South) Committee Tuesday 19Th January 2016 at 2.00Pm Conference Room, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham

Email: committeeservices@horsham.gov.uk Direct line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee Tuesday 19th January 2016 at 2.00pm Conference Room, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham

Councillors: Brian O’Connell (Chairman) David Coldwell (Vice-Chairman) John Blackall Gordon Lindsay Jonathan Chowen Tim Lloyd Philip Circus Paul Marshall Paul Clarke Mike Morgan Roger Clarke Kate Rowbottom Ray Dawe Jim Sanson Brian Donnelly Ben Staines David Jenkins Claire Vickers Nigel Jupp Michael Willett Liz Kitchen

You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business Tom Crowley Chief Executive Agenda

1. Apologies for absence 2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15th December 2015

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 of the Development Manager and to take such action thereon as may be necessary: (a) Appeals (b) Applications for determination by Committee:

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A01 Chanctonbury DC/15/2374 Land at Storrington Road, Thakeham

A02 Chanctonbury DC/15/2547 Abingworth Development Site, Storrington Road, Thakeham

A03 Chantry DC/14/0921 Old Clayton Boarding Kennels, Storrington Road, Washington

A04 Chantry DC/15/0107 Development Site Adjacent To 3 Bax Close, Storrington

A05 Henfield DC/14/0588 Sandgate Nursery, West End Lane, Henfield

A06 Cowfold, DC/14/1478 Land East of 14 and 15 Alley Groves, Cowfold Shermanbury and S106/15/0003 West Grinstead

A07 Billingshurst and DC/15/1530 Harwoods Group Limited, Horsham Road, Five Oaks, Shipley Billingshurst

A08 Bramber, Upper DC/15/2389 Oreham Manor Farm House, Oreham Common, Beeding and Henfield Woodmancote

A09 Bramber, Upper DC/15/2002 Heatherdene Development Site, Shoreham Road, Beeding and Henfield Woodmancote

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

Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) Horsham.gov.uk2 Chief Executive – Tom Crowley

DCS151215

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 15th December 2015

Present: Councillors: Brian O’Connell (Chairman), John Blackall, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, Paul Clarke, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Nigel Jupp, Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay, Paul Marshall, Mike Morgan, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson, Ben Staines, Michael Willett

Apologies: Councillors: David Coldwell (Vice-Chairman), Roger Clarke, David Jenkins, Tim Lloyd, Claire Vickers

DCS/72 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17th November 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.

DCS/73 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Nigel Jupp DC/15/2170 Personal & Prejudicial – he is the applicant. Councillor Jonathan DC/15/2142 Personal – he knows the applicant. Chowen Councillor Jonathan DC/15/2143 Personal – he knows the applicant. Chowen

DCS/74 Announcements

There were no announcements.

DCS/75 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Officer Committee Recommendation Resolution The Spoons, Harbolets Road, DC/15/0296 Refuse Delegated West Chiltington Arun Way, Lordings Road, DC/15/0213 Refuse Delegated Billingshurst Grainingford Farmhouse, Five DC/15/1033 Refuse Delegated Oaks, Billingshurst

3 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/75 Appeals (Cont.)

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Decision Officer Committee Recommendation Resolution 20 Wantley Hill Estate, DC/15/0352 Dismissed Refuse Delegated Henfield Land Parcel Rear of 14 DC/15/0794 To 18, Henfield Road, Allowed Refused Delegated Small Dole Land Rear of Sussex DC/14/2039 Showground, Grinders Allowed Refused Delegated Lane, West Grinstead

DCS/76 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/2126 – APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION DC/13/1265 (DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 75 DWELLINGS INCLUDING THE CREATION OF AN ACCESS POINT FROM WATER LANE. PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE INCLUDING CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA, LINEAR PARK, LANDSCAPING AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ON THE SITE) SITE: LAND NORTH OF BROOK CLOSE AND ROTHER CLOSE STORRINGTON WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: CREST NICHOLSON SOUTH LTD

The Development Manager reported that this application sought approval of reserved matters for permission DC/13/1265 for approximately 75 dwellings and access, which had been granted on appeal. The reserved matters application proposed 76 dwellings and matters for consideration were layout, scale, appearance and landscaping. There would be a mix of terraced, semi- detached and detached dwellings. The 30 affordable units (40%) would comprise: eight 2-bedroom flats; 11 2-bedroom houses; and 11 3-bedroom houses. The 46 market units would comprise: four 2-bedroom houses; 19 3- bedroom houses; 21 4-bedroom houses; and two 5-bedroom houses.

The dwellings would be largely red brick with rendering and hanging tiles and would have a mix of gabled, hipped and half-hipped roofs. A majority were two storeys, with some having accommodation in the loft space. The flats would be in two buildings with private amenity space and a shared parking court. A total of 191 parking spaces, including 52 garage spaces in the development were proposed.

An area of open space, including a play area, was proposed along the northern edge of the site. Two attenuation basins would be provided, one close to the Water Lane access and the other, together with a pumping station, adjacent to the watercourse running along the southern boundary, behind Concorde Close.

4 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/76 Planning Application: DC/15/2126 (Cont.)

The application site was located north-east of Storrington, on the northern side of Water Lane, within the parish of Thakeham. Water Lane and the Water Lane Industrial Estate were adjacent to the south western boundary and there was a recently constructed warehouse building to the west. There were residential properties to the south and east of the site in Brook Close, Rother Close, Concorde Close, Jubilee Way, Rainbow Way, St Marys Close and Snapes Road. Snapes Cottage a Grade II Listed Building and open fields lay to the north of the site.

There were trees and hedges along the northern and western boundaries, and the boundary with Water Lane. The boundaries with adjacent residential gardens included hedges, trees and fencing.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. In particular, it was noted that conditions 10 and 11 had been updated to reflect the up to date GDPO.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council’s initial concerns had been addressed by the applicant and therefore raised no objection. Five letters of objection and one letter commenting on the proposal had been received. The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

The principle of the development had been established as acceptable when the appeal of the outline application had been allowed. Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: design and layout of the buildings and landscaping; housing mix; the amenity of existing residents and future occupiers; parking and highways; biodiversity and trees; sustainability; and flooding and drainage.

Members concluded that the reserved matters submission was in accordance with principles established with the outline permission and the proposal was therefore acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/2126 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A condition listing the approved plans.

5 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/76 Planning Application: DC/15/2126 (Cont.)

02 Prior to the commencement of construction of any dwelling or flat hereby approved, details of ecological enhancements to the site in accordance with the recommendations contained in chapter 6 of the Ecological Assessment prepared by Aspect Ecology reference ECO1909/EcoAss.dv3 dated June 2013 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and any artificial habitats, such as nesting boxes, bat bricks and boxes and log piles, included in the approved scheme of ecological enhancements shall remain in place thereafter.

03 Each dwelling hereby approved shall be constructed in order to restrict the water usage capacity and flow rates to those specified in the Water Efficiency Calculator reference 3010 dated 07.12.2015 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 08.12.2015.

04 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details of external and surfacing materials shown on the Hard Materials Pallet received by the Council on 23rd November 2015 and with the Materials Distribution Plan drawing number 2347-A-1012-06 received by the Council on 10th December 2015.

05 Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby approved, a management and maintenance for the sustainable drainage features, including attenuation basins, within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

06 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the appearance of the attenuation basins, including ground levels, external materials and appearance of structures such as headwalls, outfalls and any railings, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/76 Planning Application: DC/15/2126 (Cont.)

07 No walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the site, other than in accordance with drawing number 3032-LP-P040D received by the Council on 10.12.2015.

08 Notwithstanding the details submitted with this application, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a timetable for delivery of the landscaped areas and planting hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants forming part of the landscape scheme which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

09 Before the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved the following windows shall be fitted with obscured glazing and any part of such windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed, or if it is installed in a stairwell any part of such windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the highest stair directly beneath the window, shall be non-opening (plot numbers are those shown on drawing number 2347-A-1005-07 received by the Council on 1st December 2015): · First floor bathroom window in the southwest side of Plot 66 · First floor bathroom window in the east side of Plot 67 · Two first floor en-suite windows in the east side of Plot 68 · First floor en-suite window in the northwest side of Plot 69 · First floor en-suite window in the northeast side of Plot 70 · First floor en-suite window in the southwest side of Plot 73 · Stairwell window in the northeast side elevation of Plot 8 · Stairwell window in the southwest side elevation of Plot 14 · Stairwell window in the northwest side elevation of Plot 35

7 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/76 Planning Application: DC/15/2126 (Cont.)

· Stairwell window in the southwest side elevation of Plot 25 · Stairwell window in the northeast side elevation of Plot 21 · Stairwell window in the northeast side elevation of Plot 54 The windows shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

10 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the following elevations of the dwellings hereby approved (plot numbers are those shown on drawing number 2347-A-1005-07 received by the Council on 1st December 2015): · Northeast and southwest side elevations on Plot 8 · Southwest side elevation of Plot 14 · Northwest side elevation of Plot 35 · Southwest side elevation of Plot 25 · Northeast side of Plot 21 · Northeast side of Plot 54 · Southwest side of Plot 66 · Eastern side of Plot 67 · Eastern side of Plot 68 · Northwest side of Plot 69 · Northeast side of Plot 70 · Southwest side of Plot 73

11 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be erected, constructed, or placed within the application site unless planning permission is first granted by the Local Planning Authority.

12 Prior to the initial occupation of any dwelling or flat hereby permitted, the bicycle storage, car parking space(s) and/or garage serving that dwelling shall be

8 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/76 Planning Application: DC/15/2126 (Cont.)

provided in accordance with drawing numbers 2347- A-1007-E (Bike Stores Plan) and 2347-A-1014-02 (Parking Allocation Plan) received by the Council 10th December 2015. Car parking and bicycle storage shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved drawings.

13 The garages hereby permitted shall be reserved for the parking of vehicles and shall not be converted to provide additional living accommodation or used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of all carriageways in accordance with Policy 41 of the HDPF.

14 No external lighting shall be erected within the site, other than in accordance with drawing 12204-1 D (Lighting Layout) received by the Council on 10th December 2015.

15 The details of landscaping hereby approved shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan December 2015 Revision C received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.12.2015.

16 Prior to the initial occupation of any dwelling or flat hereby permitted, the refuse storage area serving that dwelling or flat shall be provided and available for use in accordance with drawing number 2347-A- 1006-03 (Refuse Storage and Collection Points Plan) received by the Council on 10th December 2015.

17 The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the details of finished floor levels shown on drawing number 2347-A-1009- 03 (Preliminary Site Levels) received by the Council on 10th December 2015.

9 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/77 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/1186 – OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF UP TO 67 UNITS, INCLUDING UP TO 40% AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS ON LAND TO THE NORTH OF MELTON DRIVE (ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT FOR MEANS OF ACCESS ONTO FRYERN ROAD) SITE: LAND NORTH OF SOUTH WOOD, MELTON DRIVE, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MS EMMA GRUENBAUM

Item withdrawn from the Agenda.

DCS/78 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/2106 – GARAGE TO SERVE THE DWELLING IDENTIFIED AS PLOT 1 SITE: TREVELLAN, KITHURST PARK, STORRINGTON, PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: SIGMA HOMES (STORRINGTON) LTD.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought full planning permission for the construction of a detached garage and car barn. The proposed structure was 5.6m wide and 6m long and 4.1m in height. The proposed building would be constructed with horizontal dark stained timber boarding, and slate tiles to the roof.

The site was located within the built up area of Storrington and was located on the southern side of Kithurst Park. The site consisted of a large detached 2 storey house with attached double length garage to the side and a rear garden in excess of approximately 100m by 37m. The southern boundary of the site was in contact with the South Downs National Park with open views to the Downs, to the south west was a small group of cottages. A public footpath ran along the northern edge of the garden and to the south of Oaklea. There were three bungalows to the north of the site that looked southwards.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. In particular it was noted that an additional letter of representation had been received, totalling 8 letters of objection.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. 8 letters of objection had been received. 2 members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development and impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

10 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/78 Planning Application: DC/15/2106 (Cont.)

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/2106 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 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 external walls and roofs of the proposed garage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.

03 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

04 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

DCS/79 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/2107 – DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF A REPLACEMENT DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE SITE: TREVELLAN, KITHURST PARK, STORRINGTON, PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: SIGMA HOMES (STORRINGTON) LTD

The Development Manager reported that this application sought full planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a replacement dwelling and a new double car barn with cycle and bin store to the rear. The existing dwelling was a five bedroom property with attached garage to the side. The replacement dwelling had four bedrooms and a detached double garage. The dwelling would be 18m long, 12.2m wide at its furthest point including the extension. The dwelling would have a height of 7.6m.

11 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/79 Planning Application: DC/15/2107 (Cont.)

The proposed garage had two bays for parking, one with and one without a door. To the rear of the building was an area for the storage of bins and cycles. The proposed garage was 5.3m, 6.6m long and 5m in height.

Permission was originally granted for a replacement dwelling under reference DC/11/2124 and DC/14/1209. The approved scheme granted permission for the driveway to be re-positioned to the north of the existing access which would be replaced with new hedging. DC/14/1209 granted planning permission for a dwelling of the same design and size with the provision of a shared access drive along the northern boundary providing access to the rear of the site.

Application DC/15/2107 sought to amend the position and design of the new dwelling. The amended position was approximately 0.5m further north west than the dwelling permitted under DC/14/1209. The design was amended to raise the eaves height on the front elevation to replace the proposed dormer with first floor windows, and the provision of a forward facing porch. It was proposed to remove two ground floor windows on the south east and reduce the number of windows and remove a rooflight to the north west. The rear elevation was proposed to have lower eaves and additional three dormers; and additional windows and doors at ground level.

The original plot was proposed to be broken up to form a plot for the replacement dwelling having a triangular rear garden measuring 25 m by 42.4m. The remainder of the original garden area had been the subject of planning application DC/14/1213.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

In particular it was noted that an additional letter of representation had been received, totalling 8 letters of objections. The HDC ecology officer and arboricultural officer had not raised objections to the application. An

12 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/79 Planning Application: DC/15/2107 (Cont.)

additional condition was added to the officer’s recommendation (condition 13). Conditions 3 and 8 were amended to read 2015 rather than 1995.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; character of the area; and the impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/2107 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 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 external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.

03 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or Orders amending or revoking and re- enacting the same, no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be formed in the development without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

04 No development shall take place until details of screen walls and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as

13 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/79 Planning Application: DC/15/2107 (Cont.)

approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

05 No works or development shall take place unless and until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season, following commencement of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

06 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

07 No burning of materials in connection with the development shall take place on the site.

08 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, D, E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

09 No work shall be carried out on site with the exception of the construction of the site access and construction parking areas, until there is available

14 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/79 Planning Application: DC/15/2107 (Cont.)

within the site provision for an appropriate level of parking having regard to the nature of the site, together with suitable provision for the loading and unloading of vehicles and the storage of materials and equipment associated with the building works; all in accordance with precise details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The approved facilities shall be retained and available for use throughout the period of work required to implement the development hereby permitted unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

10 Prior to the commencement of development which may affect bats or their breeding sites or resting places, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

11 The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all access(es) to the site other than that hereby approved shall have been stopped up permanently and obliterated in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

12 No development shall take place until the access(es) from the site to the public highway have been designed, laid out and constructed in all respects in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

13 To avoid risk of harm to potentially nesting birds, removal of any trees and/or shrubs should be undertaken between September and the end of February when birds have ceased nesting. If this is not possible, and clearance is required to be removed between March and August, an Ecologist shall check for active bird nests no more than seven days before works commence, and any active nests found should be protected as advised by the Ecologist until the birds have finished nesting.

15 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/80 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/2142 – RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE CHANGE OF USE OF LAND FROM FARM YARD TO STORAGE OF LOGS, WOODCHIP AND MULCH SITE: CALCOT FARM, HORSHAM ROAD, STEYNING, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: MR RICHARD JESSE

The Development Manager reported that this application sought retrospective permission for the change of use of a piece of land north of the existing farm yard of Calcot Farm for the storage of logs, wood chips, mulch and for the temporary storage of green waste. The application site was being rented to a company called ‘Treedom’.

The site was located within open countryside to the west of Horsham Road, between Ashurst and Steyning. Access was from Horsham Road via shared a private track. The application site is located to the north of Calcot farm and comprises of a number of existing agricultural buildings. The site had been previously used for the parking of agricultural vehicles.

The nearest residential property was to the south west of the site and not within the applicant’s ownership but shared access with the application site. There were further dwellings 100m to the north of the application site.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application but commented that further classification for what is being stored on the site should be sought. 2 letters of objection, 2 of support and 1 of comment had been received. 1 member of the public spoke in objection to the application and 1 member of the public, the applicant and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development ; impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and parking and highway safety.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/2142 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any that is installed with the

16 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/80 Planning Application: DC/15/2142 (Cont.)

permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

02 No burning of materials shall take place on the site at any time.

03 No activities or vehicular movements shall take place on the site except between the hours of:-

08:00 hours and 17:30 hours on Mondays to Fridays (inclusive), and at no times on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank and Public Holidays.

04 No power tools, plant or machinery shall be operated on site at any time.

05 No materials shall be stored on site other than logs, chippings, mulch or green wastes produced from arboricultural or forestry operations.

DCS/81 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/2143 – RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF A FARM BUILDING TO A MEAT CUTTING ROOM, CHILLING AND STORAGE OF MEAT SITE: CALCOT FARM, HORSHAM ROAD, STEYNING, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: MR RICHARD JESSE

The Development Manager reported that this application sought retrospective permission for the change of use of part of a farm building for the purposes of cutting, chilling and storing meat in association with the farming business run from Calcot, Newwharf and Northover Farms.

