Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 18TH OCTOBER 2011 at 2.00 P.M

Park North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (calls may be recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6 www.horsham.gov.uk

Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 18TH OCTOBER 2011 AT 2.00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman) Sheila Matthews (Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur Ian Howard Adam Breacher Liz Kitchen Jonathan Chowen Gordon Lindsay Philip Circus Chris Mason George Cockman Brian O’Connell David Coldwell Roger Paterson Ray Dawe Sue Rogers Brian Donnelly Kate Rowbottom Andrew Dunlop Jim Sanson Jim Goddard

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20th September 2011 (to follow)

3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee – any clarification on whether a Member has an interest should be sought before attending the meeting.

4. To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive

5. To consider the following reports and to take such action thereon as may be necessary

Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 Bramber, Upper Beeding DC/11/1480 Land South of Kingsmead Close, Bramber and Woodmancote

A2 Billingshurst and Shipley DC/11/1572 Summers Place Auctions Limited, The Walled Garden, Stane Street, Billingshurst

A3 Cowfold,Shermanbury & DC/11/1341 Old Barn Nurseries, Worthing Road, Dial Post West Grinstead

A4 Cowfold,Shermanbury & DC/11/1026 Old Barn Nurseries, Worthing Road, Dial Post West Grinstead

A5 Billingshurst and Shipley DC/11/1163 Dauxwood Playgroup, Natts Lane, Billingshurst

A6 Bramber, Upper Beeding DC/11/1623 1 Annington Barn, Annington Farm, Botolphs and Woodmancote Road, Bramber

A7 Cowfold,Shermanbury & DC/11/0467 Lydford Farmhouse, Kings Lane, Cowfold West Grinstead

A8 Steyning DC/11/1450 Ashurst Village Hall, The Village, Ashurst

A9 Pulborough and DC/11/1091 Brinsbury College, Stane Street, North Heath, Coldwaltham Pulborough

A10 Bramber, Upper Beeding DC/11/1479 Bramcote Farm, Bramlands Lane, Woodmancote, and Woodmancote Henfield

6. Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances

DCS110920

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 20th SEPTEMBER 2011

Present: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Sheila Matthews (Vice- Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, George Cockman, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Andrew Dunlop, Jim Goddard, Ian Howard, Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay, Chris Mason, Brian O’Connell, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson

Apologies: Councillors: David Coldwell, Roger Paterson,

DCS/67 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16th August 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman

DCS/68 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Andrew DC/11/0783 Personal and prejudicial – he is a Dunlop friend of two of the objectors. Councillor Philip DC/11/1314 Personal – he is client of the Circus applicant Councillor Chris DC/11/1314 Personal – he is client of the Mason applicant Councillor Ray DC/11/1460 Personal and prejudicial – his Dawe mother-in-law lives next door to the applicant

DCS/69 INTERESTS OF OFFICERS

The Chief Executive reported that Elizabeth Francis, Committee Support Officer, had declared an interest in planning application DC/11/1300. The interest arose because the officer was a neighbour and knew both the applicant and neighbours who were objecting to the application. The officer had confirmed that she would take no part in the processing or determination of the application.

DCS/70 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/71 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/11/0862 38 Arun Vale, Coldwaltham, Mr Richard Lawton Pulborough, EN/10/0357 The Green, Goose Green Lane, Mr D Feeney Goose Green DC/11/0683 Miljaz Barn, Pulborough Road, Mrs Julie Short Cootham DC/11/0685 Miljaz Barn, Pulborough Road, Mrs Julie Short Cootham

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/11/0103 7 Plantation Way, Mr John Gilbert Allowed Storrington DC/10/2427 Pear Tree Farm, West Miss Tracey Allowed Chiltington Lane, Poulton Billingshurst DC/11/0018 Bainbridge Court, Pathway Allowed Washington Road, Healthcare Ltd Storrington DC/11/0675 7 Stane Street, Mrs Sylvia Dismissed Adversane, Billingshurst Wells

DCS/72 DECISIONS ON LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

Ref No Site and Development Decision

DC/11/1482 Alders, Horsham Road, Steyning - for the Granted occupation of Alders in non-compliance with an Agricultural Occupancy Condition attached to the property. DC/11/1462 Brookdale Farm, West Chiltington Lane, Granted Billingshurst - for the occupation of Brookdale Farm in non-compliance with an Agricultural Occupancy Condition attached to the property. DC/11/1231 Oakdene , Blackgate Lane, Pulborough – for Refused the designation the mobile home as a permanent structure.

2 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/73 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0783 - ERECTION OF CREMATORIUM BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING NEW INTERNAL ACCESS ROAD, MANAGER'S LODGE HOUSE, GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND SECURE EQUIPMENT STORE AND A TOTAL OF 63 NO. PARKING SPACES. THE PROPOSALS INCLUDE AN UPGRADED ACCESS ONTO THE A272 TO BE SHARED WITH THE EXISTING RESTAURANT ADJOINING THE SITE SITE: LAND ADJOINING THE ORCHARD, COWFOLD ROAD, WEST GRINSTEAD, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: PEACEBOUND LTD (Councillor Andrew Dunlop declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as he was a friend of two of the objectors. He addressed the Committee before the officer’s presentation and then withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a crematorium building with associated infrastructure including new internal access road, manager's lodge house, grounds maintenance and secure equipment store and 63 parking spaces. The proposals included an upgraded access onto the A272 to be shared with the existing restaurant adjoining the site.

The building would be 68.5 metres long and 23.5 metres wide, contemporary in form with a single storey sedum green roof to the porte-cochere and office, and a sloping single ply roofing membrane to the main building. The main materials proposed for the structure would be local stock bricks and patinated copper coloured metal vertical cladding.

The proposed manager’s lodge house, located towards the southern end of the site, would be a single storey two bedroomed dwelling with a sedum green roof and materials to match the main crematorium building. A ground maintenance and secure equipment store was proposed to the west of the managers accommodation.

The application site, situated on the northern side of the A272 close to West Grinstead, was within a countryside location. To the west and south of the site were residential properties.

Government Policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP13, CP15 and CP19; and General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC8, DC9 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

3 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DC/08/0593 Sustainable low impact eco holiday and ranger Granted centre, comprising eight holiday lodges and campsite, WSCC Rangers office, associated parking blocks, parking and access WG/42/91 40 bedroom trusthouse forte travel lodge and Refused car park extension

The comments of the Equalities Officer, the Conservation & Design Officer, Public Health & Licensing, Southern Water and West Sussex County Council Highways were noted. The Landscape Officer, the Environment Agency and West Sussex County Council’s Ecology Department raised no objection to the application. The Strategic & Community Planning Team objected to the proposal in principle, from a policy perspective. The Parish Council strongly objected to the application. Thirty-three letters of objection and thirteen letters of support had been received. Three members of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application and two members of the public spoke in support.

Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies required tight control of development outside the defined built up area boundary and indicated that such development would not be permitted unless it was considered essential to its countryside location and in addition met one of the following criteria: supported the needs of agriculture or forestry; enabled the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; provided for quiet informal recreational use; or ensured the sustainable development of rural areas. In addition, any such development permitted would need to be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and should not lead, either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside. Members considered that the current proposal failed to meet the requirements of this policy.

Members also considered that that there was no proven need for a crematorium in this rural location. The proposal was considered inappropriate as it would harm the rural character of the vicinity and its proximity to the Downs Link was also a concern.

Members considered that the proposed development would not maintain the quality or the character of the area and was, therefore, unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0783 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services in consultation with Councillor Chowen (local Member) and the Chairman of the Committee. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be refused.

4 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/74 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1000 - RESTORATION WORKS TO KNEPP MILL POND BY DREDGING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENT FEATURES USING IMPORTED INERT MATERIALS TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ACCESS AND AMENITY (COUNTY CONSULTATION) SITE: KNEPP CASTLE, WEST GRINSTEAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: SIR CHARLES BURRELL

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for restoration works to Knepp Mill Pond. This application was a re-submission of a previous scheme (DC/10/1254) which had been withdrawn due to concerns regarding the scale of the landscape works, the timescale associated with the development and the perceived limited wider public benefit of the scheme.

The main amendments to the proposed development compared to the 2010 proposal areas were:-

a. A reduction in the life of the proposed development from 5 years to 3.5 years. b. Redesign of the landscape enhancement works to reduce the volume of imported inert materials from approx. 341,000 cubic metres to approx. 270,000 cubic metres. c. A reduction in the volume of material dredged from Knepp Mill Pond and a corresponding reduction in the volume of material excavated from the borrow pit. d. The provision of public access and amenity including the provision of a permissive right of way, picnic facilities, the availability of the slopes of the enhancement works for public recreational use and the construction of a bird hide.

A temporary access for the proposed works would be formed off the A272 at the location of an existing gated field access approximately 200 metres west of the A272/A24 Buck Barn crossroads and approximately 140 metres from the traffic lights on the A272. Also a number of temporary acoustic barriers would be constructed during the works at various locations on the estate.

Knepp Castle Estate was located approximately one kilometre south of Southwater and comprised Knepp Castle, Knepp Mill Pond, parkland, woodland, grassland, grazing land, farmhouses and cottages, offices, light industrial units, a polo club and polo fields. The development was proposed in the area of the estate known as Knepp Park, located in the central eastern part of the estate. Part of Knepp Park was listed Grade II in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest in England and Knepp Castle, which was located at the centre of Knepp Park, was a Grade II listed building. To the south-east of Knepp Mill Pond were the remains of the original Norman Knepp Castle, which was a Scheduled Ancient Monument.. The surrounding area was characterised by open fields and sporadic residential development.

5 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/74 Planning Application: DC/11/1000 (cont.)

Government Policy PPS1, PPS5, PPS7, PPS9, PPS10 and PPS25; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC9, DC10, DC11, DC13 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application. Version 2 of the Background Papers of the West Sussex Minerals and Waste Core Strategy were also relevant to the determination of the application. The West Sussex Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft (July 2004) did not form part of the development plan but was a material consideration in making planning decisions.

The site had extensive planning history but of particular relevance was the application which had been withdrawn in 2010 (DC/10/1254).

The concerns of the Head of Strategic Planning were noted. The Head of Public Health & Licensing and the Parish Council objected to the application. Two letters of objection had been received.

The main issues in the determination of the application were considered to be whether the principle of development was acceptable having regard to development plan policies and the effect of the development on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the area.

The application comprised four main elements: the dredging of Knepp Mill Pond; the excavation of a borrow pit adjacent to the pond in which to deposit the dredged materials; the creation of landscape features and the provision of public access and amenity. The landscape features would be constructed from material excavated from the borrow pit and imported inert material. Small sections of permanent acoustic fencing would also be constructed at two locations where it was not practicable to construct the landscape features.

Whilst there was no objection in principle to the dredging of Knepp Mill Pond and the construction of the borrow pit, it was not considered that there was any need or requirement for the importation of 270,000 cubic metres of inert materials for the creation of the landscape features which, at Buck Field, would be 10 metres above existing ground levels. The applicant had put forward the justification that the landscape features would have a positive indirect beneficial effect on the setting of Knepp Park as they would reduce visual and noise intrusion from the A24, the A272 and the service area to the north-east. However, as acknowledged in the Environmental Statement, the placing of the bunds and landscape features would not result in any significant improvement in the noise environment for Knepp Castle and its grounds. In addition, it was considered that the works would be likely to have significant noise impacts on residents in close proximity to the development over a period of years and could also result in a permanently degraded acoustic environment for some residential properties.

6 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/74 Planning Application: DC/11/1000 (cont.)

In this respect, it was not considered that the limited public amenity benefits were sufficient to outweigh the significant adverse environmental impacts in terms of noise and dust and subsequent detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was not acceptable.

RESOLVED

That the County Council be advised that an objection is raised to application DC/11/1100 in the strongest possible terms on the grounds that insufficient information has been submitted to enable a full and proper assessment of the proposal which would be likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts in terms of noise and dust and a significant adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and wildlife in the area

DCS/75 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0751- COLD STORE FACILITY TO STORE APPROXIMATELY 50 - 60 CARCASSES PER WEEK, INSTALLATION OF AN EMERGENCY SUPER SILENT GENERATOR, TOILET, CHANGING AREA AND 2 NO. DEEP FREEZES SITE: DOWNSVIEW FARM, CLAY LANE, COOTHAM APPLICANT: MR RICHARD SCOTT

Deleted from the agenda.

DCS/76 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1387- CONSTRUCTION OF 4 NO. DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS ON LAND TO THE WEST OF TREVELLAN, 23 KITHURST PARK SITE: TREVELLAN, KITHURST PARK, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: ROSECROFT ESTATES

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the construction of four 2-storey dwellings and associated landscaping works on land to the west of Trevellan, 23 Kithurst Park. The proposal was to split the site into four plots, each measuring approximately 35 metres deep by 24 metres wide.

A new vehicular access to the site was also proposed via Kithurst Park. The existing dwelling on site would have to be demolished to allow space for the new access and this part of the proposal was covered under application DC/11/1388 (see Minute No. DCS/77 below).

The site was located within the built up area of Storrington on the southern side of Kithurst Park. The southern boundary of the site adjoined the South Downs National Park.

7 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/76 Planning Application: DC/11/1387(cont.)

Government Policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12 and CP13; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC4, DC9 and DC40: the South Downs Management Plan 2008-2013 and South Downs Planning Guidelines 2008 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/1388 Demolition of existing dwelling at 23 Kithurst Pending park and construction of a replacement consideration dwelling and associated landscaping works. SR/26/77 Construction of a detached 3 bedroom Granted bungalow and a double length garage. SR/30/73 Demolition of the existing bungalow and Granted erection of a 4 bed detached dwelling. SR/24/73 Application for 3 building plots Refused

The Strategic & Community Planning and Public Health & Licensing Departments raised no objections to the proposal in principle and their comments were noted. The Landscape Officer objected to the proposal. The comments of West Sussex County Council’s Highways Department and Ecologist, Southern Water and Natural England were noted. The Parish Council objected to the application. Thirty-three letters of objection and two letters of support had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.

The main issues in determination of this application were considered to be the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the South Downs National Park.

It was considered that the development would represent a cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be highly prominent when viewed from the National Park. The proposed dwellings would be larger than others in the surrounding area with higher ridge heights and smaller plots. The area was currently characterised by single storey bungalows and 1½ storey bungalows. It was considered that the cumulative impact of four large detached houses would have a visually intrusive impact from the National Park given that all the natural vegetation and trees on the site had been removed.

The dwellings proposed were considered to be too large for the plots with the rear garden for one plot only measuring 9.5 metres deep and another plot being heavily overshadowed/shaded by the large oak tree to the rear boundary. It was considered that the overall built form of the dwellings and the associated residential paraphernalia, including close boarded fences, would erode the open character and have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area.

8 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/76 Planning Application: DC/11/1387(cont.)

Members therefore considered that the development was unacceptable as it was too dense and cramped and it would have a harmful impact on the character of the National Park. Members also requested the Arboricultural Officer to investigate the serving of a tree preservation order on the remaining trees on the site.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1387 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The dwellings as proposed due to their number, height, scale and siting would result in overdevelopment of the site which would detract from the character of the surrounding area including the adjacent South Downs National Park contrary to Policy DC4 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 & CP1 & CP3 of the Core Strategy 2007 02 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure, fire and rescue services and community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

DCS/77 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1388 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AT 23 KITHURST PARK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS SITE: TREVELLAN, KITHURST PARK, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MRS B HODGSON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling at 23 Kithurst Park and the construction of a replacement dwelling and associated landscaping works. The replacement dwelling would measure 18.4 metres wide by 8.6 metres deep, with a ridge height of 8 metres and would be re-built further to the south east of the site. The rear conservatory would measure 3.4 metres by 4 metres, with a ridge height of 4.6 metres.

The site was proposed to be split up with the replacement dwelling having a triangular rear garden measuring 10–23 metres deep by 15–35 metres wide. The rest of the garden was the subject of application DC/11/1387 for the erection of four detached dwellings.

9 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/77 Planning Application: DC/11/1388 (cont.)

The site was located within the built up area of Storrington on the southern side of Kithurst Park. The site currently consisted of a large detached two storey house with attached double length garage to the side and a rear garden in excess of 100 metres by 37 metres. The southern boundary of the site adjoined the South Downs National Park and open countryside with the South Downs beyond.

Government Policies PPS1 and PPS3; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12 and CP13; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC40; the South Downs Management Plan 2008-2013 and South Downs Planning Guidelines 2008 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/1387 Construction of 4 No. dwellings and Pending associated landscaping works on land to the consideration west of Trevellan, 23 Kithurst Park SR/26/77 Construction of a detached 3 bedroom Granted bungalow and a double length garage SR/30/73 Demolition of the existing bungalow and Granted erection of a 4 bed detached dwelling SR/24/73 Application for 3 building plots Refused

The comments of West Sussex County Council, Southern Water and Natural England were noted. The Parish Council objected to the application. Twenty- eight letters of objection, one of support and two of no objection to the application had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.

The existing dwelling was 12.5 metres wide by 6.1 metres deep with a 2-storey front projection of 2.1 metres, a 2-storey rear projection of 5.6 metres and a ridge height of 7.8 metres. The attached garage to the side measured 6.7 metres in width by 9.5 metres in depth and had a ridge height of 4 metres. The replacement dwelling would be 18.4 metres wide by 8.6 metres deep with a ridge height 8 metres and a rear conservatory measuring 3.4 metres deep by 4 metres wide with a ridge height of 4.6 metres.

Whilst a number of comments had been received suggesting that this application should be considered in conjunction with application DC/11/1387, it was considered that this proposal could be considered independently on its own

10 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/77 Planning Application: DC/11/1388 (cont.)

merits and that any decision thereon would not act as a precedent in respect of DC/11/1387.

