SUSSEX WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, • Payment of ecological mitigation PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND contribution ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE • Agreement of materials • scheme of hard and soft landscaping incl mature trees • Implementation of landscaping scheme in first planting season following completion or first occupation and maintenance thereafter • Satisfactory foul drainage solution,

68 Date L/A Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered Decision whereby no wastewater would be discharged into the public sewer; and, • That a scheme of investigation into below ground level archaeology is undertaken and any finds properly recorded/archived. 09/03/2020 BO/20/00197/FUL CDC MARINERS TEAROOMS, REPLACEMENT AND ALTERATIONS No objection Refuse 1 HIGH STREET, TO FENESTRATION, INSTALLATION ‐ schedule/samples of materials to be agreed BOSHAM, WEST OF SIGNAGE AND INSTALLATION OF SUSSEX, PO18 8LS AIR CONDITIONING