The change of use relates to approximately half of the building. A cutting room had been created for the preparation of meat. The rest of the application building was used for storing the meat. There was a walk in chiller, 2 domestic fridges, 3 freezers and 3 curing chambers.

The building was used by a family member of the applicant and the premises are not open to the general public. The property was used between 0800 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 – 1600 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays. The applicant had one part-time employee working at the application site.

The site was located within open countryside to the west of Horsham Road, between Ashurst and Steyning. Access was from Horsham Road via shared

17 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/81 Planning Application: DC/15/2143 (Cont.)

a private track. The application site is located to the north of Calcot farm and comprises of a number of existing agricultural buildings. The site had been previously used for the parking of agricultural vehicles.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. 2 letters of objection and 9 of support had been received. 1 member of the public spoke in objection to the application and 1 member of the public, the applicant and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application DC/15/2143 be deferred to allow for a further site visit from Environemental Health and an update on that be provided to Members.

DCS/82 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/2002 – RETENTION OF FIVE DWELLINGS (3 X TWO-BEDROOM CHALET BUNGALOWS AND 2 X THREE-BED BUNGALOWS) SITE: HEATHERDENE DEVELOPMENT SITE, SHOREHAM ROAD, HENFIELD, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: MR ALEX DAY

The Development Manager reported that this application sought amendments to the extant scheme, approved under planning permission DC/06/0633. The amendments were as follows:

Unit 1 • Re-siting of the dwelling 2.0m rearward (west); • Replacement of a single bay garage with a surface car parking space; • Installation of a bay window (with a flat roof) on the front elevation

18 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/82 Planning Application: DC/15/2002 (Cont.)

Unit 2 • Installation of an additional single rooflight (south-facing roof slope); • Hipped roof on the rear dormer window; and • All windows on north elevation (ground floor level) to be obscure glazed.

Unit 3 • Installation of an additional single rooflight (south-facing roof slope); and • Hipped roof on the rear dormer window;

Unit 4 • Additional single roof light (north-facing roof slope) • Hipped roof on the rear dormer window; and • All windows on north elevation (ground floor level) to be obscure glazed (except bedroom window).

Unit 5 • Installation of a bay window (with a flat roof) on the front elevation • Additional single roof light (north roof slope)

The application site had formerly contained ‘Heatherdene’ a large chalet bungalow, which was subsequently demolished. The site contained five dwellings (three chalet bungalows and two bungalows), in the final stages of construction. To the north of the site was the Highdown Nursery. There were residential properties surrounding the majority of the application site.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. 7 letters of objection and 1 of comment had been received. 2 members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the design and impact on the character of the area; the impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and highway considerations.

Members considered aspects of the proposal, in particular that it was not clear who would be responsible for the future landscaping and maintainence of the site and that this should be amended.

19 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/82 Planning Application: DC/15/2002 (Cont.)

Members discussed the fact that this application had lost S106 contributions due to the amendments to the scheme.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application DC/15/2002 be deferred to allow for further information regarding the S106 contributions to be circulated to Members.

DCS/83 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/2170 – EXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS SITE: DANIELS FARM, WEST CHILTINGTON LANE, CONYHURST, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MR AND MRS JUPP

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of an existing single storey element and the construction of a two storey duel pitched roof extension to the west. In addition the demolition of a porch and construction of a two storey gable extension to the north.

The application site was located within open countryside. The site was located on West Chiltington Lane on the southern side of Coneyhurst Road. The dwelling was setback from the highway which was lined with mature trees and hedges. The dwelling was located within a large associated curtilage with outbuildings and garages to the north of the dwelling, where the vehicular access was located.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the design and appearance; and the impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application DC/15/2170 be granted subject to the following conditions:

20 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/83 Planning Application: DC/15/2170 (Cont.)

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

02 The materials and finishes of all new external walls and roofs of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour and texture those of the existing building.

DCS/84 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/1734 – VARIATION OF CONDITION A OF APPROVED APPLICATION DC/11/2028 (PROPOSED ERECTION OF 4 HOUSES PURSUANT TO EXTANT PERMISSION DC/10/0441 FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF 8 X 2 BEDROOM APARTMENTS) TO ALTER LAYOUT OF FRONT GARDENS AND PARKING ARRANGEMENTS SITE: CASTLE VIEW, THE STREET, BRAMBER, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: MR MIKE WILSON

The Development Manager reported that this application sought to vary condition A of permission DC/11/2028 to replace the approved plans relating to the layout and parking arrangements to the front of the semi-detached dwellings.

The proposal would separate the shared parking to the front to create individual driveways and hardstandings for each property. This would incorporate the use of hard and soft landscaping to separate each area, with the low boundary wall retained, and vehicle and pedestrian gates inserted intermittently for each property.

The application site was located to the north of The Street within the designated built up area and Conservation Area of Bramber.

The site consisted of 4 newly constructed semi-detached dwellings set back from the public highway by approximately 12m.

The front of the dwellings consisted of shared parking bays with young hedging and planting along the east and west boundaries. The site was accessed from the centre of the site, and was bound to the south with a low lying flint and brick wall.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

21 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/84 Planning Application: DC/15/1734 (Cont.)

In particular it was noted that condition 1 as set out in the officer’s report had been removed. It was also noted that WSCC Highways had provided further comment on site access, driveways and parking spaces.

The Parish Council objected to the application. 6 letters of objection had been recieved. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the design of development and character of the street scene; residential amenity; and existing parking and traffic conditions.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application DC/15/1734 be determained by the Development Manager in association with Local Members subject to a site visit from WSCC Highways.

DCS/85 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/2456 – VARIATION TO S106 AGREEMENT IN RELATION TO DC/15/0268 SITE: LAND EAST OF MANOR CLOSE, HENFIELD, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: PETER BROOKS

The Development Manager reported that this application sought to make an amendment to a clause within the S106 Agreement attached to the outline application reference DC/13/1266 which granted permission for 102 dwellings with associated landscaping, open space and access and was considered by Committee in September 2013.

The applicant advised that they are unable to sell the affordable homes to a Registered Provider using the wording in the S106 Agreement. The applicant’s preferred partner, Orbit Homes, advised that the wording made the affordable homes un-mortgageable and requested changes to the wording of the S106.

The changes requested were as follows:

Clause 7.10 needs to be amended to add the following words to the end “whereupon the charge mortgagee or its receiver shall be entitled to dispose of the relevant Affordable Housing Units free from the provisions of this clause 7 which shall determine absolutely”.

The time periods in clauses 7.11.2, 7.11.3 and 7.11.4 need to be reduced to 6 weeks rather than 8 weeks.

22 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/85 Planning Application: DC/15/2456 (Cont.)

Clause 7.11.4 needs to be amended to read as follows (amendments in bold) “….shall co-operate with such arrangements and use its reasonable endeavours to secure such disposal PROVIDED THAT the consideration paid for the Affordable Housing units is not less than the amount due and outstanding to the mortgagee or charge under the terms of the mortgage or charge including all accrued principal monies interest and costs and expenses incurred by the mortgagee or charge in respect of the mortgage or charge. The District Council must give full consideration to the amount outstanding under the mortgage or charge and the mortgagee or charge shall not be required to act contrary to its legal duties under the charge or mortgage.

In addition it had been queried that the word ‘or’ appears at the end of clause 7.14.1(b) – there is no 7.14.1 (c) so this should be deleted.

It was noted that the changes proposed were seeking to update the Mortgagee in Possession clauses in the light of developing changes in the affordable housing world and were not seeking to alter either the tenure mix that had been agreed or the number of units proposed. The changes that had been agreed which differ slightly from those sought would ensure that this principal legal agreement accords with the Mortgagee in Possession clauses that the Council now routinely uses.

The site was a broadly rectangular shape and originally comprised an open field of lined hedgerow and was located in open countryside. The area was characterised by a combination of two storey terraced and semi detached dwellings and bungalows. Wantley Manor, a Grade II Listed Building, was located to the west of the application site, beyond a number of existing, two storey residential dwellings. The properties immediately to south and east, which back directly on to the application site, comprised both bungalows and two stories dwellings.

The site was being developed pursuant to the outline and reserved matters approvals.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issue for consideration in determining the proposal was: the impact

23 Development Control (South) Committee 15th December 2015

DCS/85 Planning Application: DC/15/2456 (Cont.)

of making the changes sought upon the ability to deliver affordable housing as sought by the original permission and S106 Agreement.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application DC/15/2456 be determained by the Development Manager. The preliminary view of the committee was that the application be granted.

The meeting closed at 16:15 having commenced at 14:00.

CHAIRMAN

24 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT (SOUTH) COMMITTEE – 19th JANUARY 2016 REPORT BY THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER 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

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution 4 Clays Hill, Bramber, DC/15/1471 In Progress Grant Refuse Steyning, BN44 3WD Maregate Cottage, Mare DC/15/1488 In Progress Refuse Delegated Hill Road, Pulborough 36 Priory Field, Upper DC/15/1863 In Progress Refuse Delegated Beeding, BN44 3HU Land East of Pemberley, DC/15/1191 Mill Lane, Partridge In Progress Refuse Delegated Green, RH13 8JU Silver Birches, DC/15/0448 Thakeham Road, In Progress Refuse Delegated Storrington, RH20 3NG Silver Birches, DC/15/1549 Thakeham Road, In Progress Refuse Delegated Storrington, RH20 3NG

3. Appeal Decisions

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

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution Land West of Smock DC/14/2248 Alley, West Dismissed Permit Refuse Chiltington High Hollow, The DC/15/0799 Hollow, West Allowed Refuse Delegated Chiltington Land Parcel East of DC/14/2139 Furzedown, Kithurst Dismissed Refuse Delegated Lane, Storrington Land West of Hivale, DC/15/0859 Sands Lane, Small Allowed Refuse Delegated Dole, BN5 9YL

26 ITEM A1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 19 January 2016 Outline planning permission for up to 107 dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), informal public open space and children's play area, DEVELOPMENT: surface water attenuation, landscaping, vehicular access point from Storrington Road and associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved with the exception of the main site access. SITE: Land at Storrington Road Thakeham West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/15/2374 APPLICANT: Gladman Developments

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Departure from the Development Plan

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse the application.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.2 The application is made in outline. The proposed main access is for consideration with the application. Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for later consideration.

1.3 The application proposes the erection of up to 107 dwellings, served by a new access from Storrington Road. The application indicates an indicative layout of detached, semi- detached and terraced two storey dwellings with parking spaces and garages. The proposal includes up to 40% affordable housing units. 40% affordable housing relates to 43 units.

1.4 The indicative layout submitted with the application shows a development with 5 cul-de- sacs coming off a central road. The proposed density of the site would be 22 dwellings per hectare. The site is shown with proposed infiltration basins in the north west and south east corners of the site and a proposed village green and open space in a central position. New planting and green links are indicated as part of the proposal including a green buffer area around the boundary with Snapes Cottage. The proposal would retain the majority of trees around the borders of the site. The scheme would require the removal of a hedgerow tree belt to accommodate the proposed site access from Storrington Road (B2139). A

Contact Officer: Jason Hawkes 27 Tel: 01403 215162 ITEM A1 - 2

section of internal hedgerow tree belt would also be required to be removed to accommodate access through the site between fields.

1.5 The application has been accompanied by a number of supporting document including: · Design and Access Statement · Planning Statement · Built Heritage Statement · Air Quality Assessment · Flood Risk Assessment · Statement of Community Involvement · Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment · Framework Travel Plan · Archaeological Assessment · Noise Impact Assessment · Economic Impact Assessment · Foul Drainage Analysis · Ecology Report

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The application site comprises an area of 4.89 hectares which includes four fields located to the west of Storrington Road. The smallest field is immediately adjacent to Storrington Road and is unused land which has been left to grow naturally. This field is set at higher ground level than Storrington Road and is surrounded by trees and a hedgerow tree belt. This field has an area of approximately 4,800sqm and is directly north of a neighbouring dwelling at Venters, Storrington Road and south of a separate paddock used for horses. Given the shape of the proposed site, this paddock separates the majority of the site to the west from Storrington Road. With this separation, the proposed site is an unusual shape with limited roadside frontage.

1.7 Adjoining this field to the west are the three further fields which are part of the application site. These fields are used for horse grazing and have a total area of approximately 44,000sqm. The fields are divided by timber fencing. Due to the topography of the site the fields slope down from north to south with a central plateau. These fields are also surrounded by trees and a hedgerow belt.

1.8 The site is north of the built-up-area of Storrington. Storrington is classed as a ‘Small Town and Larger Village’ in Policy 3, Strategic Policy: Development Hierarchy of the Horsham District Planning Framework. Directly to the south of the site is a piece of vacant land which abuts the built-up area boundary of Storrington at Rother Close and Jubilee Way. This piece of land was recently granted outline permission at appeal followed by reserved matters approval for the development of the 75 dwellings (refs: DC/13/1265 & DC/15/2126). Development has not commenced on this adjacent site. The current application site is approximately 115m from the nearest dwelling on Rother Close.

1.9 The current application site is also north of a group of detached dwellings at St Marys Close. These houses are the nearest dwellings to the site which are within the built-up- area boundary. The site also adjoins the north and west boundaries of Snapes Cottage. This property is a Grade II listed building. There is also a row of detached dwellings of traditional design facing the site on Storrington Road. The site also abuts the boundary of a dwelling at Littlebury House to the north of the site. To the west and to the north of the site (adjacent to Littlebury House) are further fields. The field to the west of the application site is used for crops and the field to the north is for grazing. Further to the south west of the site, beyond the fields, there are a number of commercial units within an industrial estate, including a recently constructed warehouse building.

28 ITEM A1 - 3

1.10 The site is located within the Horsham District Landscape Character Area E1: Parnham & Storrington Wooded Farmlands and Heath. According to this classification, ‘the area has a distinctive landscape of rolling sandy ridges and stream valleys with a mosaic of oak – birch / woodland, conifer plantations, heathlands and rough pasture. Despite the proximity of the urban edge of Storrington and the intrusion of traffic, the area retains surprisingly rural character.’

1.11 The current application site is identified in the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) as site no.SA469 Land off Storrington Road. The SHELAA states the following for this site:

1.12 ‘The site abuts the built up area of Storrington and is located within an area as having low to moderate capacity for residential development in the HDC Landscape Capacity Assessment 2014. Storrington Road runs to the east of the site providing a sustainable access into the town. There may be potential impacts on the setting of Snapes Cottage Grade ll listed building which would need to be considered. The site is not identified in the emerging Thakeham Neighbourhood Development Plan and as such is considered Developable 11+ years’.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), sections 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

2.3 Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014).

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 The following policies in the HDPF are considered to be relevant:

Policy 1: Strategic Policy: Sustainable Development Policy 2: Strategic Policy: Strategic Development Policy 3: Strategic Policy: Development Hierarchy Policy 4: Strategic Policy: Settlement Expansion Policy 15: Strategic Policy: Housing Provision Policy 16: Strategic Policy: Meeting Local Housing Needs Policy 17: Exceptions Housing Schemes Policy 24: Strategic Policy – Environmental Protection Policy 25: Strategic Policy: The Natural Environment and Landscape Character Policy 26: Strategic Policy: Countryside Protection Policy 31: Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Policy 32: Strategic Policy: The Quality of New Development Policy 33: Development Principles Policy 34: Cultural and Heritage Assets Policy 35: Strategic Policy: Climate Change Policy 36: Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use Policy 37: Sustainable Construction Policy 38: Strategic Policy: Flooding Policy 39: Strategic Policy: Infrastructure Provision

29 ITEM A1 - 4

Policy 40: Sustainable Transport Policy 41: Parking Policy 42: Strategic Policy: Inclusive Communities

2.5 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Document:

- Planning Obligations (2007)

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

2.6 The site is within the parish of Thakeham. Thakeham has been designated as a Neighbourhood Development Plan Area, and a Pre-Submission plan has been produced which has recently been out for Regulation 16 consultation. The consultation ended on the 11th December 2015. At the time of writing the report, no date had been set for the examination of the plan. The site is not allocated in the Pre-Submission plan.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.7 There is no planning history for this site. The following planning history is relevant to this application and relates to the immediate site to the south at land North of Brook Close and Rother Close:

DC/15/2126 Application for Approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Approved Outline Planning Application DC/13/1265 (Development of approximately 75 dwellings including the creation of an access point from Water Lane. Provision of open space including children's play area, linear park, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site)

DC/13/1265 Development of approximately 75 dwellings including the Refused: creation of an access point from Water Lane. Provision of Allowed on open space including children's play area, linear park, appeal landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site (Outline)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk.

3.2 HDC – Housing (summarised): Comment. The applicant proposes 40% affordable homes (43 units). The mix of housing proposed is not supported and the Council would request a higher number of 2 bed properties as well a small number of 1 beds. Due to Government announcements in the July 2015 Budget and proposals in the Housing and Planning Bill (October 2015) the final tenure mix of the affordable homes will be agreed in writing by the Council prior to commencement of development.

3.3 HDC - Strategic Planning (Summarised): Objection. The site is located in the countryside, well outside of the BUAB of Storrington, and is unrelated to the existing settlement edge. As such, the site is considered against ‘Countryside Protection Policy 26’ which protects the countryside against inappropriate development. Additionally, the Council can demonstrate a full 5-year housing land supply against the required number of dwellings per annum. It is also considered that a housing site of up to 107 dwellings in a countryside location such as this would not be of an appropriate scale. The site has not

30 ITEM A1 - 5

been allocated for development in the Neighbourhood Development Plan which is currently out for Regulation 16 public consultation.

3.4 HDC – Technical Services (Drainage) (summarised): No overall objections to the drainage strategy proposed subject to a detailed design information to be submitted at the appropriate planning stage. Suitable drainage conditions should be applied that secure the implementation and maintenance of the SuDS to ensure they remain effective for the lifetime of the development.