Members considered that the scale and siting of the proposed replacement dwelling would adversely affect the character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties. Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1388 be refused for the following reason:

01 Having regard to the siting and scale of the proposed replacement dwelling, it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the character of the area contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

DCS/78 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1500 - RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION FOR A MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO PERMISSION REF DC/10/1631 (NEW ROOF TO EXISTING DWELLING, INTERNAL ALTERATIONS, DOUBLE CAR PORT/GARAGE, INCORPORATION OF ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION TO FIRST FLOOR AND CONVERSION OF ATTACHED GARAGE TO HABITABLE SPACE) TO INCLUDE INCREASED HEIGHT OF SOUTH & NORTH GABLES AND CHIMNEY STACK BY 600MM AND CHANGE OF MATERIAL FROM STONE TO RENDER AND COLOUR CHANGE OF CLADDING FROM BLACK TO GREY BLUE SITE: THE WHITE LODGE SUNSET LANE WEST CHILTINGTON PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: JANE AND PHIL ANDREWS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought retrospective permission for a material amendment to the previously approved application DC/10/1631, which had been for an increase in ridge height to provide additional accommodation to the first floor and a new double garage. The amendments included an increased height of the south & north gable ends as well as the chimney stack, both by 600mm, and a change of material from stone to render and colour change of cladding from black to grey-blue.

The site consisted of a single storey dwelling within a large plot, set back from the private lane. The property was located in the south western corner of the small network of lanes situated on the southern side of West Chiltington, within the defined built up area.

11 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/78 Planning Application: DC/11/1500 (cont.)

Government policy PPS1 and Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC9 and DC15 were relevant to the determination of this application.

In 2010, planning permission had been granted for a new roof to existing dwelling, internal alterations, double car port/garage, incorporation of additional accommodation to first floor and conversion of attached garage to habitable space (DC/10/1631).

The Parish Council objected to the proposal and fourteen letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal.

The main issue in the determination of this application was considered to be the effect of the development on the surrounding area and the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

Members considered that the increase in height of the gable ends was not acceptable in relation to the approved scheme and the amendment to the colour of the cladding from black to a grey-blue was not considered to be in keeping with the local streetscene or character of the surrounding area.

It was considered that the amendments to the dwelling had caused undue harm to the visual amenities of the street scene, as well as the neighbouring dwellings. Members, therefore, considered that the amendments to the original approval were unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1500 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with local Members, following a site meeting and/or the submission of amendments to the application within 14 days. The preliminary view of the Committee was that, if acceptable amendments to the proposal were not received, the application should be refused and that, subject to the expediency of taking such action, enforcement action should be taken to secure the removal of the unauthorised development.

12 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/79 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1268 - ERECTION OF SELF-CONTAINED ANNEXE (RESUBMISSION FOLLOWING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION REF. DC/10/2344) SITE: STANE STREET HOLLOW STANE STREET CODMORE HILL PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: MR AND MRS BEACHER

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the construction of a detached two storey 2- bedroom annexe for the applicant’s parents. The proposed building would be located 26.4 metres to the south of the main dwelling, which was a grade II listed building. The proposed annexe would be 12 metres wide, 8.5 metres deep and 8.7 metres high, constructed with a plain clay tile roof and a random stone finish matching the main house. The annexe would be self contained with no reliance on facilities within the main house.

The application site was located outside the built up area boundary in an area of countryside between the settlements of Codmore Hill and Pulborough, on the western side of A29 Stane Street. The site was presently occupied by Stane Street Hollow, a two storey listed building, and two further dwellings which had originally been outbuildings for Stane Street Hollow prior to their individual conversion to residential use.

Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS5 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP13, CP14, CP15 and CP19 and General Development Control policies DC1, DC3, DC9, DC13, DC28 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

PL/63/75 Restaurant, ground floor flat and the use of Granted the forecourt for customers. PL/70/77 Construction of a dormer window to the rear Granted was approved. PL/70/87 Kitchen extension. Granted PL/109/00 Change of use and conversion of a redundant Granted barn into a residential dwelling. DC/05/2487 Conversion of garage into a single dwelling. Granted DC/06/2631 Amendment to DC/05/2487 incorporating the Granted relocation of the access road. DC/10/2344 Erection of a two bedroom self contained Withdrawn annexe.

The Council’s Conservation & Design Officer and the Parish Council objected to the application. One letter of objection to the proposal had been received. A

13 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/79 Planning Application: DC/11/1268 (cont.)

member of the public spoke in objection and the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

It was considered that the accommodation proposed was beyond that required for ancillary accommodation as the proposed unit would not be incidental to the use of the main dwelling and there would be no sharing of facilities. The property could, therefore, be occupied as a separate dwellinghouse, resulting in the provision of a new dwelling in the countryside contrary to the policies of the development plan and policy DC28.

Whilst it was acknowledged that the alteration or extension of listed buildings was not generally acceptable, the applicant had not approached the Local Planning Authority for an informal opinion as to whether an extension or alteration to the main house (a listed building) could be a feasible alternative for providing the facilities required.

It was considered that the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling would dominate the setting of the listed building and would be out of keeping with its countryside setting and the former historic farmstead character of the courtyard, the listed building and surrounding former barns.

Members, therefore, considered that the application was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1268 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed self contained annexe by reason of its location within the site, and its self contained facilities would result in an additional unit of accommodation in the countryside contrary to policy CP1 and CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Policies and policy DC1, DC2, DC3 and DC28 of the General Development Control Policies. 02 The site lies in a rural area and the proposed development being unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry or the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste, conflicts with policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. 03 The proposed annex by reason of its size, design and siting would detract from the setting of the listed building and would harm the rural character of the locality and would therefore be contrary to policy DC9, and DC13 of the General Development Control Polices as well as the requirements of PPS5.

14 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/80 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1314 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF TWO-STOREY BUILDING WITH GROUND FLOOR VETERINARY SURGERY AND FIRST FLOOR FLAT SITE: FORMER FLOWER POTS, LONDON ROAD, ASHINGTON APPLICANT: MR MATTHEW GITTINGS (ARUN VETERINARY GROUP) (Councillors Philip Circus and Chris Mason declared personal interests in this application as they were clients of the applicant.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a two storey building with ground floor veterinary surgery and first floor two bed flat. The proposed building would measure 9.2 metres wide by 14.9 metres deep, with a ridge height of 7.4 metres.

The site, located within the built up area of Ashington on the western side of London Road, was of a triangular shape and currently consisted of a single storey building which had been unused for a number of years.

Government Policies PPS1 and PPS3; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12 and CP13 and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/05/1284 Demolition of Brookside and Flowerpots Withdrawn (vacant shop) and the erection of a 2 storey building comprising 2 retail units and 6 residential flats and access (scheme A). DC/05/1287 Demolition of Flowerpots (vacant shop) and Withdrawn erection of 2 retail units and 2 flats (Scheme B). DC/05/2892 Demolition of existing dwelling and shop and Withdrawn erection of 2 retail units and 6 flats and access. DC/06/1605 Demolition of existing buildings and erection Withdrawn of a 2-storey building comprising 4 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed (total 6) flats. DC/08/0220 Construction of one retail premises and 2 x 2 Withdrawn bed flats. DC/09/2298 Demolition of existing building construction of Granted 2-storey building with ground floor veterinary surgery and a first floor 1 x 3 bed flat.

The comments of the Strategic & Community Planning, Public Health &

15 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/80 Planning Application: DC/11/1314 (cont.)

Licensing and West Sussex County Council Highways Departments, Southern Water and the Environment Agency were noted. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. Fifteen letters of support and one of objection to the application had been received.

The main differences from the approved scheme DC/09/2298 and the current application was that the site had been reduced on the northern side and it no longer incorporated a car parking space to the front of the neighbouring property. Additionally, the proposed building was 0.6 metre less in width, 0.6 metre more in depth and 0.2 metre more in height than the scheme approved under DC/09/2298. The flat was now a two bedroom flat instead of a three bed flat as proposed previously.

It was considered that the current proposal was very similar to the approved scheme granted under DC/09/2298 and at its nearest point, the proposed building would be approximately 30 metres away from the nearest residential property to the rear.

The application site had been empty for some years and contributed little to the character of the area. Therefore, on balance, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure a financial contribution of £1,385 towards community facilities and tying the occupation of the flat to qualifying local residents or an employee of Arun Veterinary Practice. (ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above, application DC/11/1314 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

16 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/81 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1491 - REMOVAL OF EXISTING ROOF, NEW ROOF FORMED WITH DORMERS WITH ROOMS IN ROOF SPACE, ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO GROUND FLOOR AND ERECTION OF NEW DOUBLE GARAGE (REVISED SCHEME SHOWING REDUCTION IN ENTRANCE AND OVERALL ROOF PITCH AND HEIGHT) SITE: CAMBOUNET, BOWER LANE, WEST CHILTINGTON, PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: MR AND MRS D BRANDON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for an increase in the height of the existing roof to provide accommodation within the roof space, as well as the addition of dormer windows on the front and rear elevations.

The site was located on the northern corner of Bower Lane and Silver Glade, with access via the latter. The existing dwelling was a single storey building, positioned relatively centrally within the plot with a large parking area to the front. The property was located within the built up area of West Chiltington.

Government Policy PPS1 and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC15 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included: DC/1/0563 Removal of existing roof, new roof formed Withdrawn with dormers with rooms in roof space. Alterations and extensions to ground floor and erection of new double garage. DC/11/1478 Removal of existing roof, new roof formed Pending with dormers with rooms in roof space, alterations and extensions to ground floor and erection of new double garage (revised scheme with reduced entrance)

The Parish Council objected to the proposal. Sixteen letters of objection to the application had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The main issue in determination of this application was considered to be the effect of the development on the surrounding area and the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

It was considered that the proposed development would be overbearing, was out of keeping with the character of the area and that it would adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

17 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/81 Planning Application: DC/11/1491 (cont.)

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1491 be refused for the following reason:

01 The proposed development by virtue of its scale, height and mass would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings. The development is therefore contrary to policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC9 and DC15 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DCS/82 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1460 - 2 NO. SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS TO REPLACE EXISTING DWELLING AND CARPORT SITE: ST FRANCIS, THAKEHAM ROAD, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR N JOHNSON (Councillor Ray Dawe declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as his mother-in-law lived next door to the applicant. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item).

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of two semi-detached dwellings to replace the existing dwelling and carport. Amended plans had been received reducing the ridge height of the dwellings from 9.5 metres to 8 metres. The dwellings would measure 14 metres wide (7 metres each) by 11 metres deep and would be sited 16.6 metres from the front boundary. A gap of 1.2 metres would be retained to the eastern boundary, a gap of 1.5 metres to the western boundary and a rear garden measuring 16.8 metres deep by approximately 8 metres wide would be provided for each dwelling. A separate garage block was proposed to the rear of the dwellings which would measure 12.2 metres wide by 6.2 metres deep, with a ridge height of 5 metres.

The proposed site was within the built up area of Storrington, located on the southern side of Thakeham Road. There was currently a detached single storey bungalow on site with vehicular access via a single track lane to the west of the site.

18 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/82 Planning Application: DC/11/1460 (cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

SG/35/63 Site for bungalow. Refused SG/42/63 Site for bungalow. Granted SG/17/64 Bungalow. Granted DC/05/1081 Replacement dwelling and garage. Granted DC/10/2147 Two new dwellings to replace existing Withdrawn dwelling. DC/11/0789 Two new dwellings to replace existing Refused dwelling.

The comments of Southern Water and West Sussex County Council Highways were noted. The Parish Council raised no objection and their comments were noted. Seven letters of objection to the application had been received.

A distance of approximately 16 metres would be retained between the proposed dwellings and the row of terraced properties to the west and the height of the proposed dwellings had been reduced to eight metres, which was considered to be acceptable.

A distance of at least 5.5 metres would be retained between the side elevation of the dwellings and the rear boundary fences which would prevent overshadowing of neighbouring rear gardens.

The dwellings proposed were considered to be in keeping with the pattern and character of surrounding development. It was considered that the size of the useable residential amenity area for each dwelling was now proportionate to the size of the dwellings and surrounding plots. It was considered that the dwellings proposed under this application had addressed many of the concerns raised previously and the proposal was now considered to be of a scale and character that would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would not materially affect neighbouring occupiers.

RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure the required community facilities and transport infrastructure contributions.

(ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above,

19 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/82 Planning Application: DC/11/1460 (cont.)

application DC/11/1460 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/83 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0120 - RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 1 NO. AIR CONDITIONING UNIT AND INSTALLATION OF 2 NO. ADDITIONAL AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ON WALL OF SERVICE STATION SITE: HARWOODS ROVER, HORSHAM ROAD, FIVE OAKS APPLICANT: HARWOODS LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought retrospective planning permission for the retention of two air conditioning units and one refrigeration cooling unit on the eastern wall of the service station building.

The application site comprised a petrol station situated on the northern side of Horsham Road. The site was located outside the built up area with an open grassed area to the north and Harwood’s car sales garage to the west. On the opposite side of the road there were a number of two storey residential properties.

Government Policies PPS1 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3 and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1 and DC9 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/0121 Retention of 1 No. replacement illuminated Refused pole sign, 1 No. replacement illuminated canopy fascia sign, 1 No. replacement illuminated shop fascia sign, 1 No. new illuminated 'Wild Bean Cafe' sign, new services signage, new pump island signage and new freestanding poster sign. DC/06/2909 Three flag poles and flags and two free Granted standing totem signs. DC/05/0986 Partial overcladding of buildings. Granted DC/04/0143 Retention of six lighting bollards. Granted DC/04/0102 Additional parking, soft landscaping, improved Refused and access and turning. dismissed on appeal

20 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/83 Planning Application: DC/11/0120 (cont.)

The comments of the Council’s Area Environmental Health Officer were noted. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. One letter of objection to the proposal had been received.

The main issues in the determination of this application were considered to

be the effect of the development on the character of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The three air conditioning units were not considered to be excessive in terms of size and their grey exterior colour did not appear out of keeping with the main petrol station building. It was therefore considered that the air conditioning units did not detract from the countryside location or appear duly prominent within the street scene.

An Industrial Noise Assessment report had been submitted, which assessed the existing background noise levels within the area and the noise levels emitted by the external plant machinery. On the basis of the calculations and information incorporated in the report, it was considered that the noise levels produced by the three units would be very low and unlikely to cause any impact in terms of noise disturbance to the neighbouring occupiers on the opposite side of the road.

Members therefore considered that the development was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0120 be granted.

REASON

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

DCS/84 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1308 - ADDITION OF 2 NO. VELUX ROOF LIGHTS SITE: BOWSHOTTS STUD, COWFOLD ROAD, WEST GRINSTEAD APPLICANT: MR NICK HALL

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the installation of two rooflights within the roofspace of this converted barn. The proposed rooflights would be sited on the side (north) elevation of the residential property

The site comprised a detached, 1½ storey dwelling and a number of stable buildings, barns and equestrian facilities for the established equine use at the

21 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/84 Planning Application: DC/11/1308 (cont.)

site, which was located on the northern side of Cowfold Road, outside the built up area.

Government Policies PPS1 and PPS7; Local Development Framework

Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC28 and South East Plan Policies C4, CC4 and CC6 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/09/1811 Erection of a wind turbine. Refused DC/09/1809 Erection of a timber shed for use as a home Refused office. DC/09/1807 Installation of rooflights, windows and solar Refused panels. DC/08/1343 Retention of two rooflights in contravention of Granted condition 5 of approved planning permission WG/101/88 WG/77/02 Construction of a riding arena Granted WG/76/02 Erection of two replacement stable blocks Granted comprising six stables feed room tack room and hay store. WG/14/98 Conversion of barn area into living Granted accommodation WG/21/90 Conversion of stable block to annexe for Granted dependant relative WG/101/88 Conversion of part of barn to one residential Granted unit

The comments of the Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser were noted. The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

The main issues in the determination of this application were considered to be the scale and form of the development, the effect of the development on the character of the area and the character of the converted building, and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The nearest of the neighbouring dwellings was approximately 35 metres to the south-west of the proposed rooflights and, given the nature of the proposed works, the oblique angles between the dwellings and the separation distances involved, it was considered that there would be no adverse effect upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.

22 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/84 Planning Application: DC/11/1308 (cont.)

Members considered that the addition of one further rooflight, rather than the two currently proposed, would not detract from the rural character of the converted barn.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1308 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, following negotiations with the applicant seeking a compromise solution by reducing the number of rooflights proposed to one. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/85 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1287- PROPOSED CESSATION OF USE OF LAND FOR TRAVELLER PITCHES, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF 8 DWELLINGS (OUTLINE WITH SOME RESERVED MATTERS) SITE: LAMORNA, OLD LONDON ROAD, WASHINGTON APPLICANT: MR JOHN JOSEPH SMITH

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reminded Members that this application had first been reported to the Committee on 19th April 2011 and referred them to the previous report for details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and the planning assessment.

At that meeting, it had been resolved that a planning agreement be entered into, with a view to granting permission. Consideration was to be given to the inclusion of a clause within the planning agreement requiring the existing occupiers to vacate the site prior to the occupation of the dwellings. Subsequently, the applicant’s agent had expressed a wish to amend the wording of the planning agreement to that agreed at the Committee meeting in April.

The applicant’s agent had stated that he wanted the legal agreement to be amended to ensure that five houses were marketed and occupied in the first instance by people within the Parish of Washington. After a period of six months of advertising, the houses could also be marketed to people within Ashington, Thakeham, Wiston & Shipley parishes. However, the agent wished to delete the following sentence from the S106 legal agreement: “If the occupiers of the houses subsequently wished to sell or vacate the houses within five years of their first date of occupation then the houses would be marketed to people within Washington Parish for up to six months and then onto the surrounding parishes for another year”.

The agent had stated that the site had been marketed since April 2011 and, whilst there were builders/developers willing to purchase the site in principle, they

23 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/85 Planning Application: DC/10/1287(cont.)

were not able to proceed as they could not secure development funding based on the premise that the residency restriction would also apply to future purchasers of the dwellings. It was also unlikely that prospective purchasers of the dwellings would be able to secure a mortgage if this restriction were retained.

Members therefore considered that, in view of this situation, the deletion of the second part of the wording in the planning agreement was acceptable as it would still seek to restrict the occupation of five houses to local people in the first instance.

RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into tying the ownership of five of the properties to qualifying local residents and securing the required financial contributions towards community facilities and transport infrastructure.

(ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above, application DC/10/1287 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/86 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1233 - ERECTION OF 1.2M STOCK FENCING AND WOODEN GATE SITE: PLOTS 5 AND 6, BRAMBLEFIELD, CRAYS LANE, THAKEHAM, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: MR AND MRS BARRY KNIGHT

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for stock fencing and an agricultural gate, which would provide the applicant with an enclosed .864 hectare plot within a larger agricultural field. The proposed fence would comprise traditional post and wire fencing to a height of approximately 1.2 metres. The proposed timber gate would be of typical agricultural size, scale and composition.

The application site, which was located in the countryside, formed part of a large agricultural field situated northwest of Bramblefield and southeast of Dukes Hill. Access to the site comprised an unfinished track to the north of Crays Lane. The site was adjoined on all sides by agricultural land, significant amounts of which had been sub-divided as individual plots. Boundaries in the plots surrounding the subject site, where erected, generally consisted of wire and timber post fencing of a similar height to the current proposal.

24 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/86 Planning Application: DC/11/1233 (cont.)

Government Policy PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP1; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC1 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

Subject site EN/10/0154 Article 4 direction relating to (1) The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure being development comprised within Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the National Order, and, (2) The use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which not more than 14 days in total may be for the purposes referred to in paragraph B.2 of the said Class B, and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of the permitted use, being development comprised within Class B of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Order The purposes referred to in paragraph B.2 are (a) The holding of a cattle market: and (b) Motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed, and practising for these activities

Adjoining Site DC/10/1598 Retention of stock fence and gate (plot P) Granted DC/11/0107 Retention of 1.4m stock proof fencing and Granted metal gate at plot M DC/11/0114 Retrospective permission for the erection of Granted stock fencing on land at Plot G EN/10/0154 Article 4 direction relating to (1) The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure being development comprised within Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the National Order, and, (2) The use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which not more than 14 days in total may be for the purposes referred to in paragraph B.2 of the said Class B, and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of the permitted use, being development comprised within Class B of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Order The purposes referred to in paragraph B.2 are (a) The holding of a cattle market: and (b) Motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed, and practising for these activities

25 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/86 Planning Application: DC/11/1233 (cont.)

The Parish Council had withdrawn its objection to the proposal

The main issue in the determination of this application was considered to be the effect of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area.

The current application had arisen from the implementation of an article 4 direction on the overall site, in respect of the erection of gates, walls, fencing and other means of enclosure. This direction also restricted the use of the site in terms of holding a market and motor racing/practising for such activities.

With regard to the visual impact of the development on the surrounding countryside, it was considered that the subject site was not in a prominent location, situated as it was in an elevated position removed from the public highways.

Members therefore considered that, given the form, nature and extent of the stock fencing proposed, the proposal would not unduly impact upon the character and visual amenities of the area.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1233 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 02 The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall strictly accord with those indicated on the approved details associated with the application.

REASON

ICAB2B The proposal does not materially affect the amenities or character of the locality

DCS/87 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/2254 & S106/1704 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 14 DWELLINGS (COMPRISING 6 X 3-BED, 1 X 5-BED AND 7 X 4-BED), GARAGING AND ACCESS SITE: TREES EAST STREET BILLINGSHURST WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: HILLREED HOMES

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that approval was sought for the variation of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 which had been completed on 2nd December 2009 (Reference S106/1704).

26 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/87 Planning Application: DC/08/2254 & S106/1704 (cont.)

The Agreement stated, amongst other things, that:

‘’The Owner covenants with the Council to transfer the land shown hatched black on the attached plan within 12 months of Commencement of Development to the Registered Social Landlord subject to a restrictive covenant for the benefit of the Owner’s retained land known as Trees, East Street, Billingshurst shown edged green on the attached plan prohibiting the erection of any building or structure on the land hatched black on the Plan other than two affordable bungalows or chalet bungalows for occupation by disabled people who reside in the Horsham District.”

Application DC/08/2254 had permitted the residential development of 14 dwellings, garaging and access on land at Trees, East Street, Billingshurst in December 2009. This application had been subject to the S106 agreement being completed and signed.

The site was located on the southern side of East Street (A272) and was within the defined built-up area of Billingshurst and the northern part of the site was within the Conservation Area. It had an area of 0.56 hectare.

The whole site had formerly been part of the garden area to Trees, a two storey dwelling situated to the north-east of the site. The site was ‘L’ shaped and sloped from north to south. A line of mature oak trees on the eastern boundary of the site, covered by a Tree Preservation Order, effectively screened the site from the open countryside to the east. The subject land, which was to be transferred to a Housing Association, abutted the northern boundary of the remainder of the site which was currently under construction. This area of land was located adjacent to the A272 and within the Conservation Area. There was a belt of semi-mature trees and hedging which screened the whole site from the highway.

Government Policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC6, DC9, DC12, DC18 and DC40 and Policy AL1 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/06/0896 Erection of 1 dwelling and garage. Withdrawn DC/06/1697 Erection of 18 dwellings (Outline). Withdrawn DC/08/0283 Erection of 25 dwellings, access, garaging Refused and parking.

The Housing Development & Strategy Manager had no objection to the proposal.

27 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/87 Planning Application: DC/08/2254 & S106/1704 (cont.)

The main issue in assessing the proposal was whether the variation of the S106 Agreement would meet the aims and objectives of the original agreement.

The developer had been endeavouring for sometime to transfer the land referred to in S10 of the Agreement to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). After receiving no positive response from a number of RSLs, it had been finally agreed to transfer the subject land to The Abbeyfield Kent Society. However, it was understood that the Society specialised in affordable units for the elderly. Furthermore, the transfer of land had been required to take place within 12 months of the commencement of development, of which notice had been given on 11th May 2010.

It was, therefore, requested that occupation of the two units be varied to include elderly residents and that the transfer of the land be varied to take place within 24 months of the commencement of development. No other amendments were proposed to the Agreement.

Members considered that the proposed variation was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That the agreement under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (reference S106/1704) be varied as requested.

REASON

IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.

DCS/88 SECTION 106 AGREEMENT NO. 623 - DISCHARGE OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT NO. 623 AND FORMATION OF NEW PLANNING OBLIGATION TO INCORPORATE AN INCREASED RANGE OF SALE GOODS WHICH WILL BE UNRESTRICTED TO SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE GARDEN CENTRE SITE: OLD BARN NURSERY AND GARDEN CENTRE, WORTHING ROAD, DIAL POST APPLICANT: WYEVALE ACQUISITIONS BORROWER LIMITED

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought to consider the discharge of Section 106 agreement no.623 and the replacement planning obligation deed that had been drawn up by the applicant’s solicitors.

Old Barn Nurseries had been developed following the granting of planning permission WG/2/90 for the construction of a barn and the erection of 2,000 square metres of glass houses. This permission had been subject to a planning

28 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/88 Section 106 Agreement No. 623 (cont.)

agreement controlling the goods that could be sold from the land. These goods had included hardy and non-hardy plants, water garden and marginal plants, fresh fruit and vegetables, cut dried and artificial flowers and foliage, small equipment and products associated with indoor/outdoor garden plants such as garden tools and light refreshments and confectionary to nursery retail customers only. Garden sheds, greenhouses, building materials, swimming pools and similar large items had been restricted from being sold on the site under this agreement.

Following the establishment of the enterprise, the planning agreement had been breached in as much as goods were being sold which were not identified in the agreement. Application WS/17/93 was subsequently submitted to resolve some of the on-going breaches on the site. The opportunity had been taken at that stage to secure a further planning agreement ensuring that the land at the northern end of the site was only used for agricultural or horticultural purposes or as a plant production area. It had been also agreed that Christmas decorations could be sold from the site provided this was restricted to a specific area within the greenhouses.

Planning application WS/21/97 for a 134 square metre extension to the open plant sales area to the south of the greenhouses, a conservatory to the bungalow on the site and use of the land at the northern end of the site as an overspill car park had also been approved. An amendment to the planning agreement had also been sought at this time to allow for the sale of garden furniture, barbecues, pet foods (but not live pets), fencing, light garden landscape materials such as paving, strimmers and hedge cutters and garden clothing. Therefore, Section 106 no.623 had been drawn up to include these goods and restrict the sale of products in the specific coloured areas of the site as shown on the map incorporated within the agreement.

Section 106 no.623 stated that: “The owner and the applicants hereby covenant:

Not to sell or display for sale any goods other than those goods listed in the Schedule to this agreement numbered 1 – 5 and those referred to in Condition 2 attached to the 1993 Planning Permission and no sale or display for sale of goods shall take place except as authorised in this agreement and the said condition 2”. Details of goods which could be sold from the various locations within the site were submitted.

In addition to the above restrictions relating to the sales of goods on the Old Barn Nurseries site, condition 2 of planning application WG/17/93 specifically referred to the use of the barn building and specified that: “The cafeteria use hereby approved shall be restricted to the area shown on the submitted plan No. KP/Spears2(Ap) as marked yellow and the remainder of the barn (marked green on that plan) shall be used only for ancillary retail sales.”

29 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/88 Section 106 Agreement No. 623 (cont.)

The current proposal sought to discharge the original planning obligation which had been completed on the 23rd April 2004 (Reference S106 623) and a new deed had been drawn up by the applicant’s solicitors which sought to replace the discharged planning obligation.

The proposed deed specified that: “All of the land shown edged red on the plan “shall only be used for the sale of goods in the categories specified below and (unless otherwise proved in writing by the Council) shall not be used at any time for any other purpose falling within Class A1 of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987”

Goods and services normally sold at a Garden Centre, which for the avoidance of doubt shall include:

 Goods and services related to gardens and gardening  Horticultural products, trees, plants, shrubs, house plants and flowers of any type including fresh and dried flowers  Garden equipment, tools and accessories  Machinery for garden use and servicing of it  Barbecues and their accessories  Conservatories  Outdoor and conservatory furniture, furnishings and accessories  Fresh and local farmhouse produced foods including meats, dairy products, vegetables and beverages  Sheds, garden buildings, greenhouses, summerhouses, gazeboes, pergolas, garden offices  Swimming pools and associated equipment, materials and fittings for pools, ponds and lakes and for the servicing of pool surrounds  Fencing, trellis and landscaping materials  Aquatics, water garden equipment and their accessories  Garden ornaments and statuary, baskets and their containers for the growing and display of indoor and outdoor plants and flowers  Books, magazines, periodicals videos and CD and DVDs relating to gardening, leisure, hobby, travel, sports and coffee table books and other literature other than fiction  Pets, pet accessories, pet care and advice  Indoor and outdoor hobbies, toys, games, crafts and garden play equipment  Baskets, wickerwork and country crafts  Christmas trees (live and artificial) decorations, gifts  China, glass and gifts  Soft furnishings associated with garden and conservatory furniture  Outdoor clothing and footwear, including wellington boots, garden aprons and smocks, gardening boots and clogs, gardening gloves, gardening hats, gardening rain proofs and gardening overalls.

30 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/88 Section 106 Agreement No. 623 (cont.)

 Outdoor and country pursuits and equipment, (eg. camping, fishing, equestrian, hiking, climbing etc)  Restaurant, coffee shop and children’s play area  Arts and crafts Products  Other items incidental to the operations of the garden centre as a garden centre and ancillary to its character as a garden centre  Such other products, goods or services as the Council shall have first approved in writing.”

Old Barn Nurseries was located in a countryside location to the east of the A24 and to the west of Grinders Lane. The site comprised 6.3 hectares of land in mixed use for the purposes of the garden centre and horticultural business use. The site was split into two, with the main garden centre, coffee shop and restaurant to the west of the site and the growing area to the east of the site, which was closed to the general public.

Government Policies PPS1, PPS6 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC25 and DC38 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/1341 Proposed kitchen extension and pergola to Pending the barn. consideration DC/11/1026 Erection of playground equipment. Pending consideration DC/11/0872 Erection of 1086 square metres of Pending polytunnels, the installation of rainwater tanks consideration and the re-location of a site office. DC/10/1486 Demolition of an existing building and erection Granted of a conservatory. DC/10/0219 Retrospective planning permission for the Granted retention of 2,400 square metres of polytunnels. DC/09/1659 Retrospective planning permission for the Granted retention of resurfaced car park and installation of soak-aways. DC/09/0708 Change of use of the ground floor of the Granted existing bungalow to a coffee shop and alterations to the elevations. DC/08/2632 Retrospective planning for the retention of Granted various business and directional free standing adverts and banner signs.

31 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/88 Section 106 Agreement No. 623 (cont.)

DC/08/2424 Construction of a hand car wash and valeting Refused operation to include a site cabin and canopy. WG/65/02 Erection of an open sided glasshouse; Granted replacement building comprising nursery production facility/potting shed; polytunnels; use of former mushroom shed as ancillary workshop; alterations to land levels for use as a nursery production areas, access road and retention of alterations/re-roofing and re- cladding works to former mushroom sheds. WG/39/00 The formation of an additional access and Granted additional car parking and service road. WG/21/97 A glass house extension, a plant shade area Granted and pergola, surfacing overspill car park and a conservatory addition to the bungalow building. WG/17/93 Elevational changes to the glass house Granted building, use of glass house for A1 retail and display, extension to barn, a shaded growing area, lighting and car parking. WG/36/91 Change of use of part existing farm shop to Granted cafeteria. WG/21/91 Erection of a barn for use as a farm shop. Granted WG/2/90 Erection of 23,000 square foot Class I steel Granted framed glass house, farm shop with storage and parking.

One member of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal and the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The purpose of the previously agreed planning agreement had been to restrict the sale of goods in the garden centre to those associated with a garden centre business and to protect the rural location of the site. The planning agreements on the site had also traditionally restricted the sale of different goods in certain parts of the main garden centre building. Under Section 106 no.623, the main range of goods was restricted to the front northerly section of the building and fewer garden related products were allowed to be sold in the rear sections of the building.

It was acknowledged that there was an established garden centre business on the site. However, under the current planning agreement the site had been restricted to selling goods associated with the operation of the garden centre business. The proposed planning obligation showed a much wider range of products, many of which were unrelated to the garden centre business e.g. pets, toys, games, country crafts etc. In addition to this, bulky items including conservatories, sheds, garden buildings etc., which had always traditionally been

32 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/88 Section 106 Agreement No. 623 (cont.)

restricted from being sold on the site, had been included on the revised schedule of goods. Many of the range of goods were considered to fall outside the remit of products that were relevant to the operation of a garden centre business. The establishment of a unit that sold such a wide range of products was considered to be detrimental to the countryside location and could potentially damage the viability and vitality of the retail element of nearby village centres. There was also concern that the sale of a wider range of bulkier garden outbuildings and structures could lead to further storage requirements on site which were likely to be detrimental to the surrounding countryside amenity.

The replacement planning obligation also specified that the list of goods could be sold on any land within the red edge of the map submitted. This would enable the proposed schedule of goods to be sold within any of the existing buildings on the site, including the barn and bungalow buildings which had café and restaurant uses. Therefore the floor space of the retail sales of the business would be substantially increased. The use of the bungalow building had been restricted under conditions 2 and 8 of application DC/09/0708, which specified that the ground floor level of the building should be used as a coffee shop and the first floor level of the building should be used as residential accommodation for the owners/staff of Old Barn Nurseries. The revised planning obligation, therefore, conflicted with conditions attached to previous planning approvals for the bungalow building.

It was therefore considered that the revised schedule of goods and the proposed lifting of the restriction on the location of sold goods within the nursery site would lead to considerable expansion of the retail side of the business, which would be detrimental to countryside amenity and the viability of nearby village centres.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That the request to discharge Section 106 agreement number 623 be denied.

DCS/89 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/11/1357 & DC/11/1359 - NEW EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS SITE: JENDENS FARM, SMITHERS HILL LANE, SHIPLEY, HORSHAM, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: MR AND MRS KIM RICHARDSON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for new extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling, which was a listed building. The proposed development would be constructed along the west (side) and north (rear) elevations at ground floor and

33 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/89 Planning Applications: DC/11/1357 & DC/11/1359 (cont.)

first floor level. The application was a revised scheme from applications DC/11/0306 and DC/11/0307, which had been withdrawn.

The application site was located in a rural location to the west of Smithers Lane. The site consisted of a two-storey dwelling (Grade II listed), a number of agricultural buildings and stables and a large formal garden. The listed building itself consisted of the original 15th Century rectangular shaped building, which had been extended on a number of occasions, up to the 19th Century, to the east and north. The current form of the building took its shape from an additional extension on the north elevation, which extended to first floor level, along with an additional pitched roof. The site was significantly removed from Smithers Hill Lane, below the level of the road, and was adjoined on all sides by agricultural land. The dwelling was largely exposed within the context of the surrounding land and was clearly visible from the two public footpaths/bridleways that ran through the south and west of the property.

Government Policies PPS5 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC13 and DC28 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/06/0793 2-storey and single storey extensions, Refused alterations and change of use of land to form re-aligned driveway. DC/06/0806 2-storey and single storey extensions and Refused internal alterations (Listed Building Consent) DC/07/2036 Formation of one attic bedroom with dormer Granted windows, extend first floor gable end to form living accommodation, extend ground floor and form new porch, re-build existing ground floor living accommodation (Listed Building Consent). DC/07/2037 Formation of one attic bedroom with dormer Granted windows, extend first floor gable end to form living accommodation, extend ground floor and form new porch, rebuild existing ground floor living accommodation, 3 additional windows. DC/08/0422 Formation of cellar under family room. Granted DC/08/0423 Formation of cellar under family room (Listed Granted Building Consent).