3.5 HDC – Environmental Management, Waste and Cleansing (summarised): Comment. A full refuse strategy is required to be submitted for approval. Officer note: This is an outline application and we would therefore expect such a strategy to be submitted as part of a Reserved Matters application in the event that an outline approval is granted.

3.6 HDC – Environmental Health (summarised): No objection subject to the following: · Submission of Construction Environmental Management Plan to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. · The noise report submitted by Peter Brett Associates is acceptable. The scheme is to be implemented in accordance with the details outlined in the report which recommends trickle vents to the windows of some dwellings. · The site is over 1km from the Storrington Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The applicant has submitted an air quality assessment report. However, the report lacks sufficient details. Therefore, a condition is recommended requiring the submission of a ‘low emission strategy’ scheme for the approval of the local planning authority. · Given the sensitivity of the proposed end use, a condition relating to the submission of a scheme associated with the contamination of the site for the approval of the local planning authority is recommended. The Environmental Health would expect to see at least a desk top study and depending on the findings of this work, recommendations for further intrusive work and a watching brief over site preparation and groundworks.

3.7 HDC – Parks & Countryside: No objection. Under the approved scheme for the land to the south, there is some natural play provision in the open space at the north of that site. It is recommended that this provision is expanded and enhanced with additional play equipment to provide a facility, equally accessible from both developments. This would obviate the need for the play area at the centre of the current scheme but it would still be important to ensure appropriate quantities of amenity/natural green space are included within that development.

3.8 HDC – Ecology Consultant (summarised): No objection subject to the plans and particulars submitted in support of the reserved matters application to include the following ecological details: · Updated ecology surveys, including an update badger survey, a suite of dormouse surveys, and additional bat activity survey(s), with appropriate avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures as required; · A reptile mitigation method statement to expand upon those recommendations made within sections 4.18-4.20 of the Ecology Report by FPCR, dated March 2015, and to provide detail on reptile protection measures and receptor areas. This should include a reptile population survey and results to inform receptor site requirements; · A lighting plan showing measures to be used to avoid illumination of boundary habitats, and proposed areas of open space, to avoid disturbance to bats and mature trees with potential to support bats; · A management plan to ensure the long-term viability of new and existing habitats.

31 ITEM A1 - 6

3.9 HDC - Archaeology Consultant (summarised): No objection subject to the submission of a written scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing.

3.10 HDC - Design & Conservation Consultant (summarised): Objection. It is considered that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Snapes Cottage.

3.11 HDC – Landscape Officer (summarised): Objection. The proposal of 107 dwellings on the site in addition to the adjacent Crest Nicholson development will have a significant cumulative impact and adverse effect on the landscape character and appearance of the area.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.12 West Sussex County Council – Flood Risk Management Consultant (summarised): No objection. Current mapping shows the proposed site is primarily at ‘low risk’ from surface water flooding and ground water flooding. Development should not commence until finalised detailed surface water drainage designs for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of hydrological and hydro geological context of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3.13 West Sussex County Council - Highways (summarised): No objection. As amended and subject to the submission of further details, the highway authority is satisfied that the development would not result in any severe highway safety or capacity impacts.

3.14 Southern Water (Summarised): No objection subject to the following: · The applicant is to enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. · The applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. · No soakaways, swales, ponds, watercourses or any other surface water retaining or conveying features to be located within 5 metres of a public sewer. · Details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

3.15 Environment Agency (summarised): No objection.

3.16 Campaign to Protect Rural England Sussex (summarised): Objection. · The application does not recognise and therefore take into account the intrinsic beauty of the locality’s countryside. If permitted, the development would have a significant harmful impact on the landscape character of the site and its surroundings which would change from rural to urban. · The scheme is predicated on the presumption that Council would not have an up-to- date plan. With the adoption of HDPF the Council now has a 5 year housing supply. · Essential information regarding biodiversity and ecology has not been submitted. · The scheme would cause significant harm to the character of the adjacent Grade II listed building, Snapes Cottage. · Given the remoteness of the site, the scheme would have an impact on the air quality of Storrington.

32 ITEM A1 - 7

· The scheme is opposed by both Thakeham and Storrington & Sullington Parish Councils and is not designated in a Neighbourhood Plan.

3.17 West Sussex County Council – Section 106 (summarised): No objection subject to S106 contributions. Contributions are required in relation to School Infrastructure, Library Infrastructure, Transport, Fire & Rescue Service Infrastructure. As the housing mix is not known at this stage, it is not possible to establish the proposed contributions for this scheme. If recommended for approval, a formula could be inserted into any legal agreement so that the necessary contributions can be calculated at a later date.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.18 Thakeham Parish Council: Objects to the proposal on the following grounds: · The proposal conflicts with the local HDPF strategic planning framework. The site is greenfield and outside the Category 1 settlement of Storrington and Sullington. It is not included in the HDPF for development, which was recently found to be sound by the Planning Inspector and has now been made by Horsham District Council. · The proposal conflicts with the emerging local planning framework. In particular it is in direct conflict (as acknowledged by the applicant’s Planning Statement) with the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan (TNP), which is currently out for s.16 formal consultation pre-referendum following extensive consultation with local residents and validation processes via Horsham District Council, including external health check. The site of this proposal was specifically considered during the development of the TNP. Even with an assumed lower number of units (75) the site scored poorly and was ruled out on the grounds of: being outside current built-up areas, coalescence, negative impact on landscape and impact on listed buildings. · To add a further 107 homes by granting permission on this site would derail the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan in terms of housing supply, its strong emphasis on avoiding further coalescence between the villages of Thakeham and Storrington, and in terms of planned provision of community facilities. · The proposed development will demonstrably harm the setting of a grade II listed building (Snape’s Cottage), within 30m of the southern boundary of the site. · The proposal would have a serious adverse impact on the landscape character of this area, which currently eases the transition from built-up suburbs, via sporadic development northwards along the B2139, to the rural feel of most of the rest of Thakeham parish. · The site makes a valuable contribution to biodiversity at the edge of the existing built-up area. The existing considerable tree cover is in good condition and contains some outstanding trees. As the applicant’s ecological report (para 4.16) notes, there is species richness within the field areas, which will not survive the development. · The applicant argues that the site is suitable for walking and cycling to the facilities of central Storrington. The site is in an unsustainable location being practically 2km from the local service centre of Storrington. Residents will therefore inevitably be mainly reliant on the car for access to shops and all other facilities. · The extra cars/journeys created will increase accidents. Snapes Corner is a dangerous location; the proposed site entrance is just north of the bend where there have been a number of car accidents in recent years, including fatalities. · The additional cars and high number of journeys necessitated by the unsustainable location will further exacerbate the well-known and serious air pollution problems in Storrington. · This is not a sustainable location. The strong sense of Storrington is that schools, dentists and doctor’s surgeries in the area are already at maximum capacity.

33 ITEM A1 - 8

3.19 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council: Objects to the proposal on the following grounds · The proposed site is not included in the HDPF or in Thakeham’s or Storrington, Sullington & Washington Parish Council’s Neighbourhood Plans. · It became apparent whilst conducting Neighbourhood Plan Surveys that residents of all surrounding villages wanted to protect the gaps between each individual village. · Members also feel that the scheme should be objected to on the grounds of traffic, air quality, lack of infrastructure and the fact that the schools, dentists and doctors surgery are already at maximum capacity.

3.20 Thakeham Village Action: · This land in the Thakeham Countryside is an unsuitable rural location outside the limits of any existing settlement. · With the decision to adopt the HDPF, the Council has a five year supply of housing. · The forthcoming Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan, currently at Regulation 15 public notice stage, does not allocate this site for housing. · Introducing suburban type housing would not be appropriate to this countryside location and would harm the landscape character and countryside ambience, amenity and atmosphere of this rural location. · The site is visible from the South Downs National Park. Building on this land would harm the landscape character of the National Park. · The site is not well contained in the wider landscape. It has a high degree of visual sensitivity from higher ground, the B2139 and the nearby footpath. · The site has poor access to services and facilities. It is some 2km to the nearest service centre (Storrington) and more than 500m to the nearest frequent bus stop, so owners would be reliant on the use of the private car. · Developing this site would lead to coalescence between Thakeham and Storrington. · Introduction of a housing development would create light pollution. · Development of this site would result in the loss of good quality agricultural soils. · Change of land use from an agricultural field to housing would result in a less balanced living and working community. · The old hedgerows on the site provide refuges for wildlife, including protected species. · The local infrastructure (roads, schools, health facilities, water supply, sewerage) are unable to take the increased pressure development would place on them. · Development would affect the setting of a listed building. · Local air quality problems would be made worse. · The proposed development would not result in a use required for a countryside location.

3.21 72 no. letters of objection (from 68 different addresses) have been received. The grounds of objection are as follows: · The proposal would swallow up an area of Greenfield land and be overdevelopment resulting in a loss of countryside. · The site is not allocated in the Thakeham or Storrington Neighbourhood Plans. · The scheme is not supported or for the benefit of the local community and is just for profit. · The scheme would increase vehicle movements on Storrington Road. This is a dangerous junction. · Permission has already been granted for development of the land to the south for 75 dwellings and for 146 houses at the Abingworth Nursery site as well as other sites nearby. This is too much for this small parish with limited facilities.

34 ITEM A1 - 9

· The scheme would put pressure on local services such as doctor’s surgeries, schools and dentists. A doctor’s surgery has recently closed down in the local area. · The scheme would reduce the quality of life for existing residents. · The houses should have maximum energy efficiency. · Along with other approved developments in the area, The scheme would result in disruption to the area. · The proposal is near to the National Park and should be kept as countryside. · The proposal should include more affordable housing. · This site is an add-on to an add-on to the town boundary and would set a further precedent. · Residents of the proposal would be commuters as there is limited employment in the area resulting in increased traffic. · Local wildlife would be put in danger by this proposal. · Drainage from the site would no longer be natural resulting in flooding problems. · The scheme is not sustainable given its distance from local services. · The scheme would contribute to the coalescence between Thakeham and Storrington. · There is insufficient water supply in the area to accommodate this development. · The scheme would add to the air pollution problem in Storrington.

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 ASSESSMENTS

6.1 As an outline application, the main issue in the consideration of this application is whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to both central government and local development plan policies, and to any other material considerations.

6.2 The applicant has requested that all matters except access are to be considered for later determination. ‘Access’, in this instance, relates to the accessibility to and within the site, for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network.

6.3 As set out in Section 2, the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was adopted on 27th November 2015. It is, therefore, necessary to assess this application for outline planning permission against the relevant Policies of the HDPF and the national planning policies contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is also relevant to this application.

6.4 The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should contribute to building strong, responsive and competitive economies; vibrant and healthy communities that meet the needs of present and future generations; high quality built environments, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment and; improve

35 ITEM A1 - 10

biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate and adapt to climate change.

6.5 In accordance with the above objectives, the main issues for the Local Planning Authority to consider in the determination of this application for outline planning permission are the acceptability of the principle of the proposed residential development in land use terms; the impact on the setting on the adjacent Grade II Listed Building; the impact on the character and visual amenity of the landscape and locality; the impact of the development on the amenity of prospective and neighbouring occupiers; whether safe vehicular and pedestrian access can be provided to the site and the impact of the development on highway and pedestrian safety; traffic conditions in the locality; whether appropriate provision can be made for car and cycle parking, refuse storage/collection, drainage/flooding and; whether the development can be delivered without harming the interests of nature conservation, flooding, land contamination, archaeology and air quality.

Principle of Development

6.6 The HDPF demonstrates that there is adequate housing land available to provide the required 800 dwellings per annum for a 5 year period. Policy 3 of the HDPF, confirms that development should be focused within Built-Up Area Boundaries. In addition to Built-Up Areas, it is recognised that, in order for some communities to be able to grow and develop, it will be necessary for them to expand beyond their current built form. Accordingly, Policies 3 and 4 note that, by allocating sites in the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans, it will be possible to meet the identified local needs of these settlements and provide an appropriate level of market and affordable housing, as well as maintaining the viability of smaller villages and towns. The Policy notes the importance of retaining the rural character of the District beyond these settlements. In this instance, the proposed site is well beyond the Built-Up-Area of Storrington in a countryside location.

6.7 The HDPF outlines that the proposed settlement hierarchy which is the most sustainable approach to delivering housing. New development should be focused in the larger settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst, with limited new development elsewhere, and only where it accords with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan. Specifically, Policy 3 of the Horsham District Planning Framework seeks to retain the existing settlement pattern and ensure that development takes place in the most sustainable locations as possible.

6.8 As the development site is outside the built-up-area boundary, not allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan and not within a strategic development site, the principle of residential development in this location is, therefore, contrary to Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the HDPF.

6.9 In this countryside location, the site is also considered against ‘Countryside Protection’ Policy 26 which protects the countryside against inappropriate development unless it is considered to be appropriate in scale and essential; and must also meet one of four criteria. The proposed development does not meet any of these four criteria, nor is it considered to be essential given the Council can demonstrate a full 5-year housing land supply against the required number of dwellings per annum.

6.10 As stated, the application site is not allocated for development within an adopted Neighbourhood Plan. Thakeham has been designated as a Neighbourhood Development Plan Area, and a Pre-Submission plan has been produced which has recently been out for Regulation 16 consultation. The site has not been designated within the Thakeham Pre- Submission plan.

6.11 Whilst the Thakeham NDP has reached Regulation 16 stage, it is considered to be too early to afford this plan any meaningful weight in the decision making process of this

36 ITEM A1 - 11

application. Notwithstanding this, given Thakeham Parish Council’s strong objection to this proposal, it is unlikely that this site will be adopted as a housing site in the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan within the immediate future. This is reinforced in the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) appraisal of the site which states that this site is developable in over 11 years’ time.

6.12 Policy 15 of the HDPF outlines the provision of 16,000 homes for the Horsham District within the period 2011-2031. The policy includes the provision of 750 units within ‘windfall sites’. As the Council can now demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, it would expect any windfall sites to now be located within the built-up-area boundary in accordance with the HDPF. As unallocated land outside the built-up-area boundary, this site could not be considered as a ‘windfall site’.

6.13 In November 2014 application DC/13/1265 was allowed on appeal for up to 75 dwellings on a site immediately to the south (which abuts the existing BUAB). A Reserved Matters application has also been recently approved for this site and condition applications have been submitted. The current scheme is a similar density to that approved on the appeal site. In determining the appeal, the Inspector commented that the development should be determined in accordance with the SPD on Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD). The FAD SPD was brought in to address the lack of a five year housing supply and outlined an assessment of what would be considered appropriate development under the policies of the adopted Development Plan Documents. With the adoption of the HDPF, the Council can now clearly demonstrate a five year housing supply and the FAD SPD no longer forms part of the Development Plan. The Inspector also commented that whilst the FAD SPD and NPPF were material considerations in the appeal, the reason for refusal of the scheme considered at appeal referred to maintaining and enhancing landscape and townscape character and not about the supply of housing.

6.14 Given that the HDPF has now been adopted and that the Council can now clearly demonstrate a five year housing supply, the appeal decision for the development of the land directly to the south is not considered to set a precedent for the development of the current application site. As outlined below, there are also concerns that the current scheme would further erode the character of this countryside location which would already be detrimentally affected by the development of the land to the south and would also harm the rural setting of the adjacent listed building at Snapes Cottage.

6.15 For the reasons outlined above, the principle of providing 107 no. houses, outside the Built- Up-Area Boundary, within the countryside, and where the land hasn’t been allocated for development within a Local or Neighbourhood Plan, is unacceptable. The development is not essential to its countryside location and is therefore contrary to Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 25 and 26 of the HDPF.

Dwelling Type and Tenure

6.16 40% of the proposed 107 no. dwellings would be made available on the affordable housing market, which exceeds the guideline figure of 35%, as set out in Policy 16 of the HDPF. The proposed affordable housing provision is, therefore, acceptable in principle. The exact size and tenure split of the units could be controlled by a suitably worded legal agreement, if all other aspects of the proposed development were considered acceptable.

6.17 Policy 16 of the Horsham District Planning Framework seeks to achieve a mix of housing sizes to meet the District’s housing needs, as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), in order to create balanced and sustainable communities. The Housing Section has commented that the greatest need in the District is for 2 bed 4 person homes. The scheme includes a low number of 2 bed 4 person units and the proposed mix put forward in the scheme is not supported by the Housing Section. However, as this is an

37 ITEM A1 - 12

outline application, with only access to be considered, the final mix of dwellings proposed across the site would be considered and controlled as part of a Reserved Matters application and based on the most up to date need at that time. Should this application be recommended for approval, the Council will need to open an early discussion with the developer regarding the delivery of affordable housing.

Impact on the Setting of Snapes Cottage

6.18 Snapes Cottage is a Grade II Listed building adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. The proposed development would wrap around the north and west boundaries of Snapes Cottage and would be adjacent to the driveway to the cottage.

6.19 A History of the County of Sussex: Volume 6 Part 2 informs that Snapes Cottage was likely the original farmhouse of Snapes Farm but was replaced with a new farmhouse on the opposite side of the road in the late 17th century. The publication goes on to state that in 1982 Snapes Cottage “retained a 15th-century timber framed and jettied north cross wing of two bays with a crown-post roof, traceried bargeboards, and bay window. The hall range to the south was replaced in the 19th century by a small double-depth stone block.”

6.20 The building draws its significance from its architectural and historic value as a traditional building constructed of the local vernacular. It alludes to the historic land use of the region which is evident on the historic mapping. Whilst its context as an isolated farmstead has been eroded by the loss of traditional ancillary structures, as a result of the relocation of the farm nucleus to the land on the eastern side of Storrington Road, it still does have an association to the surrounding countryside which is important in respect of the morphology of the listed building and its setting.

6.21 The appeal decision for the land south of Snapes Cottage did consider the setting of the listed building and concluded that there would be negligible less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building on the basis that the historic value of the building as an isolated farmstead had been eroded to an extent that its context was of a detached historic property located within the countryside. The development scheme approved at appeal retained an undeveloped margin along the northern boundary thereby minimising the impact upon the listed building and thus retaining its context as a countryside residence.

6.22 The supporting statement submitted as part of this application relies heavily upon the Inspectors findings for the development to the south without however fully assessing the conclusions made or how these have been reached. The applicant’s documentation fails to recognise that if the land to the north, east and west of Snapes Cottage was built upon that the building would be completely engulfed in modern housing estates. Whilst the retained margin to the south would give some benefit to the setting of Snapes Cottage its existing context as a countryside residence would be substantially lost. In this regard there would be significant harm to the setting and context of the listed building which would not be outweighed by the public benefit.

6.23 The retention of a margin area of the proposed development to the south of Snapes Cottage which is to be retained as meadow and the undeveloped agricultural land to the north are major influences on the listed building and its significance, which includes its setting. The appeal decision for land to the South of Snapes Cottage concluded; “It is a great advantage of the appeal proposal that the higher ground on the north of the site would not be built upon, thus restricting the proposed housing to land where it would not impinge noticeably on views from the north and north-west, or indeed on views from the South Downs.”

6.24 The site is, as described in the supporting document, “positioned on a crown of a ridge between the valleys of streams flowing to the west. The ground slopes away towards the

38 ITEM A1 - 13

north-western and southern boundaries. Views across the site are available from the higher ground to the northwest and from the extending crown of the ridge to the north and northeast. There is strong inter-visibility between the central and much of the southern portions of the site with the listed building, Snapes Cottage, immediately to the south of the Site.’

6.25 The topography of site results in the land rising up from the northwest of Snapes Cottage to a plateau. This increase in height will ensure that the built form will inevitably rise up out of the site, likely exceeding the existing treeline and hedgerow canopy thereby impacting upon the setting of the listed building. Within the submitted documentation photographic evidence clearly shows that the boundary between Snapes Cottage and the application site is more open affording far reaching views of open countryside bordered with established trees and hedgerow from Snapes Cottage when looking west. The proposed layout scheme has identified the entire area to be set aside for development, and whilst it does include a small “green” this is consumed by built form and urbanisation in the form of boundary fencing, ancillary buildings, garaging and hard landscaping all of which cumulatively impact upon the sense of place and landscape characterisation both of which contribute to the setting of the listed building.

6.26 In conclusion, it is considered that the negative cumulative impact upon the context, sense of place and landscape characterisation would be severe, resulting in harm to the significance and setting of the listed building.

6.27 Policy 34 of the HDPF states that the Council recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and as such the Council will sustain and enhance its historic environment through positive management of development affecting heritage assets.

6.28 It is acknowledged that the proposed additional housing would provide economic benefits, including employment opportunities during the construction process and that the prospective occupiers would be likely to contribute to the local economy and would also be required to pay Council Tax. It is also acknowledged that 40% of the dwellings would be made available on the affordable housing market. Financial contributions secured through a planning obligation could, together with appropriate conditions, require the provision of off-site highway improvements and enhanced local facilities, thereby supporting the local community’s social well-being. The indicative plans also show that the proposed development would provide an area of public open space. Whilst the provision of this open space could help to provide recreational opportunities for prospective occupiers, given the location of the site, away from Storrington village, it is considered unlikely that this facility would provide wider public benefits to existing local residents.

6.29 On balance, therefore, and whilst acknowledging that the development could provide some positive social and economic outcomes, it is not considered that these would be of a sufficient scale to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm identified to the setting of the Listed Building. Additionally, as the Council can now demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, there is no overriding public benefit arising from the development which would outweigh the great weight to be applied to the harm caused to the heritage asset. On that basis, the proposed development is not considered to represent a sustainable form of development as prescribed by the NPPF. In reaching this conclusion, significant weight is given to the fact the Council can deliver its housing requirements as outlined in the HDPF without having to rely on sites located outside built up areas. It is therefore considered that there is insufficient justification for overriding the presumption in favour of preserving the setting of the Grade II Listed Building.

6.30 As outlined above and in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the requirements of the NPPF and policy 34 of the HDPF, the scheme

39 ITEM A1 - 14

would result in considerable harm to the setting of the listed building and is recommended for refusal on this basis.

Impact on landscape character and the visual amenity of the locality

6.31 The site is located in a countryside location to the north of the village of Storrington. The site is located outside of Storrington’s defined build up area and therefore covered by HDPF policy 26 which protects the countryside against inappropriate development unless it is considered to be appropriate in scale and essential to that location.

6.32 The Council’s Landscape Officer has commented that the site itself is considered to be of an overall moderate-high visual sensitivity due to its elevated position, its attractive middle- long distance views and its distinctive large hedgerow oaks. The topography gently rises to the centre of the site forming a plateau 5m above the bottom of the slope. The land then continues to rise more gently to the ridgeline to the north. As existing, the site is visually well contained to public views by mature hedgerows and trees, with the exception of the north-west boundary which affords glimpsed views from the public footpath.

6.33 The site is also seen against the backdrop of open countryside to the north and western boundary and existing suburban residential development to the east. There is an urbanising influence of the industrial development of Water Lane and recently constructed commercial unit on the land immediately to the south west of the site and this will be added to by the approved Crest Nicholson housing development to the south.

6.34 The site is identified within the Horsham District Landscape Character Assessment (HDLCA) as Landscape Character area ‘E1: Parham and Storrington Wooded Farmlands and Heaths’. The landscape condition is considered overall to be good. Characteristics of relevance to the site itself are small mostly well hedged pasture fields with mature hedgerow oaks and small areas of heathland. The proposals show the existing hedgerow field pattern of the site is to be maintained and reinforced by new planting with limited hedgerow removal to provide access into and through the site therefore maintaining, to an extent, one of the landscape characteristics of the site.

6.35 The site is also identified on section 5 ‘Settlement Character and Guidelines’ of the HDLCA and quantified in terms of sensitivity to urban extensions as having ‘some’ intrinsic landscape qualities, that provides a partial ‘contribution to the distinctive settlement setting’, of ‘moderate’ overall sensitivity and with low intervisibility.

6.36 At a local level, the site is categorised in the Horsham District Landscape Capacity study as Landscape Character Area 59: Land North of Water Lane, with low-moderate capacity for small scale housing development, defined as housing development of no more than 100 dwellings. Characteristics relevant to the site include its ‘undulating landform with small to medium scale irregular pasture and arable fields’, the ‘strong network of thick hedgerow field boundaries’, and the ‘landscape condition is generally good’ with a strong rural character except close to some of the urban edge’.

6.37 With regards to visual amenity, the proposals show the existing hedgerow field pattern of the site is to be maintained and reinforced by new planting in its majority which would assist in mitigating the adverse visual effect. Nevertheless, given the elevated position of the site (where the land rises up to form a plateau) it is considered that this increase in height together with the two storey height of the proposed buildings, would cause the development to be seen from the adjacent public footpath and possibly over the existing treeline and hedgerow to the south, thereby impacting upon the residential receptors and views from the South Downs.

40 ITEM A1 - 15

6.38 The Landscape Officer has commented that although site boundary features would be retained, the landscape characteristics of the site would be lost and replaced by significant urbanising form. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landscape context of the site is informed as much by the tranquillity and rurality of the pastoral and arable fields to the north and west as it is by the settlement edge to the south and east, it is also considered that the site is key to the transition from the built-up suburban area of Storrington to the rural feel of Thakeham. It is considered that, with the new housing development approved to the land to the south, this transition would be further eroded resulting in the urbanisation of the area and the unacceptable loss of countryside.

6.39 With regard to the recently approved Crest Nicholson development to the south, it should be noted that, contrary to the current application site, this approved development would facilitate the transition between residential areas and the open countryside with the provision of an open space buffer to the north of the development. This was also key to retaining the setting of the listed building adjacent to the application site. The location of the approved development on the site to the south with an appropriate buffer, in addition to the existing and enhanced boundary trees and vegetation, considerably reduced the adverse impact on the very attractive, mostly unspoilt rural character of the land to the north and retains the setting of the listed building. As outlined above, the current proposal would have a negative impact on the sense of place and landscape character both of which contribute to the setting of Snapes Cottage.

6.40 Overall, it is considered that the proposal amounts to an urbanising form of development with up to 107 dwellings incorporating ancillary infrastructure including vehicular and pedestrian access onto the public highway, parking, landscaping, and boundary treatments. In addition to the adjacent development site to the south for 75 dwellings, the proposal would result in a significant cumulative impact and adverse effect on the landscape character and appearance of the area including an adverse impact on the landscape setting of Snapes Cottage. The scheme is therefore considered contrary to policy 26 of the HDPF which aims to protect the rural character and undeveloped nature of the countryside from inappropriate development outside built-up-areas.

Impact on the Amenity of Existing and Prospective Occupiers

6.41 The occupiers of Littlebury House, Snapes Cottage and the properties opposite the site on Storrington Road currently enjoy views onto the application site, which would undoubtedly be altered by the proposed development. The indicative plans show, however, the proposed quantum of development could be successfully designed to achieve appropriate separation distances and to ensure that there is no harmful loss of light, outlook or privacy to the occupiers of any adjacent properties. Additionally, with the approved green buffer zone in place, the proposal would not result in a significant impact on the amenity of the any of the recently approved dwellings on the land to the south.

6.42 Parking areas and access roads could be designed so as to be sited away from adjacent properties and this would help to avoid harmful levels of disturbance to existing occupiers. The exact design and location of street lighting could be controlled by condition, if all other aspects of the development were considered acceptable, and this would help to ensure that adjacent occupiers were not exposed to unacceptable levels of glare/light pollution.

6.43 The introduction of 107 no. dwellings into what are currently open fields would result in increased levels of disturbance to adjacent residential occupiers associated with, for instance, the comings and goings of vehicles and the use of rear gardens. However, it is not considered that this would result in unacceptably harmful impact on the living environment of adjacent residents.

41 ITEM A1 - 16

6.44 The indicative plans show that the development could be designed in such a way so as to ensure that all prospective occupiers had access to a suitably sized area of private amenity space that would provide a safe and pleasant area of useable outside space, complemented by on-site open space provision.

6.45 In light of the above, it is considered that the development could be designed to avoid harmful impacts on the amenities of existing or prospective occupiers in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. Measures to protect residents from harmful effects of noise, vibration and dust during the construction period could be controlled by a suitably worded condition requiring the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Highway Impact, Access and Parking

6.46 The application is made in outline and includes access to be considered as part of the proposal. To address the highway and transport impacts of the proposal, the application includes a Transport Assessment and Framework Travel Plan. The main highway and access issues to be considered under this scheme are as follows:

· Whether the proposed new vehicular access onto Storrington Road (B2139) is acceptable from a highway safety perspective. · Whether the addition of 107 units is appropriate in this location in terms of trip generation and highway impacts. · Whether the proposal offers appropriate accessibility to and within the site, for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

6.47 It should be noted that the detail of the internal roads and footpath layout can be considered under a reserved matters application.

6.48 With respect to the new vehicular access onto Storrington Road, the highway authority of West Sussex County Council has commented that the new access is appropriate in principle. The proposed layout shows a 5.5 metre access road with footpaths on each side running around the radius to tie in with the existing footpaths paths on Storrington Road . The new access is shown opposite a dwelling called Springfields on Storrington Road and would require the removal of hedges. The scheme indicates visibility splays of 2.4 x 4.3 metres for the new access. Taking account of recorded vehicle speeds, the highway authority has commented that the new access with the visibility splays proposed would allow sufficient stopping sight distances and would be appropriate from a highway safety perspective.

6.49 The highway authority is also satisfied that the trip generation resulting from an additional 107 units in this location would not result in any severe highway capacity impacts. This is based on the TRICS selection parameters put forward which take into account local infrastructure and the permitted development at Abingworth Nurseries for 146 dwellings.

6.50 The Transport Assessment reviews access by walking, cycling, and passenger transport for the proposed development. As originally submitted, the highway authority felt that additional information was required. In this respect, it was felt that little consideration was given to the nature of walking routes and whether these would in their current form promote and encourage access by these modes. To address these concerns, additional information has been submitted including the submission of a Framework Travel Plan. The principal objective of the plan is to encourage a shift from the use of the private car, in particular single-occupancy vehicles, to the use of the more sustainable non-car modes for travel to and from the site. The plan would include the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator, a ‘Sustainable Travel Information Pack’ and regular surveys of residents.

42 ITEM A1 - 17

6.51 The highway authority has commented that the review of proposed and existing accessibility is acceptable and that the broad layout of the Framework Travel Plan is appropriate.

6.52 With respect to access it should also be noted that the applicant has agreed in principle to opening up the boundaries of the site to allow access from the approved development to the immediate south for pedestrian access. This would also improve access through the site for pedestrians and cyclists.

6.53 If recommended for approval, further details of the proposed transport and access details, such as the submission of a Full Travel Plan and exact details of the road and pavement layout could be secured by condition. On the basis of the submission, the highway authority is satisfied that the scheme would not result in any adverse highway impacts and no objection is raised to the scheme with respect to access and highway safety.

Arboricultural Impacts

6.54 The applicant has submitted a Tree Survey which records 19 principal species including mature Oak trees which are located around the borders of the fields of the site. The surveyed trees are dominated by Category B trees (considered to be of moderate to good quality and value) and Category C trees (considered to be of lower value). This reflects the overall fair to moderate quality of the tree stock, largely dominated by the young mature fieldside swathes of naturalised tree belts with scattered larger mature trees. There is a collective value to the boundary stock, with trees of a similar age, quality, contribution and character providing a fairly consistent visual screen and typical arrangement of pastoral enclosure.

6.55 Several trees were considered to represent specimens of notably high value (Category A). These are prominent larger trees with high screening value and maturity. The belt mature Oaks are considered to represent a principal screen along the southern reaches of the site and are discernible from across the wider rising landscape of the South Downs.

6.56 The scheme would require the removal of a hedgerow tree belt to accommodate the proposed site access from Storrington Road. A section of internal hedgerow tree belt would also be required to be removed to allow access through the site between fields. The report indicates the removal of two trees within the tree belt, a Hawthorn and a Field Maple.

6.57 Both trees are indicated as Class B trees of moderate quality and value. Having regard to the retention of the majority of trees around the site including the retention of the Class A trees, the loss of two trees is considered acceptable. If recommended for approval, a condition could be imposed requiring the submission of a method statement outlining measures to protect the trees to be retained on site during construction works for the approval of the Local Planning Authority.

6.58 The scheme indicates landscaping for the proposal including green links across and around the site and a green buffer around the boundary with Snapes Cottage. Given this is an outline application, the precise details of the landscaping are not indicated. If recommended for approval, details of the landscaping for the site could be required by condition to be submitted and considered as part of a Reserved Matters application. These details could include replacement trees to replace the ones to be lost on site.

Nature Conservation, Ecology and Biodiversity

6.59 The application is supported by Ecological Reports that outline the findings of initial ecological surveys undertaken at the site. Additional information has been submitted which

43 ITEM A1 - 18

addresses the potential impact of the development on protected species and habitats that might be present on the site itself. The County Ecologist has stated that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions to secure ecological surveys and mitigation measures specifically in relation to bats, reptiles and dormice habitats. If recommended for approval, a condition could be imposed requiring the submission of these details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Flooding and Drainage

6.60 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 where there is a low probability of flooding and where residential development is considered acceptable by the NPPF.

6.61 Southern Water and the Council’s Drainage Engineer have raised no objection to this proposal, subject to the use of a condition requiring the submission and approval of details relating to the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage for the site.

Contamination

6.62 Any contamination found during the construction period could be subject to a risk assessment and a series of mitigation measures agreed, depending on the type of any contamination identified and the receptor being affected. The necessary investigation and remediation measures, including implementation, could be controlled by condition, if all other aspects of the development were considered acceptable, in accordance with the NPPF.

Archaeology

6.63 The Consultant Archaeologist has commented that there is potential for archaeology to be present at the site which has not been fully addressed in the submission. As such, a condition could be attached to any planning permission preventing development until such a time that a programme of archaeological work to evaluate the archaeological potential of the site has been agreed with the Council.

Renewable Energy

6.64 In accordance with Policies 35, 36 and 37 of the HDPF, if all other aspects of the development were considered acceptable, planning conditions could be used to promote the use of renewable energy sources and to restrict water use, control construction waste and to encourage the use of natural lighting and ventilation.

Air Quality

6.65 Storrington has been designated as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) by Horsham District Council. This is an area where pollution levels exceed the UK air quality objectives due to elevated levels of nitrogen oxide, a by-product of combustion and primarily attributed to road traffic emissions. The application site lies just over 1km to the north of the Storrington air quality management area.

6.66 The application is supported by an air quality assessment report dated October 2015 prepared by Peter Brett Associates. The assessment provides a qualitative assessment of impacts associated with the construction phase and a dispersion modelling assessment to predict the impact of the proposed development on pollutant concentrations. The Environmental Health Team has commented that there are insufficient mitigation measures identified in the report to meet the requirements of the Horsham District Council’s guidance document on Air Quality and Emissions Reduction. The guidance sets out appropriate and reasonable mitigation measures that should be designed into each scheme in order to

44 ITEM A1 - 19

make the scheme sustainable in air quality terms. The Environmental Health Team has stated that, if recommended for approval, a condition could be imposed to require the submission of a ‘Low Emission Strategy’ scheme, specific to the proposal, to fully mitigate against the predicted increase in traffic emissions.