The Design and Conservation Officer raised no objection to the proposal. The

34 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/89 Planning Applications: DC/11/1357 & DC/11/1359 (cont.)

Parish Council supported the application and four letters of support had been received. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

The main issues in the determination of this application were considered to be the effect of the development on the character and visual amenities of the locality and the character and setting of the listed building.

The current proposal was a revised scheme from that which had previously been withdrawn (DC/11/0306 and DC/11/0307), and would replace the lean-to extension, extend the north elevation at ground floor and first floor level and infill the first floor of the north elevation towards the eastern end. Consent had previously been granted, following significant revisions, for a single storey lean-to extension on the west elevation and the formation of an additional bedroom at second floor level with two dormer windows.

Members considered that the impact of the proposed extensions would not have a significant impact on the existing dwelling and that the scale and nature of the proposed extensions were acceptable. It was also considered that the proposal would not detract from the character and setting of the listed building.

RESOLVED

That applications DC/11/1357 and DC/11/1359 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, to allow the framing of appropriate conditions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/90 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1248 - ERECTION OF 12 NO. SOLAR PANELS AND RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING FOR THE ERECTION OF A BUILDING USED AS A BATTERY STORE AND 4 NO. SOLAR PANELS SITE: PEAR TREE FARM, WEST CHILTINGTON LANE, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: TRACEY POULTON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the retention of a timber clad building used as a battery store and the siting of four stand alone solar panels. The application also sought planning permission for the erection of an additional twelve solar panels.

The site comprised a detached grade II listed dwelling, a grade II listed semi- derelict barn, which had planning permission to be converted to a residential unit, and approximately 13 hectares of land which was a mixture of residential curtilage and agricultural land. There was an area of Ancient Woodland at the westernmost point of the site. The application site was located at the junction of

35 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/90 Planning Application: DC/11/1248 (cont.)

West Chiltington Lane and New Road, outside the designated built up area, and in a countryside location. Two public footpaths crossed this site.

Government Policies PPS1, PPS7, PPG15 and PPS22; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC8, DC9, DC13 and DC28 and South East Plan Policies BE6, C4 and CC6 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/10/2427 Retrospective permission for the installation Refused and of 16 solar panels and one wind turbine and granted on battery store. In 2011 the subsequent appeal appeal was allowed. DC/10/0346 Two storey link extension and alterations to Granted & Grade II Listed farmhouse with single storey DC/10/0347 storage building and construction of new access drive and garage DC/10/0244 Prior approval to erect storage barn for agricultural purposes DC/09/2310 Repairs, alterations and change of use of Granted & redundant agricultural barn for residential DC/09/2268 purposes

DC/09/2210 Underpinning. Granted DC/08/1704 Single-storey link extension and alterations to Granted & the farmhouse and replacement shed. DC/08/1705

The comments of the Design and Conservation Adviser and Parish Council were noted. One letter of objection had been received in respect of the battery store.

The main issues in the determination of this application were considered to be the scale and form of the development, the effect of the development on the rural character of the countryside location, the setting of the listed buildings and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Whilst the applicant had been advised that they could temporarily install four panels and a structure to house the batteries in order to provide energy to the site for the restoration of the cottages, they now wished to make the existing installations permanent, which required the benefit of planning permission. The applicant had advised that the property was not connected to a mains electricity supply and an alternative source for obtaining electricity was therefore required.

36 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/90 Planning Application: DC/11/1248 (cont.)

It was recognised that there was a lack of an electricity supply to this site and that there was a genuine and established need for alternative sources of providing energy. It was considered that the existing and proposed solar panels would not be overly visible from any public vantage points and were relatively well screened by the trees and hedgerows sited behind the panels. The battery store building was constructed from appropriate materials and was not considered to be overly visible in this locality or an unacceptable visual intrusion in this rural area. However, a landscaping condition would ensure that the battery store was further screened from the public footpath.

Therefore, Members considered that the proposals were acceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1248 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Planning 02 M1 Approval of Materials 03 L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping

REASONS

ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality. IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan. ICTN1 The proposal would not be obtrusive in the landscape or harmful to the visual quality of the area. ILBC1A The proposal would preserve the setting of the Listed Building.

DCS/91 TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 1435 SITE: ST MICHAEL’S CHURCH, AMBERLEY.

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 1435.

Provisional Tree Preservation Order No 1435, St Michael’s Church, Amberley, had been served on 29th March 2011 on a Coast redwood tree under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999, and included a Section 201 Direction, affording the tree in question immediate protection. The statutory consultation period for the receipt of representations had now expired, enabling the Order to be confirmed.

37 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/91 Tree Preservation Order No. 1435 (cont.)

The tree was sited to the west of the lych-gate at the north-east corner of the churchyard, immediately to the south of the access path to the church and close to the church hall. The area was within the South Downs National Park, the Amberley Conservation Area and the local built-up area boundary. The area was also a designated Archaeological Site and subject to an Article 4 Direction. St Michael’s Church was a Grade I listed building, of national importance.

Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC6 was relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

On 22nd February 2011, a notification under Section 211 of the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 had been received of the intention to remove the tree (DC/11/0333). As it was considered that the tree had high amenity value and representations had been received both in favour of and in objection to its removal, it had been decided that the tree should be formally protected until a more intensive consideration of its properties and qualities had been undertaken.

The comments of the Parish Council were noted. Three letters of objection and eight letters of support for the tree’s removal had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application.

The tree was clearly prominent in the street scene and, being sited on the highest part of the churchyard, was prominent from the north, south, and west. It was considered, therefore, to have very high amenity value.

Apart for some minor distortion to the church footpath, there was no evidence that any of the built features near the tree were suffering from any structural defect connected with its presence nor had any evidence been submitted indicating such.

It was noted that the recent lack of maintenance was, however, causing a problem. There was evidence that some of the longer, heavier limbs had fallen in storms but it was not considered necessary to remove the tree to abate this nuisance.

It was considered that it would be good practice to lift the lower limbs by selective surgery and trim back the longest branches to appropriate growth points to improve the ratio between branch length and breadth of limb. It was also considered that it would be prudent to thin the canopy, decreasing wind resistance, and to remove any deadwood. Such works would also dramatically reduce needle and detritus drop. In this respect, it was requested that the landowner/applicant be advised to make an application to carry out the suggested works.

38 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

DCS/91 Tree Preservation Order No. 1435 (cont.)

RESOLVED

That Tree Preservation Order: No. 1435, St Michael’s Church, Amberley be confirmed.

DCS/92 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1405 - SURGERY TO ONE ASH TREE SITE: LAND WEST OF 62 ARUN ROAD, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application proposed surgery to an ash tree. The tree was sited in the southerly section of retained amenity land to the west of Arun Road, adjacent to Holders Close and to the west of 85 Holders Close.

The tree in question was protected by Tree Preservation Order number 1226, which had been confirmed on 21st February 2005. The land, on which the tree was growing, was owned and managed by Horsham District Council and had been previously lightly pruned under DC/06/2518.

Members were advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).

The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal.

Despite previous surgery, the tree in question was in poor health and condition and had a highly imbalanced crown profile. In order to regain a more natural form and to shorten lateral limbs over the adjacent property, it was proposed to carry out a 30% reduction of the canopy.

It was considered that these works would improve the aesthetic appearance of the tree and constituted best practice

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1405 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 TR2 Time limit 02 TR3 Treeworks limits: Undertake works exactly as set out in schedule as submitted with application. 03 TR4 Surgery standards

REASON

ITRE1(a) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the tree or the character and amenities of the local area.

39 Development Control (South) Committee 20th September 2011

The meeting closed at 5.45pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

40 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS

1. Appeals Lodged

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/11/0938 Proposed garage. Morningside, Lordings Lane, West Chiltington, Pulborough, RH20 2QU. For: Mr Colin Bailey

DC/11/0834 Erection of 1 x 3-bed chalet bungalow and attached garage (Land to the north of 2 Bohemia Cottages Georges Lane Storrington). 2 Bohemia Cottages, Georges Lane, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 3JH. For: Mr and Mrs D Crouch

3. Appeal Decisions

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:-

DC/11/0064 Proposed replacement structure for residential use. Land East of Valerie Manor, Henfield Road, Upper Beeding, BN44 3TF. For: Mr Barry Tiller Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/10/2687 Erection of stable block consisting 5 No stables together with construction of domestic sand school. Sunwood Farm, Adversane, Billingshurst, RH14 9JG. For: Mr and Mrs Scott Appeal: ALLOWED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

Development Control (South) Committee 20TH September 2011 Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates

DC/05/1442 – Granted – The Barn, Peppers Farm, Peppers Lane, Ashurst. The applicant proved that the barn had been built in its current form for a period of four years prior to this application. The barn was not built in compliance with the approved plans under DC/05/1442. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 Erection of 3 (2-storey x 5-bed) houses (Outline planning permission with DEVELOPMENT: some Reserved Matters) (South Downs National Park) SITE: Land South of Kingsmead Close Bramber West Sussex WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/11/1480 APPLICANT: Mr Richard Maile

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Applicant request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application proposes the erection of 3 x 5 bedroom houses. The dwellings would be of different designs and styles but would be of similar dimensions. House Type A would measure 16.6m in width by 10.2m in depth and would have a ridge height of 9.5m. This property would have a sitting room, study, hall, dining room, family room, breakfast room, kitchen, utility and WC/cloakroom to the ground floor level and 5 bedrooms, 2 with en-suites, a bathroom and a balcony to the 1st floor level. House Type B would measure 17.4m in width by 9.8m in depth and would have a ridge height of 10.3m. House Type C would measure 17m in width by 8.9m in depth and would have a ridge height of 9.3m. Three garages are proposed, one for each of the dwellings. The triple garages would measure 8.6m in width by 5.5m in depth with a ridge height of 5m.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site is located in a countryside location, is a site of Archaeological Importance and within the South Downs National Park. The site is a wooded area which is covered by Tree Preservation Order TPO/1310. There are open fields (downland)

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

to the south and west, Annington Road runs along the eastern boundary which is sited approximately 3 metres lower than the site and a row of established trees runs along the eastern boundary which is owned by the Highway Authority. Kingsmead Close is sited to the north of the site which consists of bungalows and houses. Kingsmead Close is within the built up area boundary and is not located within the National Park.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3 & PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development, CP4 – Housing Provision, CP5 – Built – Up Areas and Previously Developed Land & CP15 – Rural Strategy.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, DC5 – Biodiversity & Geology, DC6 – Woodland and Trees, DC9 – Development Principles, DC10 – Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments, DC18 – Smaller Homes/Housing Mix & DC40 – Transport & Access.

2.5 The South Downs Management Plan 2008 – 2013 and South Downs Planning Guidelines 2008 are relevant material considerations in the determination of this application since the South Downs National Park’s creation in April 2010. The guidance contained within the documents reflects government guidance which seeks to give maximum protection to the most valuable landscapes.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 BM/6/68 Erection of eleven detached bungalows with garages, Refused 1968.

BM/15/85 Erection of 9 houses & 2 chalet dwellings (Outline), Refused 1985, Appeal Dismissed July 1986.

DC/10/1283 Erection of 3 (2 storey) x 5 bed houses (Outline with some Reserved Matters), Refused August 2010.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic & Community Planning has stated “This application lies within the South Downs National Park. The application will be dealt with and determined by Horsham District Council, acting as an agent for the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) unless it is called in by the SDNPA.

The proposal seeks the erection of 3 (2 storey x 5 bed) houses on land South of Kingsmead Close, Bramber. The application needs to be considered against the Local Development Framework particularly the adopted Core Strategy 2007, the General Development Control Policies 2007 and National Planning Policy, in particular PPS3: Housing.

A similar application DC/10/1283 was refused on 23/08/2010 on the grounds that the site is outside the limits of any existing town or village and the development would harm the quality and characteristics of the South Downs National Park; the proposal made no provision for contributions towards infrastructure; and the proposed development would have resulted in a loss of a number of protected trees. The details of the current application have not changed significantly.

Although the site is adjoining the built up area boundary of a Category 1 settlement, as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy 2007, the site is located outside any built up area boundary and is designated as countryside. Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and Policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 set out that development should only take place where the landscape character of the District is protected, conserved or enhanced and it is in my opinion that due to the location of the site within the South Downs National Park, the proposal would have a negative effect on the landscape character of the area and would therefore be contrary to policy.

In addition to this, I raise concern over the proposal as the site sits within the South Downs National Park and Policy DC4 of the General Development Control Polices 2007, which, although written before the designation of the South Downs National Park in March 2009, sets out that planning permission will not be granted for proposals in or near to the Sussex Downs (now the South Downs National Park) that would adversely affect the character, quality, views, distinctiveness or threaten public enjoyment of these landscapes.

I note that the applicant refers to the site as being the previous garden of Kingsmead House and therefore previously developed land. In June 2010 however, the Government re-issued PPS3 which included changes to the definition of previously developed land in that it now excludes private residential gardens. Due to this change, the previous garden of Kingsmead House is now considered as countryside from a policy perspective.

In conclusion, the department raises a strategic policy objection to the proposal as it is contrary policy.”

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

3.2 Southern Water comment that a formal application for a connection to the public foul sewer is required. They further request that should this application receive planning approval, an informative is attached to the consent and that the Council’s Building Control officers technical staff or the Environment Agency should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

3.3 West Sussex County Council Highways have commented that “We were consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. DC/1283/11 to which no highway objections were raised.

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

WSCC would reiterate the comments provided previously, and would not be minded to raise a highway related objection to the proposals.”

3.4 West Sussex County Council Ecologist has commented that an objection would be raised as further information is required to allow a suitable determination.

The proposals are currently contrary to Development Plan Policy DC5. Whilst this application is in outline a great deal of information has been provided to support the proposals with the exception of ecology and landscape issues. Q13 of the application form has been marked negative with regard to the presence of protected species however no evidence has been provided to support this. There are records of great crested newts, reptiles and bats nearby therefore I must assume the form has been completed in error. However, the site itself is not designated land so the principle of development, with regard to ecology only, might not be contested subject to the results of detailed ecological surveys and proposed mitigation / compensation being provided to support the planning application. Unfortunately it is not possible to condition ecological surveys for protected species particularly for European protected species such as the great crested newt [The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (2010)]; also refer to Gov’t circular 06/2005 [98 & 99]. Given that the design / layout of the site has been put in place for approval and that the protected species issues might lead to a material change in layout I recommend that surveys are completed and ecological mitigation proposed to support this application.

3.5 West Sussex County Council Archaeologist has commented that he has no objection on archaeological grounds, subject to suitable safeguards to ensure the recording of archaeological features, where affected by the proposals.

3.6 The Arboricultural Officer provided comments under application DC/10/1283 and he has advised verbally that his comments would be very similar to those stated last time:

1. You will recall that an emergency 'area' type Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was served on the land in November 2005, which was allowed to lapse subsequent to the serving of a more specific woodland Order in April 2006, confirmed on 9th October 2006 (ref: TPO/1310). This TPO protected all of the large and medium APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5 sized trees, allowing the removal of some of the understorey to encourage selective thinning and scrub clearance to open up the woodland floor.

2. The basis of the application relies on the presence of three existing clearings within the wood, which have been in existence for some years. Indeed, the area has never, so far as I can tell, been very heavily tree-covered, and has largely grown up in recent decades. The tree cover is thereby intermittent, irregular, in both form and size, and varied. There are also a range of topographical features within the woodland, some of which whose provenance is clear (such as the spoil dumping in the northern part of the site), some of which are not. That the tree cover is recent is confirmed not only by the size of the largest specimens (trunk diameters of the most vigorous trees at chest height of around 650 - 700mm), but also that no woodland is shown in the area on Ordnance Survey maps dating from as late as 1947. Clearly, it is certainly not Ancient Woodland.

3. The matter of the age and provenance of the woodland appears to be taken by the applicant as the core consideration of its worth. The Planning and Design & Access Statement refers to comments I have previously made in regard to the 'woodland floor' (para. 7.2), attesting this description to be "something of an exaggeration", calling into question the status of the area as woodland. This I dispute. Despite its young age, its relative dereliction (in terms of woodland management), and its clearings, the photograph submitted by the applicant (appendix 3, photograph 2) belies this, indicating quite clearly an area which by any desciption should be described as woodland. This accords with the detailed tree survey undertaken in October 2006 by Environmental Assessment Services Ltd., which refers to the area as "semi-mature woodland".

4. The Government's Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests, published on 20th June 2007, sets out five key aims: to secure trees and woodlands for future generations; to ensure resilience to climate change; to protect and enhance natural resources; to increase the contribution that trees, woods and forests make to our quality of life; and to improve the competitiveness of woodland businesses and products. These aims are supported by policies referring either directly to woodland loss or to matters pertaining to wildlife, habitat loss, and biodiversity issues, from national level (PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) to local level, including policies CP1 and CP3 of the Core Strategy (February 2007) and DC1, DC2, DC6 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). As the site is now within the South Downs National Park, a greater level of protection exists, PPS7 stating that land within such areas should have "the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty". Notwithstanding the relative poor quality of the woodland noted, its landscape amenity value, especially when viewed from above, from the Downs to the south, cannot be disputed, and I therefore do not agree with the assertion at para. 15.3 of the Planning and Design & Access Statement that the land "does not in its present state enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park". The woodland is material to the planning process and it is therefore essential that it is not compromised by development.

5. In ecological terms, the applicant attests that there is "little wildlife to be seen" within the application site as compared to other more open areas beyond. However, though I have no evidence to doubt that mammalian and avian APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6 populations might be low, a developing woodland floor, with its burgeoning complex underground eco-structure and above ground resting deadwood and understorey provides a haven for bio-diversity which open fields and paddocks cannot match and which has an altogether differing form and delicate structure. It is because of this, as well as amenity issues, that the Government is seeking to retain woodlands, no matter their age and existing form.