Legal Agreement

6.67 In the event that planning permission were to be granted, Policy 39 of the HDPF requires new development to meet its infrastructure needs. For this development, contributions would be required towards open space, play and recreation areas, indoor and outdoor sports provision, community facilities, libraries, education, transport infrastructure, fire and rescue, highway improvements and affordable housing.

6.68 All contributions must be justified in accordance with the three tests set out under Regulation 122 of the Community and Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, in so far that they must be; necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development and; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.69 The developer contributions, secured in the event that planning permission is granted, could be allocated towards improvements within the local area, to ensure they benefit local resident. For the reasons outlined above, the provision of a commuted sum for specific local projects is considered a fair approach to deal with the cumulative pressure on existing qualitative and quantitative deficiencies in the District and in this case, to enhance existing facilities in the local area.

6.70 Although the applicant has confirmed a willingness to enter into a legal agreement to secure the necessary sums, such an agreement is not yet in place. The development is, therefore, contrary to Policy 39 of the HDPF.

Coalescence

6.71 Policy 27 of the HDPF states that landscapes will be protected from development which would result in the coalescence of settlements. A number of the objections received have raised coalescence as an issue with this scheme. The proposal does represent an extension of development approved to the south, adjacent the built-up-area boundary with Storrington. Whilst this is considered to create an extension to an urbanised area, the proposal is not considered as coalescence. The development would link some individual houses to Storrington’s built-up-area but would not link Storrington to any other village or settlement. Thakeham is the nearest settlement to the application site which is located further to the north separated by several fields. For this reason, the scheme would not result in any significant coalescence between the settlements of Storrington and Thakeham.

Open Space Provision

6.72 Under the approved scheme for the land to the south, there is some natural play provision in the open space at the north of that site. Leisure Services have commented that this provision should be expanded and enhanced with additional play equipment to provide a facility, equally accessible from both developments. This would obviate the need for the play area at the centre of the current scheme but it would still be important to ensure appropriate quantities of amenity/natural green space are included within that development.

6.73 If recommended for approval, the layout to be submitted at the Reserved Matters stage should indicate a proposed open space / play area adjacent to the southern boundary with

45 ITEM A1 - 20

access between the two sites. This alteration to the indicative layout submitted would not alter the ability of the scheme to provide 107 units within the site. The applicant has agreed in principle to this approach and indicated gaps to the boundary which would allow access between the current site and the approved site. This access would not require the removal of mature trees.

Health Provision

6.74 Lack of health facilities (doctor’s surgeries and dentists) has been raised as an issue by the representations received for this proposal. Under the Horsham District Infrastructure Study Main Report (2010) health is seen as an essential criteria in the consideration of developments. The study states that in the Storrington and Sullington areas, ‘the main constraint to growth relates to secondary school capacity at Steyning Grammar, which is oversubscribed.’

6.75 In relation to health provision, the study indicates that there is adequate provision to accommodate growth for dentists and doctors in the Storrington area. This provision would have been affected by the recent closure of the Mill Stream Medical Centre in 2014. It is understood that are four local GP practices within the immediate local area who would welcome new patients. These are the Glebe Surgery in Storrington, Pulborough Medical Group, Steyning Health Centre and Billingshurst Surgery. There are also dentists locally and within the District who have sufficient capacity to accept new patients. Given the findings of the Horsham Infrastructure Study and the availability of GP practices in the area, it is not felt that the current scheme can be refused on the grounds of lack of health facilities.

Other Considerations:

6.76 With respect to refuse collection, as an outline application the Council would expect a full refuse strategy to be submitted as part of a Reserved Matters application in the event that an outline approval is granted.

Conclusions

6.77 Taking all matters into account, the proposal is considered to represent an unsustainable form of development, on a site where the principle of residential development is unacceptable and cannot be supported. The provision of housing in this location, at the scale proposed and in conjunction with the approved development for 75 dwellings to land directly to the south, would further diminish the rural and open character of this particular part of the landscape, creating a discordant and uncharacteristically urbanised environment. Furthermore, the development would adversely harm the setting of a Listed Building. The development is considered harmful, even when weighed against the economic and social benefits of the scheme and as such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, cannot be applied.

6.78 When all material considerations are taken into account, and given appropriate weight in the planning balance, the adverse effects of granting outline planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is located in the open countryside, outside of any defined Built Up Area Boundary, on a site not allocated for development within the Horsham District Planning Framework, or an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. The Council is

46 ITEM A1 - 21

able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and consequently this scheme would be contrary to the overarching strategy and hierarchical approach of concentrating development within the main settlements. Furthermore, the proposed development is not essential to its countryside location and consequently represents an inappropriate, unsustainable and unacceptable form of development that is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF and Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 25 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

2. The provision of housing in this location, at the scale proposed and in conjunction with the approved development for 75 dwellings to land directly to the south, would further diminish the rural and open character of this particular part of the landscape, creating a discordant and uncharacteristically urbanised environment harming the character of the local countryside. The development is, therefore, contrary to the NPPF and Policies 25 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

3. The provision of up to 107 no. dwellings, within the historic landscape setting of the Grade II Listed Building at Snapes Cottage, would affect the significance of the heritage asset by significantly harming the character and appearance of its setting and the appreciation of its sense of rural isolation as a countryside residence. The development is therefore contrary to S66(1) and S72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

4. The proposed development makes no provision for securing affordable housing units, or for contributions towards improvements to education provision; transport infrastructure; libraries; fire and rescue services; open space; sport and recreation facilities; community facilities; and is, therefore, contrary to Policies 16 and 39 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2015), as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs of the development would be met.

Note to Applicant:

The reason for refusal relating to infrastructure contributions and affordable housing provision could be addressed through the completion of a legal agreement. If the applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

47 DC/15/2374

Land at Storrington Road

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:4,288

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller Organisation Horsham District Council of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2012. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Comments Not Set civil proceedings.

Date 07/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

48 ITEM A2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 19 January 2016 Variation of Condition 1 of previously approved application DC/15/1242 to DEVELOPMENT: amend the design of 21 dwellings and access / parking arrangements. SITE: Abingworth Development Site Storrington Road Thakeham West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/15/2547 APPLICANT: Oakford Homes

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Departure from the Development Plan

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Development Manager, subject to completion of a Legal Agreement and appropriate conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.2 The application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Under this provision, minor material amendments can be made to extant planning permissions through the variation of the condition which relates to approved plan drawings. The current application seeks a variation to allow the following:

· Amend the design and layout of the 21 detached dwellings approved around the proposed cricket pitch in the north east corner of the development site. · Amend the Village Hall and shop car parking layout. · Amend the layout to the Cricket Pavilion car parking. · Alterations to the landscaping around the cricket pitch.

1.3 The principle of the proposed development has already been considered acceptable, by way of granting permission for the scheme under DC/15/1242 and DC/10/1314. As such, only the acceptability of the proposed amendments, the impact of any relevant local or national planning policy changes since the last permission in September 2015, and any other material considerations can be considered when assessing the application.

1.4 It should be noted that the last permission for this site (ref: DC/15/1242) was also a minor material amendment application to the original permission for the site (ref: DC/10/1314).

Contact Officer: Jason Hawkes 49 Tel: 01403 215162 ITEM A2 - 2

The original application permitted the redevelopment of the Abingworth Nursery site for 146 dwellings, comprising 63 open market dwellings, 51 dwellings for the 55 plus age group, 12 affordable dwellings and 20 key worker dwellings. In addition to the dwellings, various community and sports facilities were permitted, comprising a village hall (including a shop and doctors surgery), a pre-school facility, community workshops/studio, sports pitches, changing rooms, a cricket pitch and pavilion, a children’s play area, access roads, open space and landscaped areas.

1.5 Under DC/15/1242, amendments were approved for a revised layout for 21 dwellings in the northern part of the site, relocation of the approved local equipped play area, sports fields and associated facilities, relocation and amendment of the proposed village hall and shop, removal of the dedicated doctor’s surgery space and amendment to the approved football changing room building.

1.6 A number of applications to discharge the conditions associated with the extant permission (DC/15/1242) have been submitted and are currently being considered by Horsham District Council. It is understood that works are to commence on site shortly.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.7 The site is located in Thakeham Parish, to the east of High Bar Lane and to the north east of Abingworth Hall Hotel. The site area is 33.7 hectares, all of which is outside of the built- up area boundary of Thakeham. The majority of the site lies to the east of Storrington Road. The north part of the site comprises playing fields. The site formerly comprised disused mushroom production buildings in the southern section of the site. These buildings have now been demolished. The remainder of the site to the east of Storrington Road comprises unused fields.

1.8 The approved residential development is proposed to be located in the south section of the site, broadly aligning with the previously developed areas, in addition 21 dwellings are approved to surround a cricket pitch in the north east corner of the site. The site also includes the south east corner of the adjacent Sussex Mushrooms site, on the opposite side of the Storrington Road, where key worker units are proposed.

1.9 The site is bounded to the north, south and east by agricultural land. These boundaries are defined for much of their length by hedgerows and trees. The southern boundary and part of the northern boundary are much more open however. To the west, the main part of the site is bounded by Storrington Road, with Chesswood Farm beyond and by the rear gardens of existing homes on the eastern side of Storrington Road, and by Abingworth Hall Hotel. The main village of Thakeham coming off The Street, comprising Thakeham Conservation Area, lies to the north separated from the site by fields. In terms of topography, the site is gently undulating in the north and centre with a small stream flowing east to west through the north of the site. The site slopes up more markedly towards the south.

1.10 The Horsham District Landscape Capacity Assessment April 2014 states that Thakeham and Abingworth are located in the Wealden Greens and National Character Area. The site also falls within area F1 – Pulborough, Chiltington and Thakeham Farmlands in the Horsham District Landscape Character Assessment. Overall the landscape is characterised by an undulating landscape comprising a mix of arable and horticultural uses.

1.11 As stated, the site benefits from an extant planning permission for its development. However, works have not commenced on site and the site remains largely as fields. As the site is not allocated in either the local plan or in a neighbourhood plan, the current application is considered as a departure.

50 ITEM A2 - 3

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), sections 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

2.3 Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014).

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies in the HDPF are considered to be relevant:

Policy 1: Strategic Policy: Sustainable Development Policy 2: Strategic Policy: Strategic Development Policy 3: Strategic Policy: Development Hierarchy Policy 4: Strategic Policy: Settlement Expansion Policy 10: Rural Economic Development Policy 15: Strategic Policy: Housing Provision Policy 16: Strategic Policy: Meeting Local Housing Needs Policy 17: Exceptions Housing Schemes Policy 24: Strategic Policy – Environmental Protection Policy 25: Strategic Policy: The Natural Environment and Landscape Character Policy 26: Strategic Policy: Countryside Protection Policy 31: Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Policy 32: Strategic Policy: The Quality of New Development Policy 33: Development Principles Policy 34: Cultural and Heritage Assets Policy 35: Strategic Policy: Climate Change Policy 36: Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use Policy 37: Sustainable Construction Policy 38: Strategic Policy: Flooding Policy 39: Strategic Policy: Infrastructure Provision Policy 40: Sustainable Transport Policy 41: Parking Policy 42: Strategic Policy: Inclusive Communities

2.4 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Document:

- Planning Obligations (2007)

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

2.9 The site is within the parish of Thakeham. Thakeham has been designated as a Neighbourhood Development Plan Area, and a Pre-Submission plan has been produced which has recently been out for Regulation 16 consultation. The consultation ended on the 11th December 2015. At the time of writing the report, no date had been set for the examination of the plan.

51 ITEM A2 - 4

2.3. Policy 4 within the Submission Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan covers the proposals for the redevelopment of the Abingworth Nursery site. This draft policy provides support for the redevelopment of the site.

2.4 PLANNING HISTORY

DC/10/1314 Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the Permitted Abingworth Nursery site for 146 dwellings, comprising of open market dwellings, 51 dwellings for the 55 plus age group, 12 affordable dwellings, 20 key worker dwellings, village hall building (including shop and doctor's surgery), pre-school facility, community workshops/studio (957.5 sq metres), sports pitches and changing rooms, cricket pitch and pavilion, children's play area, access roads, open space and landscaped areas (including footpaths)

DC/12/0841 Demolition of existing growing rooms and surrounding Permitted (Chesswood ancillary buildings, removal of compost production on site. Farm, Erection of new growing rooms (farms) required for the adjacent to cultivation of mushrooms, a replacement office building, site) staff cafeteria, pack house building, ancillary plant structures and provision of open space and landscaped areas (including re-directed footpaths). Refurbishment and extension of existing production and package buildings including alterations to entrance of the site.

DC/15/1242 Minor Material Amendment to planning permission Permitted DC/10/1314 (Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the Abingworth Nursery site for 146 dwellings, comprising of open market dwellings, 51 dwellings for the 55 plus age group, 12 affordable dwellings, 20 key worker dwellings, village hall building (including shop and doctors surgery), pre-school facility, community workshops/studio (957.5sqm), sports pitches and changing rooms, cricket pitch and pavillion, childrens play area, access roads, open space and landscaped areas (including footpaths)) for a revised layout for 21 dwellings in the northern part of the site, relocation of the approved local equipped area for plan (LEAP), sports fields and associated facilities, village hall and shop, amendment to the approved village hall and shop to separate the facilities into two buildings and remove the dedicated doctors surgery space and amendment to the approved football changing room building

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 HDC – Housing: No comments received.

3.3 HDC - Strategic Planning: No comments received.

52 ITEM A2 - 5

3.4 HDC – Technical Services (Drainage): No comments received.

3.5 HDC – Landscape Officer: No comments received.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.6 West Sussex County Council – Flood Risk Management Consultant: No comments received.

3.7 West Sussex County Council – Highways: No objection.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.8 Thakeham Parish Council: As amended, the Council have no objections to the proposal. The Council request further details are submitted for approval including drawings of a scale of no less than 1:20 of windows, porches, eaves and junctions of material change. Further details are also requested regarding proposed materials, garage doors and front doors. No objection is raised to the amended car parking layout for the Village Hall and shop.

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

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 ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was adopted as the Development Plan for the District on the 27 November 2015. It is, therefore, necessary to assess this application for material amendments against the relevant policies of the HDPF and the national planning policies contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

6.2 This application proposes amendments to the extant permission for development of the site under DC/15/1242. This application amended an earlier scheme (ref: DC/10/1314) which permitted the principle of residential development of the site. As such, the only matters for consideration now are the acceptability of the proposed amendments taking into account any changes to national or local planning policy or any other material considerations. This application covers the same area as that approved by the original planning permission.

6.3 The scope of this application concerns the northern part of the larger application site. The rest of the approved site would remain unaltered. The description and infrastructure provisions of the original planning permission (DC/10/1314) remain unaltered as approved by the amendments in the Deed of Variation of the recently approved S.73 application (DC/15/1242). The scheme does not affect the provision of affordable housing secured to the south of the site.

6.4 The applicant is now seeking permission to alter the siting and design of the larger dwellings permitted around the approved cricket pitch. The plot sizes of the 21 dwellings around the cricket pitch would remain largely as approved. The amendments sought would for the most part enlarge the size of the approved dwellings with additional extensions and

53 ITEM A2 - 6

garages. Overall the site would still provide an appropriate mix of housing for the development of this site for 146 dwellings.

6.5 The scheme would include pairs of dwellings with a mirrored appearance. Additional detached garages are also proposed as part of this application and alterations are also proposed to the layout of the front gardens of the houses. As amended, the dwellings would retain a traditional appearance with a variety of gabled and pitched roofs with some pitched roof dormer additions and extensions. The dwellings would be in red brick with tile hanging to some gable ended additions, timber porches and upvc windows.

6.6 The proposed amendments to the design of the 21 dwellings are considered appropriate. The appearance of the dwellings would not significantly differ from the approved design of these houses around the approved cricket pitch. Some of the houses would be larger than approved but not to any great extent and each house would still occupy a large plot size. The amendment sought to the design and layouts of the dwellings is also appropriate in the context of this development site.

6.7 Additionally, in the positions proposed, the dwellings are set a significant distance from the nearest existing neighbouring properties and would not result in a significant impact on the amenity of any adjacent properties at Thakeham. As the proposed houses are shown in a line around the cricket pitch, the scheme would not result in any loss of light or increased enclosure for the respective residents of the houses. The layout does indicate that some houses would have first floor bathroom windows directly facing each other (plot 3 & 4, 9 & 10 and 17 & 18). These are the dwellings proposed which form pairs of houses. A condition is therefore recommended that these first floor windows are obscure glazed and fixed shut to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level to stop any overlooking between the bathroom windows.

6.8 With respect to parking and highway considerations, the proposal would result in some additional garages for the proposed dwellings. However, the amendments would not alter the vehicle access to the houses or the main access into the site from Storrington Road. Additionally, the addition of garages would not result in the loss of on-site car parking for the affected dwellings. The number of parking spaces for the 21 dwellings (not including garages) would generally be increased by one additional off street-parking space for each house.

6.9 The scheme also proposes a minor amendment to the parking and access arrangement to the Village Hall and Shop and to the access and parking to the cricket ground. The proposal is to remove one of the proposed access routes to the car park which would serve the Village Hall and shop. The Village Hall and shop remain as approved. The proposal would not alter the number of parking spaces proposed for the hall and shop (76 parking spaces including 10 accessible spaces). The proposal would also retain 41 car parking spaces (including 4 accessible spaces) for the cricket pitch. The position and layout of the amended parking spaces and access arrangements are similar to the approved scheme and are considered appropriate with respects to visual impact and highway safety.

6.10 Thakeham Parish Council has commented that they have no objection to the scheme (as amended). They have requested further details to be submitted for approval including drawings of a scale of no less than 1:20 of windows, porches, eaves and junctions of material change. Further details are also requested regarding proposed materials, garage doors and front doors. It is considered that it would unreasonable to request further details of the proposed houses and that the details shown on the submitted plans are adequate for the determination of this application. The level of detail indicated for the 21 dwellings is also the same as approved. With respect to materials, a condition is recommended requiring the submission of details of materials to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

54 ITEM A2 - 7

6.11 Overall, the proposed amendments are considered appropriate as minor amendments in the context of the development of this site. The proposal is acceptable in terms of design and is appropriate with respect to potential impact on residential amenity and highway safety. Under the provisions of S73, the application is therefore recommended for approval subject to a legal agreement and to conditions.

6.12 It should be noted that the proposed conditions have been updated since the previous approval to reflect the adoption of the HDPF. In accordance with policy 37 (Sustainable Construction) of the HDPF an additional condition is recommended limiting the water use to 110 litres per person per day.

6.13 The new legal agreement, in the form of a Deed of Variation, will be required prior to any planning permission being granted in order to ensure that the provision secured through the original agreement are tied to this most recent scheme. As the planning application is for a minor material amendment, restricted to changes to the condition setting out the approved drawings, the Deed of Variation will make only limited changes to the extant agreement.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Development Manager, subject to completion of a Legal Agreement and appropriate conditions:

1 List of approved plans and documents.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from 19th April 2013, being the date of the original planning permission (DC/10/1314).

Reason: To comply with Sections 73 and 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3 No development shall commence until precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

4 No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of external walls and/or fences (including acoustic fencing between the retail shop hereby permitted and the adjacent dwelling) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The walls and fences shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and thereafter shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

5 The dwellings / buildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision for the storage and collection of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

55 ITEM A2 - 8

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B C D E F G and H of Part 1 of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwellings unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

7 No development shall commence until details indicating how suitable provision will be made for protected species and their habitats have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such provision shall be made before development commences and thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015, and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.

8 No development shall commence until an Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. All works shall be executed in full accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement.

Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees, shrubs and hedges on the site in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

9 No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings 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 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

10 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between 08.00 hours and 18.00 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

11 No burning of materials shall take place on the site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

56 ITEM A2 - 9

12 None of the dwellings shall be occupied until the sewage disposal and drainage works have been completed in accordance with the submitted plans.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained and in accordance with policy 38 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

13 None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained and in accordance with policy 38 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

14 No works shall commence on site until full details of means of surface water drainage to serve the development have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained and in accordance with policy 38 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

15 The scheme shall be implemented fully in accordance with the Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation approved under ref: DISC/15/0325.

Reason: To ensure appropriate investigation and recording of buried archaeological Heritage Assets on the site before or during new building, infrastructure and landscaping works, in accordance with policy 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

16 The development, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until such time as the proposed junctions onto the B2139 Storrington Road serving the development have been constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include visibility splays of 2.4 by 59metres, which are required at each access.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy 40 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

17 No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of the roads serving the development, including surfacing and drainage, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and thereafter maintained.

Reason: To secure satisfactory standards of access for the proposed development and in accordance with policy 40 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

18 No part of the development, hereby approved, shall be occupied until such time as the car parking spaces serving the respective phase or element of development have been constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.

Reason: To provide car-parking space for the dwellings and in accordance with policy 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

57 ITEM A2 - 10

19 No works shall commence until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction management plan shall include but not be limited to include details of the phasing of development and vehicle routing to and from the development site. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policies 24 & 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

20 No part of the development, hereby approved, shall be occupied until such time as the proposed footway improvements and respective pedestrian crossing points along Storrington Road have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and a construction specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy 40 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

21 No part of the development, hereby approved, shall be occupied until plans and details of improvements to the rights of way network in the vicinity of the development have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with WSCC Rights of Way team. These improvements shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable.

Reason: To safe guard and improve the existing rights of way network within the vicinity of the development and in accordance with policy 40 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

22 No construction or associated site clearance work shall be carried out on the site unless and until an effective vehicle wheel-cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details provided by the Local Planning Authority and such facility shall be retained in working order and throughout the period of work on site to ensure the vehicles do not carry mud and earth on to the public highway, which may cause a hazard to other road users.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy 40 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

23 No development shall commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water. The approved details shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the agreed details and thereafter maintained as such.

Reason: To ensure that adequate means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal are provided in accordance with policy 38 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

24 Prior to the commencement of development, a Low Emission Strategy (LES) for the development during both construction and operational phases shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that a suitable Low Emission Strategy is agreed to offset the impact of the development hereby approved and in accordance with policy 24 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

25 No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until full details of the hard and soft landscape scheme have

58 ITEM A2 - 11

been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

- A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice - Contour plans, proposed and existing levels, and cross/long sections for all earthworks on the site, including those for the proposed ornamental and wildlife pond and associated with the allotments and housing in the southern part of the site - Planting/Seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers - Tree pit and staking/underground guying details - A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment). - Hard surfacing materials- layout, colour, size, texture, coursing, levels - Walls, fencing and railings- location, type and materials - Minor artefacts and structures - location and type of street furniture, play equipment, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

Notwithstanding the landscape strategy proposals shown the approved plans (see condition A), the landscape scheme required above shall include:

- Provision of a broad 5m width informal hedgerow with hedgerow trees on the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the proposed housing and sports pitches. - Provision of a minimum of 3m width hedgerow (hedgerow shrubs only) on the boundary with the allotments - Provision of a 2.5m width of hedgerow planting between the proposed workshops and the existing pond, retaining existing vegetation, where space for construction of the workshops allows - Detailed proposals for the main access road landscaping taking account of local character and distinctiveness - Detailed proposals for retention, management and enhancement with new planting of the existing hedgerow and hedgerow trees on Storrington Rd, adjacent to the key worker housing

The approved landscape scheme for all boundary hedgerow and structure planting shall be implemented in the first planting season following the commencement of any works on the site and those for other planting areas carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development for its permitted use, or according to a timetable to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Any plants, which within a period of 5 years, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

26 No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until full details of underground services – including locations, dimensions and depths of all service facilities and required ground excavations, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the detailed landscape proposals submitted pursuant to Condition 25 above.

59 ITEM A2 - 12

Reason: To ensure the underground services do not conflict with satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

27 No part of the development, hereby approved, shall be occupied until a long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for the whole development site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The plan shall include: - Aims and Objectives - A description of Landscape Components - Management Prescriptions - Details of maintenance operations and their timing - Details of the Parties who will be responsible for maintaining different areas of the site

It shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of landscaping and open space shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan, unless any variation is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

28 No development shall take place until details of the tree and hedge protection proposed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA along with details of existing levels in the vicinity of existing trees and hedges to ensure that the vertical alignment of no- dig construction areas relate to surrounding finished levels. No-dig construction techniques in the RPA of existing trees and hedges to be retained must be carried out in accordance with the methods set out in the Arboricultural Survey.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

29 Other than agreed as part of this planning application no trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled/removed, topped or lopped without the previous written consent of the LPA until 5 years after completion of the development herby permitted. Any trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, whether within the tree protective areas or not, which die or become damaged during the construction process shall be replaced with trees, hedging plants or shrubs of a type, size and in positions agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy 38 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

30 Should any bats or evidence of bats be found prior to or during works, works must stop immediately and a specialist ecological consultant or Natural England contacted for further advice before works can proceed.

Reason: To ensure that suitable mitigation measures are in the event that bats are found at the site and in accordance with policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

31 No part of the development, hereby approved, shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision of a buffer zone between the housing and the agricultural land in the east and south east of the site, which shall be of a minimum eight metres in depth to the rear of plots

60 ITEM A2 - 13

42 to 46 and 56 and to the east of the allotments, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the buffer shall be planted out in accordance with the approved scheme during the first planting season (October to March) following commencement of development. The scheme shall include:

- Plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone; - Details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development; and - Appropriate replanting and maintenance during the first five years following planting.

Reason: This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of UK Biodiversity Action Plan and policies 25 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

32 The development, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until a scheme for the provision and maintenance of bat refuges has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of UK Biodiversity Action Plan and policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

33 No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these, in accordance with policy 33 and 38 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

34 No development shall take place until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

i). A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - All previous uses; - Potential contaminants associated with those uses - A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and - Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

ii). A site investigation scheme, based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

iii). The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

61 ITEM A2 - 14

iv). A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure the protection of controlled waters from contamination associated with historic and recent site uses and in accordance with policy 24 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

35 The development, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any remediation, if deemed necessary, is satisfactorily completed and in accordance with policy 24 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

36 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination identified during the demolition and construction works is fully characterised and assessed and to minimise pollution in accordance with policy 24 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

37 Prior to the commencement of demolition or preparatory works on site, and in accordance with the bat survey, an Ecological Clerk of Works will be commissioned to undertake a final check for bats. The oak tree requiring removal to facilitate the northern access into the site from the Storrington Road shall be felled using the ‘reasonable avoidance measures’, as outlined on page 8 of the PJC Ecology report, dated 1st July 2015.

Following final checks and/or the ‘reasonable avoidance measures’, should protected bat species be present work must stop and Natural England informed. A license may be required from Natural England before works can re-commence.

Reason: To protect bat species that are utilising the wider site and may take the opportunity to later roost in buildings to be demolished, or trees to be felled, in accordance with policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

38 Prior to the commencement of development or preparatory works on site, a scheme showing a bat sensitive lighting strategy, produced in liaison with the consultant ecologist, and detailing how the sensitive eastern and western boundaries will remain dark, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All lighting on the site shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved strategy.

62 ITEM A2 - 15

39 Prior to the commencement of development or any preparatory works on site, an updated survey for badgers shall be completed to confirm the continued absence of badger setts within the works area to be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect badgers in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 118 and with policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

40 The removal of any buildings, trees and/or shrubs shall be undertaken only between September and the end of February when birds have ceased nesting. If this is not possible and the building or tree/shrub is required to be removed between March and August, and Ecologist shall first check for active bird nests, no more than seven days before works commence. Any active nests found shall be protected, as advised by the Ecologist, until the birds have ceased nesting.

Reason: To protect breeding birds in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 118 and with policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

41 Prior to the use of the building as a retail shop hereby permitted, details of external plant to accord with British Standard 4142: 2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external plant shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and no further plant installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of adjacent residents and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

42 Deliveries to and collections from the retail shop hereby permitted shall not take place other than between the hours of 0800-1800 Monday to Saturday and at no time on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of adjacent residents and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

43 The first floor side windows to the units at plots 3 (window facing south west), 4 (window facing north east), 9 (window facing south east), 10 (window facing northwest), 17 (window facing east) & 18 (window facing west) around the cricket pitch shall only be glazed with be obscure glazing and shall be fixed shut to a height of 1.7m from the finished floor level and thereafter retained as such.

Reason: To limit overlooking between properties in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

44 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, details of how the dwellings will be constructed and/or fitted out to restrict the average water usage per person to 110 litres per day, shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved methods of water usage restriction shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of each dwelling and shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In order to address the impacts of the location of the development within an area of serious water stress in accordance with Policy 37 of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

63 ITEM A2 - 16

Note to Applicant In the event that West Sussex County Council require implementation of a traffic calming works on Storrington Road there should be liaison with the District Council Landscape Architect to ensure a sensitively designed scheme in terms of kerb alignments, surface materials, street furniture and planting.

Note to Applicant Under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, if it proposed to fill, divert, obstruct or culvert a watercourse, the applicant would require the prior consent of the relevant Drainage Authority. The applicant should note that in determining an application for consent, there would be a presumption against the culverting of watercourses. Therefore it is recommended that the applicant investigates the use of clear span structures should any site access crossings be proposed.

Note to Applicant The restriction of water usage required by condition 43 is the ‘optional requirement’ set out in Regulation 36(2)(b) of the Building Regulations Part G Approved Document. The applicant/developer is advised to consult this documentation along with its Appendix A.

Background Papers: DC/10/1314, DC/12/0841, DC/15/1242

64 DC/15/2547

Abingworth Development Site

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:8,575

Date 07/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

65 66 ITEM A3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 19th January 2016 Outline planning permission for demolition of the existing kennels and cattery, associated buildings and structures including three of the four DEVELOPMENT: existing residential dwellings with Old Clayton retained and redevelopment of the site to provide up to 41 dwellings with new vehicular access (All matters other than access to be reserved) SITE: Old Clayton Boarding Kennels Storrington Road Washington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/14/0921 APPLICANT: Abingworth Strategic Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This application was refused following the resolution of Members and is now subject to an appeal. Committee agreement is sought for the introduction of an additional objection to the proposal, following the adoption of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

RECOMMENDATION: To authorise Officers to defend an additional objection in respect of the appeal of this application

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Application DC/14/0921 sought outline planning permission for demolition of existing buildings (apart from the listed building Old Claytons) and erection of 41 new dwellings. The application was considered by Members at the Development Management Committee (South) on 17th February 2015. Members resolved to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the Officers report of the application (which is appended to this report), which, in summary related to (1) landscape harm, urbanisation of the site and the unsustainable location of the site, (2) harm to the setting of a listed building, (3) loss of an economic development use and (4) absence of a Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing provision and financial contributions towards infrastructure. An appeal against the refusal of DC/14/0921 has now been lodged and is to be dealt with by a Public Inquiry.

1.2 Following the appeal being lodged, a subsequent application, DC/15/1737, was received. This application proposed the same number of units, but presented an alternative indicative layout for consideration. This application was considered by Members at the Development Management (South) Committee meeting on 15th September 2015. Members voted to

Contact Officer: Rosemary Foreman 67 Tel: 01403 215561 ITEM A3 - 2

refuse the application for the reasons set out in the report (which is also appended to this report). It was considered that the revised layout did not address the previous reasons for refusal, which all remained applicable to the revised application.

1.3 In the intervening period between determination of the first and second applications, the Horsham District Planning Framework had progressed and gained weight as a material consideration in decision making. Therefore, the decision notice of DC/15/1737 repeated the reasons for refusal of DC/14/0921, but with reference to the relevant Policies of the emerging HDPF.

1.4 The revised Policy context also generated an additional reason for refusal of DC/15/1737, which was not included in the decision notice of DC/14/0921 as it related to the strategy for growth set out in the emerging HDPF. This reason was as follows:

The proposed development would be located outside of a built-up area boundary on a site not allocated for development within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, or in an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. The proposed development would therefore be inconsistent with the overarching strategy for development set out within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

1.5 As Members are aware, the HDPF has now been adopted and forms the Development Plan for Horsham District. Officers consider that the reason for refusal referred to above is also relevant to DC/14/0921, given the similarities between the two proposals.

2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION & POLICY

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Please refer to the original report appended

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Planning Framework (2015)

Policy 1 Strategic Policy: Sustainable Development Policy 2 Strategic Policy: Strategic Development Policy 3 Strategic Policy: Development Hierarchy Policy 4 Strategic Policy: Settlement Expansion Policy 15 Strategic Policy: Housing Provision Policy 25 Strategic Policy: The Natural Environment and Landscape Character Policy 26 Strategic Policy: Countryside Protection

3. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

3.1 As set out above, application DC/14/0921 is the subject of an appeal following the Council’s refusal of planning permission. No appeal has been received in respect of DC/15/1737, although it is noted that this provided only an alternative indicative layout for 41 units, and was not materially different in terms of description of development.

68 ITEM A3 - 3

3.2 In light of the revised Policy context arising from the adoption of the HDPF, and reflecting the decision of DC/15/1737, this report seeks only to gain Members authority to defend an additional objection in respect of the appeal of DC/14/0921.

3.3 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that Local Planning Authorities should identify, and update annually, a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to meet their housing requirements for a 5 year period, with an additional buffer of 5%. Paragraph 49 then goes on to state that, in the absence of a demonstrable five year housing supply, the relevant policies for the supply and delivery of housing should be considered to be out-of-date. When this application was originally considered by Members at the Committee in February 2015 the Council was not in a position to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, and there was therefore considered to be an evidential need for housing in the District.

3.4 Now that the HDPF has been formally adopted the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land sufficient to meet its housing requirements, including the 5% buffer. Policy 15 of the HDPF sets out how the housing requirement will be delivered in accordance with the strategic approach.

3.5 The site lies outside an identified built-up area and its development for residential is therefore not in accordance with the strategic policies of the HDPF which seek to direct development towards the most sustainable locations in the District. Given the weight to be attached to the HDPF there is an objection to the principle of development of the site, given that it is outside of the built-up area and is not allocated for development in the HDPF or any Neighbourhood Plan.

4. RECOMMENDATION

4.1 To authorise Officers to defend an additional objection in respect of the appeal of DC/14/0921, as follows:

The proposed development would be located outside of a built-up area boundary on a site not allocated for development within the Horsham District Planning Framework, or in an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. The proposed development would therefore be inconsistent with the overarching strategy for development set out within the Horsham District Planning Framework. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) and to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

69 ITEM A3 - 4

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th September 2015 Outline planning permission for demolition of the existing kennels and cattery, associated buildings and structures including three of the four DEVELOPMENT: existing residential dwellings with Old Clayton retained and redevelopment of the site to provide up to 41 dwellings with new vehicular access (All matters other than access to be reserved) SITE: Old Clayton Boarding Kennels Storrington Road Washington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/15/1737 APPLICANT: Abingworth Strategic Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This is a Major planning application

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse the application

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application is made in outline with details of access only for consideration at this stage. Matters of scale, layout, landscaping and appearance reserved for subsequent consideration, although indicative layout, scale and landscaping are provided. The existing listed building Old Clayton, and its associated outbuildings, are proposed to be retained in use as a dwelling. The proposal would demolish the remainder of buildings within the site (kennel buildings, two staff dwellings and the dwelling known as West Clayton), and proposes the erection of 41 new dwellings, served by a proposed access about 35 metres east of the retained garden of Old Clayton. This application is submitted following the refusal of application DC/14/0921.