6. Despite the presence of the three clearings, the placings of dwellings within this area will in my view permanently radically alter it, destroying, in time, its cohesive structure as a woodland which has built up over the decades. Taken together, the houses and the access driveways will result in the immediate loss of at least 24 trees of considerable size, all protected by the TPO. The number actually threatened is unclear, as despite the tree survey no plan has been submitted indicating exactly which trees are targeted for removal, which for retention. This is unsatisfactory.

7. The Planning and Design & Access Statement refers to the categorisation of the trees in the wood in accordance with BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005), noting that many of these trees fit into category C, and thereby are not material to the planning process. But while I am happy to see that a BS 5837 classification has been undertaken, it in my view misses the point that, whereas indeed some of those to be removed are "multi-stemmed sycamore trees", they are all part of the woodland, contributing to the overall woodland structure. Indeed, contrary to the suggestion put forward at para. 5.8 of the Tree Survey, the TPO does not solely protect those trees assessed to be within categories A or B; as a woodland Order it protects all trees which meet the size criterion, and deliberately does not exclude those of lower quality, all of which contribute to the cohesive structure of the woodland.

8. Furthermore, the development would completely alter the use of the land, irredeemably terminating the underground eco-structure where building and hard surfaces are constructed, splitting up the woodland into three separately owned sections, severing wildlife routes with fences and other structures, severing root systems of retained trees, in places, by the need for underground service trenches, and encouraging the complete alteration of the land use from a wood into private residential gardens. Where this has previously occurred, areas have quite rapidly become sterilised by the introduction of alien plants and garden features such as lawns, urbanising the locality. I note the proposals for a 3m wide 'wildlife barrier', but firstly it is unclear as to how this is designed to work, and secondly whether future landowners would be under any obligation to uphold it. Without such detail it is pointless, and in any case is overly narrow to acheive any long-term gain.

9. It is clear that, notwithstanding the tree loss required to develop the site, the houses and gardens on each plot will suffer from extensive shading due to the retention of other trees within the wood, as well as, in the longer term, the planting of additional native hardwood trees, "both within the application site and on our retained land to the west and southwest of it", as set out in the Planning and Design & Access Statement (para.7.3). Whilst appreciating the efforts to plant trees in mitigation for those lost, such individual tree planting does not in my view outweigh the loss of the cohesive woodland unit as a whole. In regard to those trees retained, and upon which the screening of the site largely relies, many are APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7 predictably etiolated, drawn up to around 20m in height, and exhibiting typically high ratios between their height and stem breadth. Once other trees in the wood are cleared, the likelihood of these trees suffering failure due to altered wind dynamics is increased. This only adds to the likelihood that future owners are going to see them as 'dangerous', and will be desirous of their removal. A very typical example is the retention of the tree in the centre of the southern area of plot 1, a drawn up ash reaching to 21m but having a stem breadth of only 304mm (T165). This gives the tree a height/breadth ratio of 69, well over the safety margin for free standing trees (factor 50) as outlined by Mattheck (Field guide for Visual Tree Assessment, 2007). Whilst surrounded by other woodland trees, this is not a concern. But it clearly indicates that this is a completely unsuitable specimen for retention within a residential garden. The Council could thereby expect to receive an application to remove it, which it may find hard to resist. And yet it is trees like this one which the screening of the site, the structure of the canopy and the cohesive structure of the woodland, is reliant upon. Another example is the clump of 7 sycamores and an ash on the boundary between plots 2 and 3, shown to be wholly removed.

10. The proposal to site the dwellings facing south, at the northern end of each clearing to maximise light, is good practice. However, I have no doubt that notwithstanding this, each garden is going to be badly shaded. This puts the scheme, in terms of this point alone, in conflict both with section 6 of BS 5837 and with the guidance given at paragraph 5.11(ii) of the publication Tree Preservation Orders - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000), which stresses the need to avoid layouts where trees cause unreasonable inconvenience, leading inevitably to requests to fell, anticipates that conflict with trees may arise, and aims to prevent it. I note at appendix 2 to the Planning and Design & Access Statement the consideration that the completed properties are likely to be worth somewhere near to £1 million. From previous experience, purchasers of properties in this price range are most unwilling to put up with excessive shading, and show a desire to ensure that, for instance, their lawns are not adversely affected by shade. Further erosion of the landscape is thereby inevitable.

11. In dismissing the appeal against the Council's refusal of consent for the erection of 11 dwellings on the site in 1985 (ref: BM/15/85), the Secretary of State's Inspector took due account of the wooded nature of the area, noting its contribution to the "essentially rural character of this part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty". Considering the development of the site in general terms - which has as much relevance in regard to 3 dwellings now as 11 then - he concluded that "the site would inevitably lose its natural character if the proposed development were carried out. In order to allow adequate light, air and amenity space to the dwellings, many of the smaller trees and some larger trees would need to be removed". I see no evidence to challenge this view; indeed in the 25 years since all that has changed is that the woodland is 25 years more mature.

12. The concern over loss of amenity is further amplified by the screening of the site by trees along Annington Road. There is a good extensive tree screen along this eastern boundary, reaching to around 24m in height, upon which the site relies heavily for privacy. However, these trees are on the steep bank rising up from the road, on land owned by the Highways Authority. Hence they will be out of the control of the future owner of plot 1 who will suffer from extensive morning shading APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

until the sun passes the meridian. Furthermore, should the County Council see fit to fell these trees, an action they would likely have to undertake should the very steep bank above the road suffer from landslip, the whole site would be badly exposed to the east.

13. In summary, this area of woodland, though it be relatively recent in age, nonetheless contributes much to the wooded landscape of this area of the South Downs, is of amenity value, and has worth in regard to ecology and biodiversity. It is land both outside the designated Built-up Area boundary, and more compellingly with the National Park. The development proposal will badly harm the woodland, and in the long term result in its loss, contrary to policies, guidance and recommendations from national to local level, as noted. I see that it shares a contiguous boundary with the built-up area, and hence may be considered against the Council's Facilitating Appropriate Development document (May 2009). However, it manifestly fails to meet criteria’s 6, 7, 9 and 10 of that document and thereby cannot be considered acceptable. I thereby register an OBJECTION to this application.”

3.7 The Landscape Officer’s comments will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.8 The South Downs National Park Authority has been consulted and they have advised that they are happy for this application to be determined by Horsham District Council but would wish to call the application in if the planning committee resolved to permit the application.

3.9 Environment Agency has no comment on this application.

3.10 The South Downs Society has commented that “We did comment upon an earlier application at this site last year and we still maintain our objection to this development. This proposed development lies within the South Downs National Park and outside the village settlement area and we feel that any additional properties built at this location would have a detrimental effect upon the local landscape and wildlife.

3.11 Natural England has no comments but has provided some standing advice on South Downs national Park, Local Wildlife Sites, Protected Species and Biodiversity Enhancements.

3.12 CPRE Sussex has objected on the following grounds:

“CPRE Sussex Horsham and Crawley District objects strongly to this planning application for the following reasons:

1) The site is outside of Bramber s defined built up area and lies within the South Downs National Park

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9

2) If permitted, the development would be an undesirable intrusion into an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, harming the visual quality and characteristics of the South Downs National Park.

3) The proposed development conflicts with policy CP1 and CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policy DC1 & DC 2 and DC4 of the General Development Core Policies 2007.

4) The site comprises the former garden and paddock of Kingsmead House and is linked to the wider landscape by hedgerows which are wildlife corridors. According to local people, the site is a haven for wildlife. Although the applicant opines in his Planning and Design and Access Statement that there is very little wildlife to be seen within the site, he has not provided a professionally completed biodiversity habitat survey report listing species present at the site. Policy DC 5 Biodiversity and Geology of the General Development Core Policies 2007, stipulates Development proposals that cause direct or indirect harm to protected species will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated any adverse effects can be prevented, mitigated or compensated. Without the required biodiversity habitat survey report Horsham District Council will be unable to determine whether the proposed development would cause direct or indirect harm to protected species should any be present. In summary we ask that Planning Application DC/11/1480 be rejected for the cogent reasons given above.”

3.13 Ramblers (Sussex Area) has objected to the proposal on the grounds that:

1) The applicants have been told on a previous occasion that they cannot build these houses at this site and circumstances are unchanged since their last attempt, whatever changes they may have made to the chimney pots or whatever.

2) This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to desecrate this part of it with bricks and mortar would be scandalous.

3) The site is out with the built up area of Bramber and if permitted would contribute to urban sprawl which would be unnecessary, undesirable and unwanted.

4) Any development within the South Downs National Park ought to be in response to a local need. There has been no such local need made out for this proposed development which appears to be of a speculative nature.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.14 12 letters of objection have been received on the grounds that:

 The site lies outside the built up area boundary and in a countryside location;  The site is within the South Downs National Park where there is a presumption against development;  The site is heavily wooded and protected by a TPO; APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10

 Contrary to local policy and PPS7;  The site is a haven for wildlife, foxes, badgers, wild birds, deer and owls;  The proposed development contravenes the same planning policies as the previous application in August 2010;  It is outside the defined development limit of a town or village, and would consolidate an area of sporadic development within the South Downs National Park;  Allowing development of high value properties against agreed policies at the fringe of the National Park, it is extremely likely to be quoted extensively as a precedent by a surge of further applications wishing to create high value properties at the fringes of the National Park.  the Close is a narrow cul-de-sac which would not be wide enough to deal with the increased volume of traffic that this development would bring;  Many attempts have been made to develop this land going back to the 1980's and they have all been refused with good reason and for all of the same reasons this application should also be refused again;  The Local Authority have allocated previously developed land sites and smaller greenfield sites to meet the requirements for housing extending to 2018;  The proposal will result in the loss of cohesive woodland;  The junction of Maudlin Lane, coming from Botolphs and indeed the junction with Sopers Lane are already dangerous junctions;  The trees on the site provide a valuable visual amenity to the area and any new dwellings would bring increased pressure to fell them;  The National Park needs to be preserved and enhanced;  ADS 17. - This document / response statement issued by HDC back in June 2007 sets out a number of very valid reasons for non development of this site , and concluded that the council opposed the inclusion of this site within the built up area boundary and its allocation for residential development - due to a number of reasons as specified within the document;  The external appearance of the dwellings do not relate to existing local architecture;  The scale of the dwellings is excessive;

3.15 1 letter of no objection has been received stating:

 Local residents objected to the previous planning application at the same site as they felt that if that gained approval, then the owner would seek to develop more of his land which could have an adverse effect on their property;  There is a need for housing of this type in the area;  There would be space on the site for construction traffic and building materials;

3.16 Bramber Parish Council has objected to the application on the grounds that:

 The land has not been identified for development within the Strategic Plan;  The site lies within the South Downs National Park;  The reasons for rejection on application DC/10/1283 remain valid for this application; APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the countryside within the South Downs National Park.

6.2 The site is located outside the built up area boundary of Bramber and Steyning and is therefore situated in a countryside location and is classified as a site of Archaeological Importance. The site is also within the South Downs National Park Boundary and is subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

6.3 Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 states:

Outside built up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria:

a) supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; b) enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; c) provides for quiet informal recreational use; or d) ensures the sustainable development of rural areas.

Any development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead, either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside. The site is in a countryside location and the erection of 3 no. 5 bed dwellings at this site would fail to meet the requirements of the above policy as they would not support the needs of agriculture or forestry, would not provide for quiet informal recreational use, the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste and would fail to meet sustainable development criteria.

6.4 The dwellings would be sited outside of the built-up area boundaries, the proposals map shows this as defined by the Local Development Framework. The policy defines land outside of the built-up area boundaries as countryside, where development is strictly controlled to protect the rural nature of the District. Policy CP5 states that infill is only considered acceptable within the built up area boundary and therefore the development is unacceptable in principle. Government guidance contained particularly in PPS7 seeks to strictly control development including new dwellings in the countryside to protect the countryside for its own sake. PPS7 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12

emphasizes the need to continue protection of the open countryside for its own sake with the highest level of protection to be afforded to the most valuable landscapes.

6.5 It is considered that the development would represent sporadic development which would be to the detriment of the visual amenities and rural character of the area and would consolidate the scattered pattern of development in this countryside location. The overall result of the development and the associated residential paraphernalia would be to erode the rural character and visual amenities of this area.

6.6 The site was put forward as a Site Specific Allocation of Land by the applicant in the summer of 2007, but the Inspector ruled the site out for development stating “We accept that when viewed from the South Downs Way the visual effect would be glimpses of roofs in a verdant setting. Nonetheless we consider that this would be an unacceptable creeping southward of the built up area into the sensitive fringe landscape of the AONB and proposed National Park. We also acknowledge there appears to be an unsatisfied demand for larger new houses, particularly in this southern part of the District. However, we consider this needs to be addressed in the review of the DPD so that proper consideration can be given to the increased flexibility over density introduced by PPS3, not by ad hoc decisions.”

6.7 In dismissing the appeal against the Council's refusal of consent for the erection of 11 dwellings on the site in 1985 (BM/15/85), the Secretary of State's Inspector took due account of the wooded nature of the area, noting its contribution to the "essentially rural character of this part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty". Considering the development of the site in general terms - which has as much relevance in regard to 3 dwellings now as 11 then - he concluded that "the site would inevitably lose its natural character if the proposed development were carried out. In order to allow adequate light, air and amenity space to the dwellings, many of the smaller trees and some larger trees would need to be removed". The Arboricultural Officer has stated that he “sees no evidence to challenge this view; indeed in the 25 years since, all that has changed is that the woodland is 25 years more mature.”

6.8 The Arboricultural Officer has objected to the application stating “this area of woodland, though it be relatively recent in age, nonetheless contributes much to the wooded landscape of this area of the South Downs, is of amenity value, and has worth in regard to ecology and biodiversity. It is land both outside the designated Built-up Area boundary, and more compellingly within the National Park. The development proposal would badly harm the woodland, and in the long term result in its loss.”

6.9 West Sussex County Council’s Ecologist has commented that “an objection would be raised as further information is required as the proposals are currently contrary to Development Plan Policy DC5. Whilst this application is in outline a great deal of information has been provided to support the proposals with the exception of ecology and landscape issues. Q13 of the application form has been marked negative with regard to the presence of protected species however no evidence has been provided to support this. There are records of great crested newts, reptiles and bats nearby therefore I must assume the form has been completed in error.” APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13

6.10 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the aims of PPS7, the South Downs Management Plan 2008 – 2013 and the South Downs Planning Guidelines 2008 which seek to give maximum protection to the most valuable landscapes. The proposal is also considered to be contrary to the aims of Policy DC1, DC2 & DC4 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and policy CP1 of the Core Strategy 2007 as the development is not considered essential to its countryside location.

6.11 Members are requested to note that the development is within the South Downs National Park area. As with other applications, the District Council deals with such applications on behalf of the National Park Authority (NPA) but the NPA has the power to call in applications where deemed necessary. Members are requested to note that, as stated in paragraph 3.8, such is the conflict with both national and local planning policies, the NPA has confirmed that it is likely they would call in the application for their own determination were the committee to resolve to grant permission.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

1) The site lies in a rural area, outside the limits of any existing town or village and the proposed development is not considered essential to this rural location being unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry or the extraction of minerals, if permitted, would consolidate an undesirable element of sporadic development in a rural area which would result in visual intrusion into the countryside to the detriment of the rural character of the South Downs National Park. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1, DC2 & DC4 of the General Development Control Policies 2007, Policies CP1, CP5 and CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007 & the aims of PPS7.

2) The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport and community facilities infrastructure and is thereby contrary to Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy 2007 as it is not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

3) The proposed development is unacceptable as it will result in the immediate loss of a number of protected trees, and is likely to also result in damage to, and post development pressures upon, further protected trees on the site contrary to the recommendations of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' [2005] and guidance at Tree Preservation Orders - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000) which would be harmful to the character, appearance and amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Council Core Strategy (February 2007) and Policies DC1, DC2, DC6 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007).

Background Papers: DC/11/1480, DC/10/1283, BM/6/68 & BM/15/85

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Erection of a single storey building for use as a showroom to exhibit and sell art SITE: Summers Place Auctions Ltd WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/11/1572

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer Referral

RECOMMENDATION: To grant Planning Permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks full permission to erect a single storey building for the use as a showroom to exhibit and sell art.

1.2 The building would measure 41m by 12m at a height of 5.5m sloping to 4.4m when viewed from the south elevation.

1.3 The total floor area is approx 492 sq metres.

1.4 The building is proposed to be built using an Aluminium frame with glazing, stained weather boarding and Pergola with stone support posts framing the west elevation. The roof material is proposed to be made by Vieo an alternative roofing material to Kingspan.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site is located approx 51m south of Summers Place, a grade II listed Manor House.

1.6 The grounds, albeit altered in the past 10 years retain much of its country house estate character, with a formal drive from Stane Street, with planned formal gardens to the rear.

Contact: Stuart Corbey Extension: 5173 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

1.7 The property associated with Summer Place Auction Ltd, consists of an arrangement of a single storey office and small gallery unit abutting the southern aspect of a wall forming part of a Victorian walled garden.

1.8 The site is bound by security fencing enclosing the main auction area/gardens. The western site boundary is characterised by extensive hedging separating the main garden area with the customer parking area.

1.9 The property is served by a customer parking area to the west of the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS5

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of General Development Control Policies Document 2007 include DC9, DC13, DC25 and DC26.

2.4 The relevant policy of the Core Strategy is CP15.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 BL/99/89 Erection of single storey building/temp restaurant use, Application permitted.

BL/7/90 Demolition of outbuildings and erection of new auction salesroom, ware-housing, administration and restaurant facilities and associated landscaping etc. Jan 1990, Application permitted.

BL/81/92 Erection of replacement building. October 1992, Application Permitted.

BL/89/94 Erection of furniture warehouse with ancillary saleroom, offices and toilet accommodation. July 1994, Application Permitted.

BL/117/94 Erection of furniture warehouse with ancillary salerooms, offices and toilet accommodation Sept 1994.