1.2 The area of the site is 2.10 hectares, equating to a density of 20 dwellings per hectare. The indicative housing mix set out in the Design and Access Statement comprises 12no 2- bedroom flats, 4no 2-bedroom houses, 9no 3-bedroom houses 9no 4-bedroom houses and 7no 5-bedroom houses. Of these, 40% are proposed to be affordable, comprising 12no 2- bedroom flats and 4no 3-bedroom houses.

1.3 Although the application is made in outline with only access for consideration at this stage, the applicant has provided indicative layout drawing and site sections showing indicative

70 ITEM A3 - 5

elevations for the dwellings. While these drawings are not binding at the outline stage, they provide a good indication of the Applicant’s intentions for the detailed design of development and provide an example of how the number of units proposed could be accommodated within the site. The proposed layout shows a single main access route running north-south through the site, with a number of short off-shoots providing access to small groups of dwellings, including rear access to the retained listed dwelling. The layout shows mainly detached dwellings, with five pairs of semi-detached dwellings and two buildings comprising flats. The Design and Access Statement describes ridge lines of approximately 8 metres, although the Landscape Visual Assessment states 1 to 2 storey buildings of up to 10 metres, describing single storey dwellings set back from the road. The indicative sections show buildings with mainly fully hipped roofs, gable features and dormers that break the eaves.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site lies to the west of the village of Washington on the northern side of the A283. The site lies within Washington Parish, but is very close to Storrington and Sullington Parish, to the west. The site is roughly rectangular in shape. The South Downs National Park boundary lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and opposite on the southern side of the A283. The neighbouring site to the west is being developed to provide 78 dwellings (see outline planning permission DC/10/1457 and reserved matters application DC/13/0609). The neighbouring development is set down at a lower ground level than the application site. Other than the adjacent new development, the majority of the surrounding area is characterised by sporadic residential development. The dwelling Old Clayton is a grade II listed building, and a number of the existing outbuildings are therefore curtilage listed.

1.5 The application is supported by a number of detailed studies, which include:-

· Design and Access Statement · Arboricultural Impact Assessment · Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment · Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment · Phase 1 Assessment (Desk Study) (Land Quality) · Drainage Feasibility Study · Air Quality Assessment · Planning, Heritage and Affordable Housing Statement · Flood Risk Assessment · Transport Statement · Noise Impact Statement · Heritage Statement · Ecology Report

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

71 ITEM A3 - 6

2.3 The development plan consists of the Core Strategy (CS) (2007), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD and the Proposals Map (2007). Other relevant local development documents are the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (May 2009) and the Planning Obligations SPD.

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP11, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

‘On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and Billingshurst, to be sound. The proposal for some development in villages, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans (NP), is also justified and accords with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services.’

2.6 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.7 It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

2.8 The relevant Policies of the HDPF are: 1 (Sustainable Development), 2 (Strategic Development), 3 (Development Hierarchy), 4 (Settlement Expansion), 7 (Economic Growth), 9 (Employment Development), 15 (Housing Provision), 16 (Meeting Local Housing Needs), 25 (The Natural Environment and Landscape Character), 26 (Countryside

72 ITEM A3 - 7

Protection), 27 (Settlement Coalescence), 30 (Protected Landscapes), 31 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), 32 (Quality of New Development), 33 (Development Principles), 34 (Cultural and Heritage Assets), 35 (Climate Change), 36 (Appropriate Energy Use), 37 (Sustainable Construction), 38 (Flooding), 39 (Infrastructure Provision), 40 (Sustainable Transport) and 41 (Parking).

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

2.9 The Washington, Storrington and Sullington Neighbourhood Plan has been through public consultation and has been submitted to Horsham District Council and consultation commenced 28th August 2015.

PLANNING HISTORY

WS/7/01 Erection of 13 kennel units and kitchen Permitted

WS/53/03 Stationing of mobile home no1 occupied by kennel staff Permitted

DC/04/2084 Erection of 2 staff dwellings in replacement for 2 existing Permitted, mobile homes subject to a Legal Agreement restricting occupation to kennel staff only.

DC/14/0915 Listed Building Consent for Demolition of Outbuildings Withdrawn around 'Old Claytons'

DC/14/0921 Outline planning permission for demolition of the existing Refused kennels and cattery, associated buildings and structures including three of the four existing residential dwellings with Appeal Old Clayton retained and redevelopment of the site to submitted provide up to 41 dwellings with new vehicular access (All matters other than access to be reserved)

2.10 The above application DC/14/0921 was refused for the following reasons: 1 The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of and not contiguous with the defined built-up area boundary and development of the extent proposed would result in harm to the open and rural landscape character of the area and to the setting of the South Downs National Park. Residential development of the amount proposed would not respect of reflect the pattern of rural development in and around the South Downs National Park and would result in the urbanisation of the site, to the detriment of the character of the area. Furthermore, the site is in an unsustainable location, remote from local services and centres, conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car. The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

2 The development of the site would harm the historic setting of Old Clayton and the experience of the heritage asset which is currently within a predominantly isolated and rural landscape. The proposed amount of residential development would

73 ITEM A3 - 8

dominate the current semi-rural setting of the building and diminish its value as a farmstead of historic interest. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC13 of the Horsham LDF: General Development Control Policies.

3 The proposed development would result in the loss of an economic development use which generates employment. This would therefore result in the loss of local employment opportunities, reducing the ability of the District to meet existing employment needs, and anticipated employment needs in light of residential growth in the District, increasing reliance on out-commuting to other sites. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP11 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and to the NPPF, in particular chapters 1 and 3.

4 Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 HDC Technical (drainage): No objection, subject to conditions requiring details of drainage design.

3.3 HDC Parks and Countryside: Accept that there is no recreational green space within the development, subject to all appropriate off-site contributions made towards the Sandgate Country Park.

3.4 HDC Environmental Health Officer raises no objection, subject to conditions in respect of investigation of land quality. In respect of noise issues, the EHO comments include the following points: · The same Noise Impact Assessment has been used as the previous application, which showed high levels of noise affecting the application site and was carried out prior to erection of the noise barrier. · Noise from operations at the kennels are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the dwellings adjacent. · The Inspector determining the application at the adjacent site required a scheme of noise mitigation to protect the new residential development from noise from the kennels. A three metre high acoustic fence is being installed in this respect. · The 3 metre high acoustic fence, coupled with land level differences results in an effective barrier to protect upper storeys of the majority of properties on John Ireland Way. · It is unlikely that noise from the kennels would be the source of actionable statutory nuisance to occupiers of the adjacent development.

74 ITEM A3 - 9

3.5 The Council’s Landscape Architect raises objection to the proposal. The consultation response includes the following points: · Policy DC1 sets out that development outside of built-up area boundaries must be of a scale appropriate to the countryside location and must not lead to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside. · SDNP Management Plan promotes the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting as well as the sense of tranquillity and dark night skies. · HDC Landscape Character Assessment identifies the site as in an area of good landscape condition and high sensitivity to change. · Existing vegetation on the eastern boundary helps to soften the existing low density development. · Existing buildings are mostly located in the western two thirds of the site and therefore set well back from the SDNP boundary. · HDC Landscape Capacity Assessment identifies the area as of moderate landscape capacity for development. · The site is visible from a range of short and long distance views from rights of way within the SNDP. · Revisions to the landscape plan addresses some of the previous concerns, providing a green buffer outside of private gardens, providing some reassurance that this buffer is to be retained and managed long-term. · Some of the individual trees and groups of category B and C trees will still be lost. While some loss of vegetation is inevitable with new development, the development should provide a more robust planted buffer that helps to soften the proposals and be more inkeeping with the existing low density buildings. · Existing tree group G5 should be retained as providing biodiversity benefits and providing a visual buffer to Millford Grange. · Reference is made in the Landscape Visual Assessment and the Landscape Design Strategy to the opportunity to include single storey buildings immediately to the north of the A283 to maintain the character of this part of Storrington Road, but there is no indication of this on the proposed site sections. This should form part of proposals to mitigate the visual effect of development along the A283. · Notwithstanding the adjacent development Millford Grange, the development is not of an appropriate scale to its setting. · Cumulatively, the development would have a significant increase in the overall activity level in the countryside, in contradiction of Policy DC1 and HDPF Policy 26. · The reduction in number of dwellings along the eastern side and the north of the site would mitigate this concern. · Concern regarding the cumulative effect of the proposal on the tranquillity and dark night skies objectives of the SDNP. · Consider the proposal is contrary to Development Plan policies CP1, DC1 and DC2 and to Policy 26 of the HDPF.

3.6 HDC Heritage Consultant: Recommends refusal. The consultation response includes the following points: · Quantum of development would harm the rural setting of the heritage asset. · The buildings are evident of a surviving post-medieval regular courtyard farmstead. · Proposed development would have a significant urbanising impact on the site, the rural environment and setting of the heritage asset both in the immediacy and from within the SDNP. · The harm would be substantial and permanent and would fail to enhance the setting of the listed building, changing the dynamics of the relationship with the site and both views to and from it.

75 ITEM A3 - 10

· Scheme differs from previous application by retention of courtyard group and three parallel ranges to the north eastern side. · Indicative layout instils a sense of suburbia, as opposed to a scheme benefitting and respectful of a formal courtyard grouping in a rural environment. · Removal of more modern buildings to the north and north west of the listed group is acceptable, but the proposed replacement would not meet the requirements of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 for the LPA to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting. Removal of these buildings would better reveal the heritage asset. · The NPPF extols the protection of heritage asset and their setting as being a component of sustainable development. · Given the confines of the site, how it is experienced and how it is seen in the landscape, the development would not cause substantial harm to the listed building itself, but it would harm its setting. · Due to the close relationship between the heritage asset and the land associated with it, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm, but harm which is demonstrable and significant. · The presence of negative elements (i.e. existing modern buildings within the site) does not justify the introduction of new and more development in its place, as is proposed here. · Any new development to replace those buildings proposed for demolition should be significantly reduced in extent and quantum. · The removal of existing buildings which harm the setting of the listed building cannot be relied upon to bring forth 41 new dwellings across the site. · Reliance cannot be placed on the adjacent development at the former RMC Cement site (Millford Grange). · Disagree with the Applicant’s opinion that a much less urban approach has been applied than previously. · Between Old Clayton and East Clayton Farm (to the east), there has been little in the way of development and the arrangement of fields and the rural scene to the east has remained largely unchanged and unaltered, reinforcing the sense of a detached post-medieval farmstead. · The extent of proposed development across the site would affect the perception of how the farmhouse is currently experienced, introducing an estate development within an indicative pattern of development that bears no relationship to the historic evolution of the site or East Clayton Farm. · The proposal fails to take opportunities to respond positively to the heritage assets and at some points within the proposed development, the presence of the heritage assets will not be readily acknowledged or capable or being experienced. · The proposal would also bring with it additional residential activity and residential paraphernalia closer to and around the majority of the site. · Proposed planting would not alleviate or provide sufficient mitigation of the harmful effects of development. · The harm identified should be balanced against the wider public benefits of development. However, harm to the heritage asset should be given considerable weight. · Two recent appeals in the District (North of Melton Drive, Storrington and North of The Rise, Partridge Green) have been dismissed as a result of residential development harming and encroaching on the setting of heritage assets. In this case, the relationships would be more direct.

3.7 The HDC Strategic Planning Officer recommends refusal of the application. The consultation response includes the following points: · Site is outside of the built-up area boundary, where countryside Policies apply. · The pre-submission Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate this site for development.

76 ITEM A3 - 11

· The HDPF should be afforded considerable weight in determination of planning applications. · Inspector’s Final Report is anticipated to state that the HDPF (amended) is sound. · The HDPF will be able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. · Proposals not in accordance with the emerging HDPF should be recommended for refusal as per paragraph 12 of the NPPF. · The site is not allocated for development in the HDPF, nor is it allocated in a Neighbourhood Development Plan. The development is therefore not in accordance with the emerging Development Plan and should be recommended for refusal. · While the owner may intend to relocate the existing business, little evidence has been submitted to suggest that new premises have been established. There is therefore doubt that the existing employment use would be replaced. · Loss of the employment site would be detrimental to the local rural economy. · The Core Strategy seeks to protect valued employment sites in order to ensure there are sufficient local employment opportunities to meet the needs of the District. · The loss of this employment site would be detrimental to the economy of the District. · The Inspector’s Initial Findings expressed concern that other than a proposed business park in North Horsham, the HDPF does not allocate further employment sites to meet the District’s projected growth. Therefore, the Council cannot justify the loss of existing employment sites without first identifying enough land to satisfy the projected need. · Objection in principle does not preclude the site from coming forward as an allocation in a future Local Development Plan or Neighbourhood Plan.

3.8 The HDC Collections Supervisor: Highlights the importance of ensuring adequate width of roads and provision of turning areas to ensure refuse vehicles can service the site, and sets out the requirements for location of refuse storage.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.9 The South Downs National Park Authority: Object to the proposal for reasons including: · Widened vehicular access results in an urbanising effect in the SDNP. · Erection of 41 dwellings with associated infrastructure such as access roads and lighting would exacerbate the urbanising of this predominantly rural location. · Although made in outline, the principle of such intensive development in this rural location has the potential to be harmful to the special qualities of the SDNP. · Existing and proposed planting is not sufficient to provide an appropriate, essential and effective transition from the proposed urban form to open rural countryside on both the southern and eastern boundaries. · The result would be substantial urban built form impact on the fringe of the countryside setting of the SDNP. · The new development would be seen clearly from elevated access land approximately 1.6- 1.8 km south of the site. · Traffic and lighting associated with the development would be harmful to the SDNP setting.

3.10 Environment Agency: No comments to make due to type and location of development.

3.11 Historic England: Do not consider it necessary for Historic England to be notified of this application.

3.12 Archaeology Consultant: No objection, subject to condition

3.13 West Sussex County Highway Authority raise concern regarding the accessibility of the site by sustainable modes of transport and raise no objection to the proposed vehicular access arrangements, subject to condition. The consultation response includes the following points:

77 ITEM A3 - 12

· Highway Authority previously raised no objection to the proposed access arrangements. · There have been no material changes in the local highway network which would alter this view and the access arrangement therefore remains acceptable. · Acceptability of the development is dependent on the 50mph speed limit being moved east, and this should be a requirement of any S106 agreement. · The Highway Authority remains concerned regarding the accessibility of the site by sustainable modes of transport. · There are very few services within 2km walking distance of the site and although Storrington could be reached by cycle, traffic conditions on the A283 are not conducive to encouraging less experienced or vulnerable cyclists. There is no specific provision for cyclists on surrounding roads. · There are reasonably frequent passenger transport services from the site to and from Storrington, which could provide an alternative for some journeys. · For the majority of trips, there will be a reliance on the private car.

3.14 West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning has provided a breakdown of infrastructure contributions required as a result of the proposal.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.15 Washington Parish Council None received at time of drafting report

3.16 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council None received at time of drafting report

3.17 Five letters of objection have been received, which include the following points: · Inspector determining the appeal at the Millford Grange site required erection of acoustic fencing to prevent noise, which was not erected by the developer in a timely fashion. · Removal of trees from within the application site has not helped mitigate noise from the kennels. · Purchasers of houses on Millford Grange were well aware of the adjacent kennels. · Proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site, especially when added to Millford Grange. · The site has been rejected in the Neighbourhood Plan. · Permitting the development would render the Neighbourhood Plan process pointless. · Traffic generated by the proposal will exacerbate existing traffic and pollution problems on the A283. · There have been two major accidents since the change in road layout due to the Millford Grange development. · There are frequently 1 mile tailbacks heading into Storrington. · Millford Grange is not completed and therefore the impact on highways is likely to be greater once this is fully occupied. · Speed limit from Storrington to the Washington roundabout should be reduced to 30mph and HGVs banned from using this section of road. · Most of the houses will have at least two cars each, and traffic movements will be much higher than suggested by the Applicant. · Children are likely to be taken to school by car. · Local amenities already struggle to cope with the current local population. · One doctors surgery (Millstream) has closed, leaving only The Glebe. · Development of Waitrose in Storrington is understood not to be proceeding. · The proposal might not deliver 40% affordable housing. · Many of the letters of support of the previous application are from addresses some distance from the proposal site. · The application is, for all intentions, the same as previously refused.

78 ITEM A3 - 13

3.18 One letter of support has been received, which includes the following points: · The neighbouring site (Millford Grange) was always going to be developed. · The site lies adjacent to Millford Grange and therefore lends itself to being developed. · The eastern side of the kennels site is a perfect end to development as it adjoins open fields. · The acoustic fence at Millford Grange is ugly and of limited efficacy and could be removed if the kennels site were developed. · The proposed site could use the access road for Millford Grange, with limited impact on the highway. · Millford Grange is highly visible from the SDNP footpaths and the proposed smaller development would not notably add to this.

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

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

Main Issues 6.1 The principal issues in the determination of the application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government guidance, local Development Plan policies and any other material considerations. This application follows the refusal of application DC/14/0921, which also proposed the erection of 41 dwellings and was also made in outline with access only for consideration. The reasons for refusal of that application are set out in full in the Planning History section. The main considerations in assessing this application are therefore whether the revised scheme addresses the previous reasons for refusal and whether there have been any other changes, for example to the on-site situation or to the Policy context, since the previous refusal which would warrant a different view being taken.