DC/04/2134 & DC/04/2135 Conversion of Summers Place to 11 residential flats, and demolition of modern chapel extension, garden wall and alterations. Sept 2004, Application Refused.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

DC/06/1435 & DC/06/1436 Conversion of manor house to provide 11 residential flats, construction of 21 courtyard dwellings, 2 dwellings/garage block, toilet extension, construction of 2-storey office building, landscaping and access. Application Permitted August 1996.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Horsham District Council Conservation And Urban Design Adviser raises the following comments:

‘’It was noted on site that although the auction area is largely screened from the main house, there are views over the wall and at close quarters from the car park and the garden. Any proposed buildings would therefore have to have regard to the setting of the listed building as per advice in DC13 and HE10 of PPS5.

The grounds, albeit altered in the last 10 years, retains much of its country house estate character, with a formal drive from Stane Street, with planned formal gardens to the rear. Often large estates such as the one at Summers Place had garden outbuildings, orangeries etc and the 1896 OS map shows a glasshouse in the location of the existing auction offices. With this historic estate development character in mind, it would not be out of character for a further simple, single storey outbuilding to be located in the area to the south, in the same location as the proposed.

The simple contemporary architectural style of the proposed building is considered to be acceptable in principle, as is the window design and glazed atrium entrance and timber pergola to the front. The timber cladding to the elevations is considered to be acceptable.

There is concern however over the Kingspan roof panel material for the roof. The building, although single storey in design, has a sloping roof and this would be prominently visible from the garden area. This material has a utilitarian appearance, not suitable for this location within the setting of this listed building.

An alternative roofing material is preferred. The application is encouraged to consider a “green roof” or a simple, grey felting material, perhaps rolled to appear like lead. Alternatively, if the applicant wished to suggest other materials, I would be happy to consider others.

Notwithstanding the above, if the application is to be approved, please request by condition samples of materials, plus details of the glazing including the windows and atrium. This is to ensure the details of the scheme comply with DC9 and DC13’’.

3.2 Horsham District Council Access Officer comments having inspected the plans, and note there are two disabled/accessible parking bays, one should suffice rather than two (the recommendation is that 6% of parking spaces plus one per disabled employee would be fine) . I am glad to see that my other comments have been addressed.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 Billingshurst Parish Council raise no objection

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

3.4 West Sussex Archaeology. The comments will be reported verbally at committee.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 23 letters of objection have been received opposing the proposal the comments are as follows:  A general grievance has been raised objecting to the proposal on the grounds of the design and in particular to the roofing material to be used.  Residents feel the proposal due to its scale and proximity to the Summers Place would be visually intensive to the established landscape character and setting of the listed building.  The proximity of the structure to the nearest residential properties is considered overbearing.  There is a perceived Intensification of vehicle movements as a result of the proposal.  The use class of the structure does not lend itself to preserving the character of the immediate location.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of private and family life) and Article 1 The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is integral part of the part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact on safety and security issues.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issues are the effect of the development on the character of the surrounding residential area, the visual impact on the setting of the listed building and the need for further commercial uses in the locality.

6.2 The proposed replacement building is situated outside the built-up area boundary as defined in the Local Plan and therefore any application for replacement buildings for commercial uses should be judged against Policies CP15 and DC26 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007. In addition its design and impact on the prevailing landscape character (DC2 & DC9) and its impact on the setting of a listed building (DC13) shall need to be given careful consideration.

6.3 As commented upon by the Councils Conservation and Urban Design Advisor Summers Place is a large grade II listed country house, which was converted recently (under planning applications DC/06/1435 & DC/06/1436) into separate units of residential accommodation. It is noted on site that although the auction area is largely screened from the main house there are views over the wall when viewed from within the site and across to the neighbouring dwellings. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.

6.4 The application was the subject of detailed consultation between the Council Conservation Officer and applicant at the pre enquiry stages which has resulted in simple architecturally styled building, complimented by a low ridge height. The siting and orientation of the unit has been carefully considered and use of materials and screening provision show a sensitivity to the surrounding landscape setting.

6.5 It is noted that strong reasons of objection to the original roof materials and use of Kingspan have been submitted. The officers consider a condition to agree a sample panel of the roof finish before construction would be acceptable.

6.6 In regard to the visual impact of the building the officers considered the proposal to replant the existing well established hedge screening around the periphery of the structure coupled with a timber pergola to the front and timber cladding to the elevations are considered to be acceptable and this can also be secured by condition.

6.7 The officers note that the new building would be sited approximately 18.5m south of the nearest residential dwellings. The orientation of the dwellings lend themselves to only have secondary windows in the direction of the development site and for these reasons it is not considered any dwellings are overshadowed by the development, to an extent that would warrant the refusal of permission.

6.8 As noted by the Design and Access statement the new building is intended to be used as a formal entrance to the site and gallery viewing area only. There is an existing gallery on site; adjacent to the offices but is too small in scale to house the company’s large number of artifacts. The proposal would therefore provide secure storage for these items. The officers consider any further changes of use could be restricted by condition.

6.9 In regards to traffic generation the existing drive serves both the auction premises and the premises of Berkley Homes Offices. It should be noted that the majority of the business sales are conducted on-line with only two auctions a year being held on site. Given the nature of the business it is not anticipated that the proposal would lead to an increase in the level of vehicular activity on the site.

6.10 Overall the design is not considered to detract from the character of the location therefore for these reasons the proposal is in accordance with Policy DC2, DC9, DC13 and DC26 of the LDF General Development Control Policies adopted 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M1 …….used for external walling, roofing, plus details of the glazing including the windows and atrium for the proposed building…... 03 The building hereby permitted shall only be used for a showroom to exhibit and sell art and for no other purpose including any other purpose in any APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.

class in the schedule to the Town County Planning (Use Classes) Order 1995. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and because other uses would be contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 04 L1 Hard and soft landscaping 05 V5 No Extensions 06 O1 Hours of Working 07 D10 Floodlighting

8. REASONS

8.1 IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Development Plan.

8.2 ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers or character and visual amenities of the locality.

8.3 ILBC2 The proposal would safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the Listed Building.

Background Papers: DC/11/1572 Contact Officer: Stuart Corbey

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Kitchen extension and pergola SITE: Old Barn Nurseries, Worthing Road, Dial Post, Horsham WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/11/1341 APPLICANT: The Garden Centre Group Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Applicant request to speak.

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a pergola and an extension to provide a larger kitchen at the existing barn building which is used as a Pizza/Pasta restaurant within this wider garden centre site.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 Old Barn Nurseries is a large garden centre located in a countryside location to the east of the A24 and to the west of Grinders Lane. The site comprises a total of approximately 6.5 hectares of land in mixed use for the purposes of the garden centre and horticultural business use.

1.3 The site is split into two, with the main garden centre, coffee shop and restaurant to the west of the site and the growing area to the east of the site which is closed to the general public.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva Tel: 01403 215633 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development Principles, DC25 - Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites/Intensification of Uses & DC38 Farm Shops and Garden Centres in Rural Areas.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 The site has a long and detailed planning history but the most recent history consists of:

DC/11/0872 Erection of 1086 square metres of horticultural poly tunnels, installation of a rain water storage tank and re-location of site office, permitted 22/09/2011.

DC/10/1486 Demolition of existing building and erection of conservatory, Permitted 25/1/2011

DC/10/0219 Retention of 2400 square metres of horticultural poly tunnels, Permitted 31/1/2011

DC/09/1659 Retention of resurfacing of car park and installation of soakaways, Permitted 3/11/2009

DC/09/0708 Change of use of the ground floor of the existing bungalow to a coffee shop and alterations to the elevations, Permitted 17/6/2009

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Council’s Chief Environmental Health Officer has stated that he has no objection in principle to this proposal, however, should the application be approved he would request the following conditions are added: during the construction phase suitable assessments should be made to identify any asbestos contained within the building and controls put in place to ensure safe removal and disposal, a licensed waste removal contractor shall remove all clearance debris and construction waste from the site, and suitable provision shall be made for the control of dust. He also requests that during both the demolition phase and construction phase conditions be added ensuring no burning of materials are to take place on site and hours of demolition activities and construction activities are limited to 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday, 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. He also requests a condition requiring full details of the means of ventilation for the extraction and dispersal of cooking odours to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 West Grinstead Parish Council has stated that they have no objection in principle to the proposed works, however, although not strictly connected to this specific application, they have continuing concerns about the ongoing surface water drainage problems, the movement of lorries in and out of the site and the breaches of s106 agreements.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area.

6.2 The proposed extension and pergola would be sited on the existing converted barn building which is currently used as a Pizza/Pasta restaurant. This building is within the western half of this site amongst the other buildings used by customers within the existing built-up part of this garden centre site. The proposed extension would provide a larger kitchen at this restaurant as the current kitchen is not fit for purpose and the proposed pergola is intended to provide a covered area for customers and a focal point to the building.

6.3 The proposed extension would be sited on the side (north-east) elevation of the existing barn. The proposed extension is quite large in scale measuring 9m in width and 11.6m in length, and as such the footprint of the proposed kitchen extension would measure 104m². The proposed extension would have the same eaves height as the main barn building but would have a lower ridge height than the main building, as the proposed extension is set down from the main barn building it would appear subservient, however, the proposed extension is considered to be overly large in scale, and the erection of an extension of this scale and design onto a traditional looking barn conversion would have an adverse impact upon the character of the building. Given that this is a converted building which has retained a simple traditional character the extension is considered to be out of keeping with the character of this building.

6.4 The Parish Council has stated that they have concerns about the drainage issues at this site; a site meeting took place earlier this year with the applicant, Planning Officers, the Council’s Drainage Engineer and representatives of the Parish Council to discuss these issues. As a result a surface water management scheme concerning these drainage issues was submitted by the applicants and this scheme has now been agreed with the Council’s Drainage Engineer. The works detailed within this scheme which included the installation of a storage tank and pumping equipment have been implemented and completed. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

6.5 The proposed pergola would be situated on the front elevation of the converted barn building and would measure 4m x 4m. The eaves height would be the same as the main building and the ridge height would measure 4.5m. The applicants have stated that the pergola would create a focal point for the entrance to the restaurant and provide a covered area for customers. It is considered that due to the height and design of the proposed pergola it would obscure the view of the front elevation of the barn, furthermore, the pergola is sited in front of an existing steeply pitched roof, the existing opening of which looks to be the size of the original cart barn doors, and it is considered that obscuring this has an adverse impact upon the appearance of this barn.

6.6 The issue concerning traffic movements to and from the site is being addressed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, the County Surveyor and officers from the planning department. However, actions have been taken which were discussed during the site visit in January 2011, such as the installation of signage requiring the drivers of delivery vehicles to stop and turn engines off before being allowed into the delivery area of the site. A request to vary the S106 agreement has been received. This request details the items which the garden centre is currently selling, and would like to continue sell, the acceptability of this proposal is currently being assessed by the planning officer.

6.6 The nearest residential property is located approximately 80m to the southeast of the site of the proposed extension, however, this dwelling would be screened from the proposed works by the existing garden centre buildings located between, as such it is not thought that the proposed extensions would have any adverse impact upon the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

01. The proposed extensions by reason of their scale, siting and design would represent an unacceptable form of development that would detract from the character of the converted barn. Furthermore, it is considered that the cumulative impact of the proposed works with the existing, suburbanises the rural character of the barn. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies DC1 & DC9 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies 2007 and policies CP1 & CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007.

Background Papers: DC/11/1341. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Erection of playground equipment SITE: Old Barn Nurseries, Worthing Road, Dial Post, Horsham WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/11/1026 APPLICANT: The Garden Centre Group Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Councillor request – Councillor Chowen

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a children’s play area with associated play equipment within this garden centre site. The proposed playground equipment is made up of three connected climbing huts accessed by several ladders and a slide, the playground equipment would be sited on top of soft landscaping comprising of bark chips and rubber. The surrounding surface area of the proposed play are would measure approximately 68m².

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 Old Barn Nurseries is a large garden centre located in a countryside location to the east of the A24 and to the west of Grinders Lane. The site comprises of approximately 6.5 hectares of land in mixed use for the purposes of the garden centre and horticultural business use.

1.3 The site is split into two, with the main garden centre, coffee shop and restaurant to the west of the site and the growing area to the east of the site which is closed to the general public.

2. INTRODUCTION

Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva Tel: 01403 215633 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development Principles, DC25 - Rural Economic Development and the Expansion of Existing Rural Commercial Sites/Intensification of Uses & DC38 Farm Shops and Garden Centres in Rural Areas.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 The site has a long and detailed planning history but the most recent history consists of:

DC/11/0872 Erection of 1086 square metres of horticultural poly tunnels, installation of a rain water storage tank and re-location of site office, permitted 22/09/2011.

DC/10/1486 Demolition of existing building and erection of conservatory, Permitted 25/1/2011

DC/10/0219 Retention of 2400 square metres of horticultural poly tunnels, Permitted 31/1/2011

DC/09/1659 Retention of resurfacing of car park and installation of soakaways, Permitted 3/11/2009

DC/09/0708 Change of use of the ground floor of the existing bungalow to a coffee shop and alterations to the elevations, Permitted 17/6/2009

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Council’s Chief Environmental Health Officer has stated that he has no objection in principle to this proposal, however, should the application be approved he would request the following conditions are added: during the construction phase suitable assessments should be made to identify any asbestos contained within the building and controls put in place to ensure safe removal and disposal. Suitable assessments shall be made to identify any potential contaminated land issues, such as disused heating oil tanks, a licensed waste removal contractor shall remove all clearance debris and construction waste from the site, and suitable provision shall be made for the control of dust. He also requests that during both the demolition phase and construction phase conditions be added ensuring no burning of materials are to take place on site and hours of demolition activities and APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

construction activities are limited to 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday, 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. He would also like an informative advising the applicant that the play equipment should be constructed and installed in accordance with the relevant European Standards for Safety.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 West Grinstead Parish Council has raised a strong objection to this proposal, they state that they will continue to object to each and every application until and unless the applicants address the existing problems of drainage, traffic movements in and out of the site, and the breach of the S106 agreement. They believe that there has been a complete disregard of the agreement made by Wyevale representatives and advisers with the representatives of the Parish Council, Councillor Chowen and Planning Officers at the site visit in January 2011.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.2 There is an existing play area on site, however, this is not well used and is in a poor condition. The proposed play area would be situated within the western half of this site and to the south of the existing pizza/pasta restaurant on site. It would therefore be sited amongst the other buildings used by customers within this site, and would be seen within the contect of the existing built-up part of this garden centre site, and as such would not be considered to be sporadically sited within this countryside locality.

6.3 There is an existing building which was previously used for retail but more recently has been used for storage; this building is relatively unattractive and the playground equipment would be sited in place of this building which has planning permission under DC/10/1486 to be demolished. DC/10/1486 also proposed a play area in the form of a pirate ship, however, this element of the application was withdrawn, and the current application proposes a more traditional play area. The proposed playground equipment is made up of three connected climbing huts accessed by several ladders and a slide, the playground equipment would be sited on top of soft landscaping comprising of bark chips and rubber, this would ensure safety of children but would also be a permeable surface. The surrounding play surface area would measure approximately 68m². The scale of the proposed works are considered to be acceptable, the structure would be seen in the context of other buildings on the site and would not be visually obtrusive in this location. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

6.5 The issue concerning traffic movements to and from the site is being addressed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, the County Surveyor and officers from the planning department. However, actions have been taken which were discussed during the site visit in January 2011, such as the installation of signage requiring the drivers of delivery vehicles to stop and turn engines off before being allowed into the delivery area of the site. A request to vary the S106 agreement has been received. This request details the items which the garden centre is currently selling, and would like to continue sell, the acceptability of this proposal is currently being assessed by the planning officer.

6.6 The nearest residential property is located approximately 85m from the site of the proposed play equipment, it is relatively well screened by the existing trees along the southwestern boundary of this site, given the separation distances involved, the existing level of screening and the relatively small scale and nature of the proposed works, it is not thought that the proposed play area would have any adverse impact upon the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

1) A2 Full Permission 2) M6 Prescribed Materials 3) O2 Burning of Materials 4) O1 Hours of Working 5) Non standard condition – Suitable assessments shall be made to identify any asbestos contained within the building and controls put in place to ensure safe removal and disposal. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 6) Non standard condition – Suitable assessments shall be made to identify any pontential contaminated land issues, such as disused heating oil tanks. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Note to applicant: The play equipment should be constructed and installed in accordance with the relevant European Standards for Safety.

Note to applicant: The applicant is advised that during the demolition phase suitable provision should be made for the control of dust emanating from the site.

Note to applicant: All clearance debris and construction waste from the site shall be removed by a licensed waste removal contractor.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/1026 & DC/10/1486. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Change of use from recreation ground to garden in conjunction with existing pre-school, replace post and rail fencing with wooden picket fencing SITE: Dauxwood Pre-School abutting Billingshurst Recreation Ground, Billingshurst. WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION DC/11/1163

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Objector request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant Planning Permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks full permission to change of use of 0.02 of a hectare or 266.02m² of recreation land abutting the existing northern boundary of the Dauxwood Pre-School premises.

1.2 The reclaimed area would measure 10.6m deep by a total of approx 21.6m from the boundary running at lower station road into the recreation ground, then cuts back in on a vertical angle at a distance of approx 0.7m.

1.3 The reclaimed site would be bound by 1.2m high round top picket fencing to be stained with Sadolin Sargasso Sea to match the Pre-School Building.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 Dauxwood Pre-School is located on the junction where Natts Lane meets Lower Station Road Billingshurst.

1.5 The site is occupied by a Pre-School Building permitted under planning application DC/10/0667.

1.6 The building is square to the plot, with the existing play space surrounding the building.

Contact: Stuart Corbey Extension: 5173 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of General Development Control Policies Document 2007 include DC9.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy are CP1 and CP5.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/10/0667 Proposed replacement of existing pre-school building and landscaping existing building to be demolished permitted 1st June 2010.

DC/10/1526 The erection of a replacement fence adjacent Natts Lane and Station Road along boundary of existing pre-school, permitted 26th October 2010.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Horsham Park Services Manager supports the planning application. As there is no proposal for the loss of green space, I see no significant issues with the proposal for change of use from recreation ground to garden.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Billingshurst Parish Council raise no objection

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Two letters of objection have been received on the following grounds;

 The Occupiers of Pinewood, 41 Lower Station Road raised some concern, for the loss of recreational land.  The Occupiers at White Cottage raises the following concerns; o The loss of public amenity land, o The increased noise and visual intrusion from the encroachment of the play space moving closer to our property.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact on safety and security issues.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issues are the effect of the development on the character of the surrounding area and its visual impact.

6.2 The design is not considered to detract from the character of the location, as it would be seen as a natural extension to an existing play space to serve the Pre- school facility. In addition the picket fence would match in sympathetically with that approved under planning application DC/10/1526. It is evident that the Pre-school currently lacks a sufficiently sized playspace.

6.3 The concerns of neighbouring occupiers are noted and it is also noted the distances of proposed fence that would sit at approx 4.3m from the southern boundary of White Cottage. The officers consider due to the existing noise from the use of the recreation ground and the current proximity of the existing play space serving the Pre-school facility, that the increase in noise would not be significant to warrant refusing the application on these grounds.

6.4 The comments put forward by the Councils Park Services are considered material to the decision. It was considered that as there is no proposal for the loss of green space, there appears not to be any significant issue with the proposal for change of use from recreation ground to garden.

6.5 Lastly, from visiting the site and noting the level of screening abutting the boundary of White Cottage, it is not considered that the proposal would make a visually intrusive encroachment to the occupier of White Cottage, therefore, for these reasons the proposal overall is in accordance with Policy DC9 of the LDF General Development Control Policies adopted 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M6 Prescribed Materials

8. REASONS

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.

8.1 IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Development Plan.

8.2 ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers or character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/1163 Contact Officer: Stuart Corbey

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 Bi-fold doors to dining room and 3 bay roof lights to master bedroom DEVELOPMENT: (South Downs National Park) SITE: 1 Annington Barn Annington Farm Botolphs Road Bramber WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/11/1623 APPLICANT: Mr Ray Millard

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Applicant request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks to replace the existing window on the rear elevation with an enlarged opening for bi-fold doors and also seeks to extend the number of velux windows in the roof space from one roof light to 3 bay roof lights. The proposed velux windows would be timber framed and larger than those already existing, the proposed bi-fold doors would also be timber framed.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The application site is a semi-detached barn conversion. The property sits in a highly visible location adjacent to the road. The property itself is timber clad with a tiled roof and rooms in the roof space. Presently on the eastern roof slope there are two pairs of velux windows and a single velux window. On the rear elevation there are a number of different sized openings. The boundary of the garden is marked by a flint wall which runs parallel to the road with open views of the countryside beyond.

1.3 The application site is located outside of the Built up Area and within the South Downs National Park. As such the proposals are subject to the countryside policies contained within the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

2. INTRODUCTION

Contact Officer: Emma Greening Tel: 01403 215122 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 and PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The Core Strategy (2007), Policies CP1 and CP3

2.4 General Development Control Policies (2007), Policies DC2, DC9 and DC28

2.5 The South East Plan (2009), Policies CC4, CC6 and C2

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 BM/18/00- In September 2000 planning permission was granted for the erection of a garden store and rebuilding of flint wall

BM/8/00- In April 2000 a planning application was withdrawn for the erection of a garden store

BM/26/89- In 1990 planning permission was granted for the conversion of redundant farm outbuildings into three houses with ancillary parking and car port, new accesses and alterations to existing accesses.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has stated that that proposed roof lights would clutter and suburbanise the roof, detracting from its traditional appearance. The proposed development is suburban in appearance and would negatively impact on the rural appearance of the surrounding area and detracting from the landscape setting of the national park.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Bramber Parish Council has stated they have no objections to the proposals.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

It is not considered that the proposals would have a material impact on crime or disorder.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration are the scale and design of the proposals and the impact of the development on the character on the existing dwelling house and within the wider setting of the South Downs National Park.

6.2 The application site consists of a converted barn originally granted permission in 1990 and converted into two dwellings. The site sits within a courtyard of other converted agricultural buildings. Presently the existing building fits into the rural landscape with its traditional rural character as an agricultural building retained and the impact of the conversions minimised.

6.3 Policy DC9 states that development should “relate sympathetically with the built surroundings” and where sites are “locally distinctive in character, respect the character of surrounding areas” In this case the application site although it has been converted to a dwelling house retains much of its traditional form and materials which ensure that it is in keeping with the predominantly rural landscape in which it sits.

6.4 Presently the small openings in the catslide roof on the rear elevation do not detract from the traditional weather boarded and tiled roof barn. The proposed roof lights would result in an increase of glazing on the edge of the roof slope from the existing 0.5sqm of the single velux window to 3.6sqm, this would have an adverse impact on the appearance of the building which is characterised by the expansive tiled roof. The proposed roof lights would be suburban in appearance and would negatively impact on both the dwelling itself and the wider landscape given the prominent location of the building would be clearly visible from both the adjoining road and within the wider landscape of the National Park.

6.5 The proposed bi-fold doors would increase in the existing opening by approximately 0.6 metres. Whilst the creation of larger openings in former agricultural buildings is not normally suitable, in this case given that only the width of the opening would change, this is seen as acceptable.

6.6 The impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties this is not considered to be significant, there are no properties directly behind the application site and as such in this regard, the proposals are considered acceptable.

6.7 Overall, it is considered that the proposals would have an adverse impact on the existing character and agricultural style of the existing dwelling house. The proposed velux windows would clutter the roof and detract from the traditional appearance of the dwelling house. Given the prominent location of the application site adjacent to the road and within the South Downs National Park, it is considered that the proposed windows would impact negatively on both the existing dwelling house and the wider landscape of the National Park.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 The proposed roof lights by virtue of their siting and number would result in the suburbanisation of the roof, detracting from its traditional form and the character of the original barn. The increase in the number of and size of roof lights coupled with the prominent location of the application site adjacent to the road and within the South Downs National Park would ultimately detract from the rural appearance of the both the application site and the rural landscape in which it its. As a result it is considered that the proposals APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4

are contrary to Policies CP1 and CP3 of The Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC2, DC9 and DC28 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: BM/18/00, BM/8/00 and BM/26/89 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Partial relocation of existing private drive SITE: Lydford Farmhouse Kings Lane Cowfold Horsham WARD: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/11/0467 APPLICANT: Mr Luke Halestrad

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer Referral

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the relocation of part of the existing private drive which serves 2 dwellings. Part of the existing driveway would be diverted into the adjoining field located to the west of the existing driveway. The supporting documents for this application have cited that the relocation of this part of the driveway is necessary for unimpeded access to the properties for emergency vehicles, which the applicants consider is not thought possible due to low hanging branches on trees which overhang the existing driveway.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 This site comprises a detached, Grade II Listed Building with associated residential curtilage and an agricultural field/pasture land to the west of the main dwelling, this field is currently used to graze horses. The existing driveway runs along the eastern boundary of this field and there are currently 3 large Oak Trees which run along the boundary of this field/pasture land. 1.3 This site is accessed via a private drive located on the northern side of Kings Lane. This site is situated outside of any designated built-up area, and as any proposed development is subject to the relevant countryside policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva Tel: 01403 215633 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of the Horsham Development Control Policies (2007) are DC1, DC2, DC6 and DC9.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Horsham District Council’s Core Strategy are CP1 and CP3.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 CF/34/02 – In 2002 planning permission was refused for the creation of a fenced tennis court.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has stated that he notes that the central issue in regard to the proposed new trackway surrounds the low limbs on a line of 3 field edge oak trees fouling the existing access track. It is his view that these trees are large to very large, and though the most northerly of the three ('T1') is not exceptional, the central and southerly pair ('T2' and 'T3') are premier old countryside specimens of great merit, despite their location well off the beaten track and largely out of view of the general public. He also states that he lauds the desire to ensure that these trees are not harmed, particularly as specimens of this age have a slower response to wounding, and often a lower resistance to decay ingress. However, the problem of the low limbs fouling the trackway can be abated by works which, in his judgement, would not cause any serious or long-term harm to the trees or to their aesthetic appearance. Hence in his view the proposal to create a wholly new trackway, part of which passes across the RPA of T1, and clearly interrupts the old traditional field inclosures pattern, appears unjustified in tree terms alone.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 The occupier of a neighbouring dwelling has written in support of the proposed works, they state that it is their view that 2 beautiful ancient Oak trees would be safe from damage by high sided lorries by re-routing the access around them. They state provided the old road is planted and the remaining paddock continues agricultural use there would be no loss of amenity.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issues are the scale and form of the development, the effect of the development on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and the effect of the development upon the rural character of the area.

6.2 The supporting documents submitted with this application states that the proposed relocation of part of the existing access is required as there are several mature Oak trees located along the boundary of the drive and a large limb of one of these Oak trees spreads across the whole width of the drive and restricts the clear height of vehicles able to pass under it. Accordingly, emergency service vehicles, refuse lorries, removal & delivery lorries, horse boxes and farm machinery are unable to access Lydford Farmhouse or the other property served by the same driveway.

6.3 The applicant states that he had been advised that removing the overhanging limb would not benefit the tree and therefore not advisable. However, a copy of this advice has not been submitted as part of the application documents or within the Arboricultural Survey submitted on the 28th July 2011. The proposal is therefore to re-locate the drive into the adjoining field to west in order to avoid the trees, the proposed driveway would then sweep in an arc to join up with the existing access point to Lydford Farmhouse. The existing drive would then be removed and replaced with grass, and the area of pasture land between the existing drive and the proposed drive would be planted with fruit trees.

6.4 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted on this proposal and has advised that the statutory clearance for vehicles over an adopted highway is 5.4m, and it would therefore be reasonable that the users of this lane should expect a similar clearance. The principle of constructing this access is based on the belief that the removal of a limb or limbs from the Oak tree would not benefit the tree and therefore not be advisable, and he praises the desire to ensure these trees are not harmed. However, in his view the problem of the low limbs fouling the trackway can be abated by works which, in his judgement, would not cause any serious or long-term harm to the trees or to their aesthetic appearance. Hence it is his view the proposal to create a wholly new trackway, part of which passes across the RPA of T1, and clearly interrupts the old traditional field inclosures pattern, appears unjustified in tree terms alone.

6.5 It is your officer’s view that the justification for the proposed new access drive appears to be entirely based on the premise that the removal of the lower limbs of the Oak trees which currently impede access to Lydford Farmhouse would be to the detriment of these trees. However, as the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has stated that this would not be the case, there is little or no justification for the creation of the access track on the agricultural field. Furthermore, it is not considered that any special circumstances exist or are to be taken into consideration in determining this application.

6.6 The existing field is outside of the residential curtilage of the main dwelling, and is currently used for the grazing of horses. This use is considered to be in accordance with the agricultural classification of this land. It is considered that the creation of a new driveway APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4

within the existing agricultural field would result in an unacceptable encroachment of residential use in the countryside which would be to the detriment of this rural location. Furthermore, the repositioning of the drive would encroach into the agricultural land to the west of the dwellinghouse to which it would serve, and that it is considered that the drive would have an adverse impact on the landscape and would lead to pressure to extend the residential curtilage into what is now agricultural land. It is also considered that the proposed access track by virtue of its siting would detract from the rural character of this countryside location.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

01. The proposed access track by virtue of its scale and siting would represent an unacceptable form of development that would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of this countryside location. Furthermore, it is considered that the siting of the access drive in this part of the site results in an unacceptable encroachment of residential use in the countryside which would detract from the rural character and appearance of this site and the surrounding countryside. The proposal thus conflicts with policies DC1, DC2 & DC9 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007), and policy CP1 of the Horsham District Core Strategy (2007).

Background Papers: DC/11/0467 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Proposed replacement village hall (alternative scheme to DC/10/1231) SITE: Ashurst Village Hall, The Village, Ashurst WARD: Steyning APPLICATION: DC/11/1450 APPLICANT: Ashurst Parish Council

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Parish Council application.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for a detached village hall to replace the existing village hall building. The replacement village hall will be repositioned horizontally adjacent to the northerly boundary of the site and the car parking area will be located opposite in the southerly section of the site.

1.2 The proposed building incorporates a barn style design with flint panelling and local facing brick quoins to the exterior walls, a natural slate roof and timber doors and windows. The building measures 20.95 metres by 13.41 metres and has a total ground floor area of 209 square metres. The building incorporates a large pitched roof with a storage area incorporated in the roof space of the village hall. The proposed building has an eaves height of 2.6 metres and a total ridge height of 7.6 metres.

1.3 An array of solar panels is also proposed on the southern roof slope of the village hall. A ground floor terrace area measuring 3.3 metres by 13.5 metres will lead from three main double doors on the southerly elevation of the building and will be enclosed by a 0.9 metre high balustrade.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Contact: Rebecca Tier Extension: 5382 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.

1.4 The application site occupies a central location within the village of Ashurst and is situated on the eastern side of the B2135. The existing village hall building is a single storey detached building which is set back from the road with an informal car parking area to the front of the building. The exterior of the existing building has rendered painted white exterior walls and a clay tiled roof.

1.5 The site is located outside the built up area and is therefore situated within a countryside location. There are a mixture of residential properties, agricultural buildings and a Public House situated along this section of the road. However, despite the variation of buildings and uses along this road the area remains rural in character.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2007) – CP1 & CP3.

2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies (2007) – DC1, DC9 & DC40.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/10/1231 – In 2010 Planning permission was granted for a replacement village hall.

DC/04/1365 – In 2004 Planning permission was granted for a single storey extension to the village hall.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 The Council’s Public Health and Licensing department have raised no objection in principle to the proposed development yet would like the following conditions to be added to any recommendation for approval in order to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts.

Demolition Phase:

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

1. Suitable assessments should be made to identify any asbestos contained within the building and controls put in place to ensure safe removal and disposal.

2. Suitable assessments should be made to identify any potential contaminated land issues, such as disused heating oil tanks, etc.

3. A licensed waste removal contractor should remove all clearance debris and construction waste from site.

4. Suitable provisions must be made for the control of dust.

5. No burning of materials should take place on site.

6. Hours of demolition activities (including vehicle movements) should be limited to 08.00 – 17.00 Monday until Friday, 09.00 – 13.00 Saturdays and no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Construction:

1. No burning of materials should take place on site.

2. Hours of construction activities (including deliveries and dispatch) should be limited to 08.00 – 18.00 Monday until Friday, 09.00 – 13.00 Saturdays and no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Operation:

1. Restrictions on hours of use are recommended in order to control persons leaving the building and use of car parking late at night/early morning (especially if the facilities are to be hired out to members of the public for functions).

2. Suitable acoustic insulation properties of building fabric to minimise impact of noise on neighbouring residential properties.

3. Suitable noise controls of any extract ventilation/air conditioning systems to result in no background noise levels (to include low frequency noise). Full details should be forwarded to this department prior to approval.

4. Suitable provision for drainage, including grease traps if appropriate.

5. Suitable provisions for control for kitchen extract ventilation system and correct positioning of flues if appropriate.

6. Waste & refuse areas should be located well away from neighbouring premises.

7. Suitable positioning of any proposed external security lighting or similar in order to eliminate nuisance to neighbouring properties.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4.

3.2 The Council’s Equalities Officer has queried the location of the disabled parking and has advised that a space should be located as close as possible to the principle entrance so that disabled people will not have to cross the car park into traffic. 3.3 West Sussex County Council Highways department originally objected to this application as they considered that proposals did not make adequate provision for the manoeuvring of vehicles within the site and would therefore be likely to result in vehicles reversing onto or manoeuvring on the highway. 3.4 West Sussex County Council Highways department have subsequently withdrawn their objection to the proposed parking scheme and access following the submission of an additional plan which shows a minimum turning space of 6 metres and a maximum 7 metres for the car parking spaces facing the road to the east.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 Eight letters of objection have been received to this application; the main concerns that have been raised are outlined below:

 The building is out of keeping with the village of Ashurst in terms of its height, appearance and layout.

 The building along with the restricted parking will overdevelop the small existing site.

 The location of the car parking and children’s play area is close to the road and will cause danger to public safety.

 The proposed building will overshadow neighbouring properties in particular the occupier of Blocques and would create light pollution and potential noise pollution.  The light pollution could affect wildlife in the area, especially birds.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5.

6.1 The principal issues are the effect of the development on the character of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

6.2 The existing village hall abuts the eastern boundary of the site and is set some 17 metres back from the B2135. In comparison the proposed village hall will be located horizontal to the northerly boundary of the application site and will be located approximately 5.2 metres from the B2135 to the west. The new orientation and position of the building means that it will be far more visible within the street scene. As the building is also located outside the built up area, it is therefore important that scale and design of the building remains appropriate to the countryside location and in keeping with the character of the street scene. In terms of scale, the proposed building has a floor area of 209 square metres with the roof space of the building comprising storage space. 6.3 The ridge height of the proposed building measures 7.6 metres, officers have with the agent regarding the height and bulk of the roof which within its more visible location could make the proposed village hall building appear more prominent within the street scene. Following discussions with the agent, it is understood that the height of the building is necessary to achieve the slate tiled roof and the barn style design. In further consideration of the application, and on balance it is considered that providing the expanse of roof is covered in a high quality slate material and that the proposed solar panels are of a similar high quality design then the building will not be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene. There are examples of different materials amongst buildings and other structures within the street scene including timber, flint, render, brick and slate. The proposed materials are not therefore considered to appear out of keeping with the existing street scene, yet should remain of high quality due to their visibility within the road and this rural location. This will be secured by a planning condition which requires samples and details of the materials to be submitted and approved in writing by the planning department prior to the commencement of works.

6.4 The revised location of the village hall means that the majority of the building will be further distanced from the nearest neighbouring property Blocques to the south of the site. A distance of 45 metres separates the proposed village hall building from the neighbouring dwelling Blocques. The proposed replacement village hall will also continue to be completely screened to the southerly neighbouring property by a row of trees in excess of 7 metres along the easterly boundary of the site. The agent has also advised that an additional 1.8 metres high fence will be erected along the eastern boundary of the site to provide further security, noise attenuation. When taking into consideration the degree of screening and separation between the proposed village hall and the neighbouring property to the south it is considered that the proposed village hall will cause no further impact to the amenities of the southerly neighbouring occupier. The northern boundary of the site is distanced from the access track leading to Eaton’s Farm by a grassed verge and some low level planting. It is also proposed to plant a new hedge and some shrubs to the northern elevation to soften the appearance of the building when travelling in a southerly direction along the B2135.

6.5 The proposed building does not incorporate a children’s playground area as indicated in some of the letters of representation received. There is however a APPENDIX A/ 8 - 6.

ground floor terrace to the southern elevation which leads out from the three sets of double doors on this elevation and is enclosed by a balustrade. Concerns have also been raised regarding the safety implications of the openness of the site and the parking area to the south of the village hall building. However the existing village hall has operated for a number of years with an open frontage onto the road with an informal parking area to the front. By orientating the village hall towards the northern boundary and creating formalised parking bays it is considered that this heightens the awareness of the parking areas within the site for pedestrians and cars users in comparison to the current unstructured arrangement, therefore increasing safety precautions. An additional plan has been submitted which shows a minimum turning space of 6 metres for labelled car parking bay no. 12 and a maximum turning space of 7 metres for labelled parking space no. 6. These distances will enable car users to safely reverse from the car parking bay and access the road in a forwards position. West Sussex County Council Highways department have subsequently withdrawn their objection in relation to highway safety following the submission of the turning distances.

6.6 Within the letters of representation received a number of concerns have been raised regarding the increased usage of the building and the additional noise implications that will impact upon neighbouring properties. The Council’s Public Health department have been consulted on this application and have raised no objection subject to conditions being put on the building in relation to the demolition, construction and operational use of the proposed village hall building. Planning conditions relating to hours of working, burning of materials, site clearance and noise control have therefore been attached to this recommendation.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions requested by the County Surveyor at West Sussex County Council:

01. A2 Full permission 02. No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for the village hall building and the car parking surface have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 03. O1 Hours of working 04. O2 Burning of materials 05. O3 Site clearance 06. No amplified music or other entertainment noise shall be audible from any of the site boundaries. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring properties and more particularly their occupiers and in accordance with policy DC9 of the APPENDIX A/ 8 - 7.

Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 07. The village hall shall only be open for use between the hours of 08:00 hours and 23:00 hours Monday to Sunday inclusive. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council: Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 08. The first floor of the building shall only be used as storage space in conjunction with the village hall and shall at no time be used for any other purpose. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 09. D10 Floodlighting 10. L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping 11. N5 Control of Noise

7.2 Notes to Applicant: Officers would like to draw the applicant’s attention to the following guidance notes recommended by the Council’s Public Health & Licensing Officer:

 Suitable assessments should be made to identify any asbestos contained within the building and controls put in place to ensure safe removal and disposal.

 Suitable assessments should be made to identify any potential contaminated land issues, such as disused heating oil tanks.

 Suitable provisions must be made for the control of dust.

 Suitable noise controls of any extract ventilation/air conditioning systems to result in no background noise levels (to include low frequency noise). Full details should be forwarded to this department prior to approval.

 Suitable provision for drainage, including grease traps if appropriate.

 Suitable provisions for control for kitchen extract ventilation system and correct positioning of flues if appropriate.

 Waste & refuse areas should be located well away from neighbouring premises.

 Suitable positioning of any proposed external security lighting or similar in order to eliminate nuisance to neighbouring properties.

8. REASONS

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/1450 & DC/10/1231 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 8.

Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 18 October 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Application to amend wording of condition No. 6 of DC/05/1331 to 'The development hereby approved shall be used as a plant and tree production nursery and associated sales and for the furtherance of Horticultural Education in association with Brinsbury Campus' and the provision of additional conditions restricting the amount of the nursery to be used for the sale of horticultural goods other than trees and plants and the reduction in car parking spaces from 260 to 100 together with lorry car parking and turning areas. SITE: Brinsbury College (land to the north of main complex), Stane Street, North Heath, Pulborough WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham APPLICATION: DC/11/1091 APPLICANT: Architectural Plants

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks to amend the wording of condition 6 of the permission granted under reference DC/05/1331 which stated “The development hereby approved shall be used as a tree production nursery for trade purposes only and for no other purpose including retail sales to the public” to allow for limited sales.

1.2 Following discussions with the applicant’s agent, the proposed revised condition was reworded to include specific reference to Brinsbury College, a restriction on the amount of non horticultural goods sold at the site and a reduction in car parking spaces.

Contact: Gary Peck Extension: 5172 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is outside of the built-up area as defined by the Local Development Framework. The site previously contained pasture land and two football pitches but is now being re-contoured in association with the permission granted under reference DC/05/1331.

1.4 The A29 is directly to the east, with the main campus of Brinsbury College to the south. To the west is land belonging to Brinsbury College which is open countryside and to the north is Adversane Caravan Park.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 and PPS7.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP1, CP3, CP13, CP15 and CP19 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.4 Policies DC1, DC9, DC25, DC38 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are also relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 Policy AL15 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document is also relevant.

2.6 The Brinsbury Centre of Rural Excellence SPD is also relevant. Annex A refers specifically to the applicants.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.7 Although there have been various schemes relating to the Brinsbury campus itself (including an unimplemented redevelopment scheme), the only application of direct relevance to this application site is DC/05/1331 which granted permission in 2006 for a ‘tree production nursery to the trade’.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Comments from Strategic Planning are awaited and will be reported verbally at the meeting.

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Pulborough Parish Council raised no objection to the application as originally described. Any further comments in respect of the amended description will be reported verbally at the meeting.

3.3 Comments from West Sussex County Council are awaited and will be reported verbally at the meeting

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 Chichester College state that they have worked together with the applicants for many years with the aim that their students will have links into a high quality production horticulture business. They further state that the siting of Architectural Plants main production facility on the College estate at Brinsbury provides a realistic commercial enterprise within which students will gain valuable knowledge and experience in readiness for their future careers. The College is therefore fully supportive of the planning application as it would offer interaction with customers and therefore approval would be of enormous benefit to the College and future students in bringing excellent training facilities and opportunities for work experience.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact upon crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 It is considered that the main issue in the determination of the application is the effect of the proposal upon the character of the area.

6.2 It has long been a Council planning policy that the overarching aim for the Brinsbury Campus is for it to become a Centre of Rural Excellence for rural land based education. Such an aim was originally set out in policy AL15 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD and the subsequent Brinsbury Centre of Rural Excellence SPD (2009) sought to guide and manage the manner in which any development would take place.

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4.

6.3 The objective of creating a Centre of Rural Excellence is set out in the SPD which states that ‘Growth of the College in accordance with this principle, which could include businesses operating in collaboration with the College, would increase opportunities for education and training. Developing the Brinsbury Campus as a Centre of Rural Excellence would facilitate considerable gains for the College in the form of vocational building for students’.

6.4 Prior to the adoption of the current policy framework but when the Site Specific Allocations of Land document was in preparation and the need to promote a Rural Centre of Excellence already established in principle, permission was granted under reference DC/05/1331 for a ‘Tree production nursery to the trade’. The applicants, Architectural Plants, a well known and established company within the District with an existing nursery at Nuthurst, submitted details demonstrating that they would work in conjunction with Brinsbury College in allowing students to gain experience in a newly established tree production nursery.

6.5 The permission, which is now being implemented and has involved a significant amount of earthwork to ensure the levels of the site provide optimum growing conditions, was subject to a restriction that the nursery was to be used for trade purposes only and for no other purpose including retails sales to the public.

6.6 This proposal as originally submitted, sought to use the premises for plants as well as tree production and allow for retail sales from the site. It was stated in support of the application that the original proposal allowed members of the public to visit the site and inspect the trees but not actually purchase them. It was further stated that the applicant was not seeking to be a garden centre but to ‘sell plants and trees to anyone including visitors to the site’.

6.7 While your officers had sympathy to the supporting information submitted by the applicant, the proposal made no reference to Brinsbury College which is the policy mechanism by which the development was permitted in the first instance. The applicant’s agent was therefore requested to provide further information demonstrating the links to the College and its students.

6.8 The applicant’s agent has confirmed that it remains the intention to work with students at the college to provide both work and sales experience. Members will note that the College have written a letter in support of the application.

6.9 With the applicant’s agreement, therefore, the application was amended to specifically refer to education at Brinsbury College as well as retail sales. It is considered that this reaffirms the basis for the siting of the development close to the College while meeting the business requirements of the Company.

6.10 Members will also be aware that in the case of garden centres across the District, there has often been some clarification required regarding the goods sold in such establishments. The applicant’s agent has stated that it will be necessary to sell other goods ancillary to, but not specifically falling into, the definition of plants and trees. Such goods are not intended to form more than 5% of the overall area of the development and thus is felt to be easily controlled by condition.

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 5.

6.11 The applicant’s agent also clarified that although the previous permission allowed for 260 car parking spaces, there is in fact no requirement for such a high number of spaces and that there should be no more than 100 spaces. Such a high number of proposed spaces would appear to give the impression that the use of the site will generate far more activity than will actually be the case. The size of the parking area is determined by the requirement for lorry parking and turning areas but it is not necessary to allocate parking across its entire area.

6.12 It is considered that the reworded condition will ensure that the planning objectives of the development are met in ensuring the promotion of the Centre of Rural Excellence. It is considered that both the applicant and College make a significant and successful contribution to the District and accordingly the application is considered acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby approved shall be used as a plant and tree production nursery and associated sales and for the furtherance of Horticultural Education in association with Brinsbury Campus only and for no other purpose unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development accords with the aims of the Brinsbury Centre of Rural Excellence Supplementary Planning Document.

02 No more than 5% of the built area of the nursery shall be used for the sale of horticultural goods other than trees and plants

Reason: To ensure that the development accords with the aims of the Brinsbury Centre of Rural Excellence Supplementary Planning Document.

03 The car parking area hereby permitted shall provide space for no more than 100 vehicles and lorry parking and turning in association with the development hereby permitted unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the level of car parking provided is sufficient to serve the development hereby approved in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

8. REASONS

IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.

Background Papers: DC/11/1091 Contact Officer: Gary Peck APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 18th October 2011 Construction of timber framed stable block (comprising 3 stables, DEVELOPMENT: tack/feed store and hay/straw store) SITE: Bramcote Farm Bramlands Lane Woodmancote Henfield WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/11/1479 APPLICANT: Mr Andrew Holden

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a timber framed stable block comprising of 3 stables, a hay/straw store and a tack/feed store.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 This site comprises the main dwelling of Bramcote Farm and the surrounding residential curtilage, the main dwelling was the subject of a recent planning permission for the erection of a replacement detached 2-storey dwelling which is in the process of being constructed and is nearing completion. The remainder of the site comprises agricultural land/paddocks, and the total area of this site is approximately 3ha. There are 2 large but dilapidated green houses serving the agricultural land.

1.3 The proposed stable block would be located to the west of the main dwelling. This site lies on the northern side of Bramlands Lane and is accessed via a long private driveway. This site is situated outside of any designated built up area and as such is considered to be a countryside location and as such is subject to the relevant policies of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva Tel: 01403 215633 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS7 & PPS22

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007) are DC1, DC2, DC8, DC9 & DC29.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) are CP1 & CP3

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/11/0828 - In 2011 planning permission was granted for the construction of an in ground swimming pool.

DC/10/1045 - In 2010 planning permission was refused for a non-material amendment of planning permission DC/10/0390 (Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement 4-bed dwelling) to include the installation of photo-voltaic array on roof and the lengthening of the rear segment of the northern wing by 2 metres.

DC/10/0390 - In 2010 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement 4-bed dwelling.

DC/07/1423 - In 2007 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement 4-bed dwelling.

DC/07/1422 – In 2007 planning permission was granted for the temporary siting of a mobile home for the duration of the construction of a replacement dwelling.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Council’s Chief Environmental Health Officer has stated that he has no objection to the proposal subject to the following provisos: a scheme for the management of stable wastes should be submitted for approval, stable waste should be located no closer than 30m from any adjoining residential boundary, and there should be no burning of waste materials on site. He also states that there should be adequate provision for surface water drainage and there should also be no external floodlighting at this site without prior approval.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 The County Surveyor at West Sussex County Council Highways Department has been consulted on this application. He had stated that he does not raise any objections to the principle of the development; however he does request that the existing access to the site be upgraded to a specification acceptable to the Highway Authority. He has stated that the APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3

applicant is advised to contact the Area Engineer, West Sussex County Council, Clapham Common, Clapham, Worthing, BN13 3UR, (Tel no: 01243 642105) regarding this matter.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 The occupier of a neighbouring dwelling has written 2 letters of objection to this proposal. The state that they object to this proposal for the following reasons:  The plan showing the position of the proposed stable block is very ambiguous, they query whether the siting of the stable block is to be where the words ‘proposed stable block’ are located or is it the building shown to the right of these words. They state that they need to exact location of the proposed stables with measurements.  It is their view that the area on the map marked in red is still considered to be farm land and that the new owners of this site have decided to divorce this part of the property from the newly built house. They query whether this is acceptable and believe that the location of the stables should be within the existing residential curtilage in order to avoid any sporadic development on this property.  The applicant has stated on the application form that vehicle access and hard- standing is not applicable to this development, however, as the suggested location of the stable block is not close to the main house there will be additional road/hard track from the existing drive to the main house and stable including a hard-standing for vehicles.  The application form states that lighting is not applicable to this application; they query how people will see in the dark on a very black night.  The application form also states that there are no trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character. The objector believes this to be incorrect as there are trees and hedges that are very important to the environment and surroundings.  It is unclear whether these stables are for the residents or for a commercial enterprise.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issues are the scale and form of the development, the effect of the development on the rural character of the countryside location, and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

6.2 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a stable block situated within land adjoining the dwelling of Bramcote Farm, this dwelling is located at the end of a long access drive situated on the northern side of Bramlands Lane, this dwelling is located APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4

outside any built-up-area and as such is subject to the countryside protection policies of the Horsham District Local Plan. These policies aim to protect the countryside for its own sake and restrict any development to that which can be justified as being essential to the needs of agriculture, forestry, the extraction of minerals, disposal of waste or quiet informal recreational use. It is generally accepted however that equestrian development does require a countryside location and Policy DC29 sets out the circumstances in which such development may be acceptable and states that the proposal should be appropriate in scale and level of activity and in keeping with its location and surroundings and would not result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside.

6.3 The proposed stable block would be sited within the designated agricultural land/paddock part of this site, the building would be situated in the southern section of the western paddock and would be approximately 75m from the recently constructed replacement dwelling which is nearing completion. There is an existing unmade track leading from the main dwelling to the site of the proposed stable block, however, without further details regarding the finished surface of the access to the proposed stable block or whether there is to be any area of hard-standing around the building, it is suggested that a hard landscaping condition be placed upon the permission requiring details of these elements before works can commence.

6.4 The proposed stable block would be used for the private use of the family horses. The building would comprise 3 stables, a tack/feed store, and hay/straw store. The proposed stable block would be an L shape building measuring 14m in width, and 9.2m in depth at its deepest. The height of the building would measure 4.5m to the ridge and 2.4m to the eaves. The building would be constructed on a brick plinth with stained timber and clay tiled roof. It is considered that the scale of the proposed stable buildings would not result in a development that would be obtrusive in this countryside location, it is also considered that due to the siting of the proposed stables in land adjacent to the residential curtilage of this dwelling and its close proximity to the other existing farm buildings on site, the proposed works would not result in a form of sporadic development in the countryside.

6.5 There are no public footpaths within this locality, and the nearest neighbouring property are the caravans situated within Downsview Caravan Park which is located to the south of this site. The proposed stable building would be sited approximately 5m from the southern boundary of the paddock. The boundary is situated adjacent to the neighbouring site of Downsview Caravan Park. This site is relatively well screened by the existing trees and hedgerow along this boundary, although there is a section of hedgerow which appears to have been removed and as such most of the rear elevation of the stable building would be visible from the neighbouring site, however, no objections have been received from this site. The applicant has advised that the open nature of this southern boundary is partially necessary for the proposed solar panels on the southern roofslope. It is thought that some additional planting along this boundary would be preferable and as such it is recommended that a landscaping condition be attached to this permission to ensure some additional screening to the neighbouring site.

6.6 The proposed stables would also have a solar panels on the southern elevation of the roof. It is intended that the proposed panels would generate electricity for the farm and the farmhouse.The Governments Planning Policy Statement 22 on Renewable Energy states that the landscape and visual effects of particular renewable energy developments will vary on a case by case basis according to the type of development, its location and the landscape setting of the proposed development. Some of these effects may be minimised through appropriate siting and design. Policy DC8 states that schemes for renewable energy will be permitted where they do not have a significant adverse effect on the landscape character. Given the siting and scale of the proposed panels it is not considered that they would have an adverse impact upon this countryside location. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Permit 01) A2 Full Planning 02) M1 Approval of Materials 03) L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping 04) 04. The buildings shall not be brought into use until details of the waste management scheme including frequency of stable cleaning, storage, and collection/disposal methods has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Waste should then be dealt with in strict accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the disposal of waste in accordance with Policy DC29 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 05) D10 Floodlighting 06) 06. Stable waste/manure is to be stored at least 30metres from the site boundary and there shall be no burning of stable waste on site. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the disposal of waste in accordance with Policy DC29 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 07) J7(a) Stables 08) J7(b) Stables 09) S4 Surface water details [Option A]

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ICTN1 The proposal would not be obtrusive in the landscape or harmful to the visual quality of the area.

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/1479 & DC/10/0390