Changes Since Previous Refusal 6.2 Since the previous refusal, the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 has superseded the previous Development Management Procedure Order. The new Order has reduced requirements in respect of the information to be submitted at the outline stage. The previous Order required outline applications with matters of scale and layout reserved to be accompanied by information stating the approximate location of buildings, routes and opens spaces (i.e. an indicative layout) and the upper and lower limit for the height, width and length of each building (i.e. scale parameters). The 2015 Order does not require this level of detail to be submitted at the outline stage, and specifically states that an application for outline planning permission does not need to give details of any reserved matters. However, the Applicant in this case has provided an indicative layout plan, and scale parameters are shown on the indicative site sections.

6.3 The previous application was also for 41 dwellings, and was also made in outline with all matters except access reserved. The Applicant sets out in the Design and Access Statement (page 7) what the differences between the current application and the previously refused scheme are. Many of these relate to changes to the indicative layout and

79 ITEM A3 - 14

indicative appearance of dwellings, rather than to matters for consideration at the outline stage, and therefore do not materially change the proposal in comparison to the previously refused application. A material change since the previous refusal is the retention of a greater proportion of the outbuildings associated with Old Clayton. Other changes to the drawings which relate to detailed matters and therefore remain indicative at this stage include: · Relocation of buildings away from the listed building and the SDNP boundaries on the indicative drawings. · Reducing the indicative scale of buildings. · Inclusion of a landscape buffer zone to the east and south and additional planting to the north. · Increased green space and verges. · Re-orientation of buildings in relation to SDNP boundaries, to increase spacing in these areas.

6.4 In terms of other changes since the previous refusal, the neighbouring residential development has progressed, but remains uncompleted and construction works are still underway. Since the previous refusal, the weight afforded to the HDPF in decision making has increased in light of the Inspector’s Note of July 2015. When adopted, the HDPF will demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. In addition, the Parishes of Storrington and Sullington and Washington have prepared a draft Neighbourhood Plan which has been out to public consultation. The Neighbourhood Plan can be afforded limited weight in decision making as it has not been to referendum and has not been adopted.

Consideration of the First Reason for Refusal of DC/15/0921 6.5 The first reason for refusal of DC/14/0921 related to the unsustainable location of the development and the landscape harm arising from it. The site location has not changed and it remains in an unsustainable location where residents would rely on private vehicles for most journeys, and this concern is raised in the WSCC Highway Authority consultation response. This was also confirmed by the Inspector determining the appeal at the neighbouring site, now Millford Grange, who attributed substantial weight against that proposal due to the unsustainable location and poor access to services and facilities other than by private car. The Inspector’s decision sets out that he reached that conclusion despite the Appellant’s proposed enhancements to local bus services, however there were other benefits arising from the Millford Grange proposal, such as the contribution of a substantial area of land to the Sandgate County Park (a Policy objective), and the landscape harm arising from development was more limited than the current proposal, given the topography of the neighbouring site. The Applicant responds to the Council’s concern regarding the unsustainable location of development by referring to bus stops close to the site and that the previous Inspector determining the Millford Grange appeal considered that the significant need for housing outweighed the concerns of transport and accessibility. As set out above, this position has materially changed since the consideration of DC/14/0921. At the time of determination of the Millford Grange appeal, the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, as required by the NPPF, and the HDPF had not reached a stage where sufficient sites were allocated to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, and the Inspector attributed significant weight to the delivery of housing in the balancing of harm and benefit in determination of the Millford Grange appeal. The Council also could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply when determining DC/14/0921, and while Officers acknowledged that the provision of new housing weighed substantially in favour of the previous proposal, it was concluded that this benefit was not outweighed by the harm arising from the proposal. In light of the current Policy context, the HDPF can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and therefore, the provision of new housing no longer holds substantial weight in decision-making, with greater weight attributed to resisting development in unsustainable locations such as this. As such, the objection in respect of the principle of development of this site remains, and it

80 ITEM A3 - 15

is not considered that the provision of housing outweighs the harm arising from the location of the proposal, when considered under the current adopted Development Plan.

6.6 As the HDPF makes provision for sufficient allocations to meet a 5-year housing land supply, this means that only those proposals in accordance with the strategy for growth set out in the HDPF should be permitted, i.e. those that accord with the development hierarchy of concentrating development in the main settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst with some development in villages in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans. This site some distance from the main settlements and is not within or adjacent to any smaller settlement boundary. The site is not allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan. As such, the Proposal is contrary to Policy 4 of the HDPF, and the current Policy position strengthens the Council’s previous objection in principle to the proposal. The HDC Strategic Planning Officer has assessed the current Policy context and has recommended refusal of the application as it is contrary to the strategy for growth set out in the HDPF. In light of the increased weight of the HDPF and the non-allocation of this site in the draft Neighbourhood Plan, it is not considered that the Applicant’s arguments in relation to the need for sites for new housing hold sufficient weight to warrant permitting development of a site in an unsustainable location such as this.

6.7 To expand further on the Neighbourhood Plan position, the Storrington and Sullington and Washington Neighbourhood Plan was in the early stages of preparation when DC/14/0921 was determined. Since the previous refusal the Neighbourhood Plan has progressed and while it is not a strong material consideration as it has not been to referendum and adopted, it does represent a good indication of local aspirations for development in the area. The application site was put forward for consideration for allocation as residential development site in the Neighbourhood Plan, but it scored poorly on the site appraisals, and has not been allocated for development as a result. The Storrington and Sullington and Washington Housing Need survey identified 97 households with a local connection in need of housing. The Neighbourhood Plan allocations seek to strike a balance between meeting local housing need and contributing to meeting District-wide housing needs and the draft Plan allocates sites for around 300 dwellings. As such, local housing need (as well as District-wide housing need) is being addressed through the HDPF and the drafting of Neighbourhood Plans, and there is not sufficient justification for permitting new dwellings on un-allocated sites in unsustainable locations such as this.

6.8 The first reason for refusal of DC/14/0921 also made reference to landscape harm and harm to the setting of the SDNP, which directly abuts the eastern boundary of the site and also the opposite side of the A283. To address this concern, the Applicant now proposes a landscaped buffer area of 5-10 metres which they propose to control by a management company under the terms of a S106 Agreement. It must be noted that layout and landscaping were reserved matters of DC/14/0921, and remain so for this application. Therefore, the Council is still effectively considering the same proposal, but with a revised indicative layout and scale parameters. While a landscaped buffer may go some way to soften the appearance of the development, it would not completely disguise it, particularly when viewed from the site access and from higher ground within the SDNP. Although the site is bordered to the north and west by new residential development at Millford Grange, that site is set at a much lower level than the application site, reducing the prominence of buildings therein. The SDNP raise similar objections to the proposal as those set out in their response to DC/14/0921, as the proposed landscaped buffer would not address the concerns previously raised by the SDNP. The Council’s Landscape Architect notes the proposed amendments to the indicative layout, but remains concerned in respect of the visibility of the development, particularly in views from the SDNP. Objection is raised in particular in respect of the number of units proposed, which would result in development close to site boundaries, and in respect of the indicative heights of dwellings shown on the site sections, which do not indicate any reduced height in the more prominent parts of the site, as recommended by the Applicant’s Landscape Visual Assessment. In addition, the

81 ITEM A3 - 16

existing site is largely undeveloped, with most buildings concentrated to the south west of the site, and these being mainly single storey. The proposal represents a significant departure from the existing rural layout, with residential development proposed across the vast majority of the site. It must be noted that the NPPF definition of previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land, it also clearly states that it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed. As such, there is insufficient justification for development of the extent proposed on this site which currently contains a very limited number of small- scale buildings. In light of the landscape concerns, and the unsustainable location of the site, first reason for refusal of the previous application has not been addressed and remains applicable.

Consideration of the Second Reason for Refusal of DC/14/0921 6.9 The second reason for refusal of DC/14/0921 related to harm to the setting of the listed building Old Clayton. The proposal now shows a greater proportion of the outbuildings associated with Old Clayton being retained, which were previously identified by the Council’s consultant as contributing to the setting of Old Clayton in terms of the historic use and development of the site. However, the quantum of development remains as previously proposed, and while the indicative drawings show buildings located further from the listed building, the proposal still represents a significant change to the setting of Old Clayton by reason of the replacement of a collection of small, single storey buildings and a large open area with 41 dwellings, which (regardless of the amended indicative drawings accompanying this application) would result in an alien, urban setting for the listed building. The presence of the adjacent development at Millford Grange is noted, but this is set at a much lower level and therefore is not as prominent in the setting of the listed building. While it is accepted that some of the more modern buildings within the site currently adversely affect the setting of the listed building, and their removal would result in a benefit to the listed setting, the proposed replacement of these building with 41 dwellings would be more harmful to the setting, and development of the quantum proposed could not be accommodated within the site without significant harm to heritage assets. As such, Officers remain concerned that the proposal involving the erection of 41 units would fail to maintain the setting of the listed building and therefore would be harmful to its significance. In addition, in assessing the previous application Officers balanced the benefit of providing housing in an area where a 5-year housing land supply could not be demonstrated against the harm to the setting of the listed building. Although it was considered that the harm did not outweigh the benefits, the current Policy context means that little weight can be attributed to the provision of new housing as a benefit of the development, strengthening the objection in respect of harm to the listed building setting. The second reason for refusal of the previous application therefore remains applicable.

Consideration of the Third Reason for Refusal of DC/14/0921 6.10 The third reason for refusal of the previous application related to the loss of the existing kennels as an employment generating use. The Applicant maintains that the use of the kennels is no longer appropriate for the site, given the proximity to the adjacent residential development and the potential for noise disturbance to residential properties from barking dogs. The Environmental Health Officer raises no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. On further discussion with the EHO, he has advised that the acoustic fence as approved pursuant to conditions of the adjacent development will serve to protect the neighbouring properties from noise disturbance, however the dwellings at the south eastern corner of the Millford Grange development do not benefit from the same significant difference in land levels as the remainder of the development, and therefore the upper storeys are not as well protected from noise as the majority of the development. At the time of determination of the previous application DC/14/0921, there had been no recent complaints in respect of noise from the kennels. The EHO has advised of one new compliant since determination of DC/14/0921, which has led to internal noise testing being carried out at one of those properties which does not benefit from protection from land level

82 ITEM A3 - 17

changes as well as the acoustic fence. With bedroom windows closed, it was found that there was no noise impact and levels were well within World Health Organisation guidelines for noise levels at night time in a bedroom. With bedroom windows open, barking was noticeable, but the noise levels were still within WHO guideline levels and therefore, the complaint did not result in an actionable nuisance. In addition, it must be noted that the Planning Practice Guidance advises that where a new residential development is sited close to an existing noise generating development (such as the Millford Grange development sited adjacent to the existing and well-established kennels), appropriate mitigation should be considered by the developer, such as optimising the sound insulation provided by the new development’s building envelope and the installation of alternative means of ventilation where the adverse effects of noise can be completely removed by closing windows. In light of the EHO’s findings, i.e. that the noise generated by the kennels is not at the level considered to be an actionable nuisance, and in light of the established use of the site as kennels, it is considered that the relationship between the two sites is not objectionable. As such, the matter of noise generated by the kennels is not sufficient justification to permit the loss of the employment generating use.

6.11 The Applicant also submits that the residential scheme adjacent has been detrimental to the welfare of animals boarded at the site, and this has resulted in the business suffering and the number of employees declining (although no detail is provided in respect of the reduced number of employees). In addition, the applicant considers that the deaths of two animals may be linked to the construction process. The disturbance generated by the construction process is for a temporary period, and it would be premature to determine this application on the basis of noise disturbance from the construction period harming the viability of the kennels business, as consideration must be given to the long-term situation, i.e. a completed residential development neighbouring the kennels and set at a lower ground level than it and separated from it by an acoustic fence. As such, the matter of noise generated by the construction process at the Millford Grange site is not sufficient justification for the loss of the employment use.

6.12 Notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the applicant in respect of noise impacts, the Design and Access Statement indicates the kennel operator’s intention to relocate to an alternative site within the District. There is no alternative site put forward, and it is not clear that one is available or acceptable in planning terms for use as kennel of comparable scale to that currently operating from the site. As such, there is no means by which to secure the alternative site for kennels use as part of this application and the proposal must therefore be considered on the basis of the change of use to residential resulting in the loss of the kennels use. The Applicant also makes reference to the kennels not being viable to sell to another operator because buyers would be deterred by the proximity to the neighbouring residential development and the potential for the kennels to cause disturbance to neighbouring residents. However, as set out above, the EHO has advised that noise levels from the kennels do not appear to result in unacceptable noise levels in neighbouring dwellings. Therefore, this argument holds little weight in determining the application.

6.13 The Applicant indicates an intention to create four dwellings for holiday lets within the existing outbuildings to be retained, advising that this will provide employment and economic activity. This proposal does not form part of the proposal, which as set out on the application forms is for 41 new dwellings and does not involve subdivision of the existing building to create additional dwellings. As such, this proposal does not form part of the consideration of the current application. Notwithstanding this, it is not clear that the management of four holiday lets would provide the same level of employment as a kennelling operation accommodating in the region of 240 dogs and cats and necessitating two staff dwellings in addition to the owner’s accommodation at Old Clayton.

83 ITEM A3 - 18

6.14 In conclusion on the matter of the loss of employment and an economic development use therefore, the proposal does not address the previous concerns, and third reason for refusal of the previous development remains applicable.

Consideration of the Fourth Reason for Refusal of DC/14/0921 6.15 The fourth reason for refusal of the previous application related to the absence of a Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and infrastructure contributions. While the Applicant does propose to provide these, there is no completed Legal Agreement in place and therefore these policy requirements have not been secured at the time of determining the application. It should be noted that the Core Strategy CP12 would require 40% of the units to be affordable, while the HDPF would require 35% to be affordable. As such, the fourth reason for refusal of the previous application remains applicable.

Other Matters 6.16 As set out above, the main consideration of this application is whether the previous reasons for refusal have been addressed by the revised scheme. Previously, no objections were raised in respect of other matters such as highways (note that the Officer’s report of DC/14/0921 sets out a highway objection, but the Highway Authority withdrew their objection in light of additional information received prior to determination of the application), ecology, archaeology and amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal is not materially different in these respects and therefore, no objection is now raised with regard to other matters not previously referred to in the reasons for refusal.

Conclusion 6.17 In light of the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal does not address the previous reasons for refusal and these remain applicable. It must however be noted that in respect of the first and second reasons for refusal, the evolved Policy context since the previous refusal has resulted in the background to these reasons changing slightly. The greater strength afforded to the objection in principle to residential development of this site as a result of the now weight attributed to the HDPF is set out above, and the objection in principle on the basis of the emerging HDPF is set out in a new reason for refusal as a result. Similarly, the previous objection in respect of harm to the listed building setting is also strengthened, as the provision of new housing is no longer a material consideration in favour of the development.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would be located outside of a built-up area boundary on a site not allocated for development within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, or in an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. The proposed development would therefore be inconsistent with the overarching strategy for development set out within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of and not contiguous with the defined built-up area boundary. In this location, development of the extent proposed would result in harm to the open and rural landscape character of the area and to the setting of the South Downs National Park. Residential development of the amount and scale proposed would not respect of reflect the pattern of rural development in and around the South Downs National Park and would result in the urbanisation of the site, to the detriment of the character of the

84 ITEM A3 - 19

area. Furthermore, the site is in an unsustainable location, remote from local services and centres, conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car. The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007), Criteria 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD and to Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 25, 26, 27, 30, 33 and 40 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

3. The development of the site would harm the historic setting of Old Clayton and the experience of the heritage asset which is currently within a predominantly isolated and rural landscape. The proposed amount of residential development would dominate the current semi-rural setting of the building and diminish its value as a farmstead of historic interest. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC13 of the Horsham LDF: General Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and to Policy 34 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

4. The proposed development would result in the loss of an economic development use which generates employment. This would therefore result in the loss of local employment opportunities, reducing the ability of the District to meet existing employment needs, and anticipated employment needs in light of residential growth in the District, increasing reliance on out-commuting to other sites. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP11 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and to the NPPF, in particular chapters 1 and 3 and to Policies 1, 7 and 9 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

5. Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more, while Policy 16 of the HDPF requires 30% of units to be affordable in a scheme of this size. Policies CP13 and 39 require new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50 and to Policies 16 and 39 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

Note to the Applicant 1: The reason for refusal in respect of affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions could be addressed by the completion of a Legal Agreement. If the Applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application, you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

Note to Applicant 2: The Design and Access Statement and Planning Statement make reference to the change of use of part of the kennel/cattery building to four dwellings for holiday lettings. This proposed change of use was not included in the description of development on the application forms and therefore, that change of use has not been considered as part of the assessment of this planning application. In addition,

85 ITEM A3 - 20

given that the building identified for change of use to four dwellings for holiday lettings is curtilage listed, listed building consent would be required for that proposal.

Background Papers: Report of DC/14/0921

86 ITEM A3 - 21

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 17th February 2015 Outline planning permission for demolition of the existing kennels and cattery, associated buildings and structures including three of the four DEVELOPMENT: existing residential dwellings with Old Clayton retained and redevelopment of the site to provide up to 41 dwellings with new vehicular access (All matters other than access to be reserved) SITE: Old Clayton Boarding Kennels Storrington Road Washington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/14/0921 APPLICANT: Abingworth Strategic Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This is a Major planning application

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application as originally submitted sought outline planning permission for the demolition of all outbuildings and two staff bungalows within the kennels site and the dwelling and outbuildings within the West Clayton Farm site, with the retention of only the listed dwelling Old Clayton. In light of concern raised by the Heritage and Conservation Consultant, the Applicant amended the scheme to retain a number of courtyard buildings to the west and north west of the listed building. However the proposed development remains the construction of up to 41 dwellings. This will result in a total of 42 dwellings on the site, with the retention of the existing dwelling Old Clayton. Details of access are submitted for approval at this stage, with matters of scale, layout, landscaping and appearance reserved for subsequent consideration, although indicative layout, scale and landscaping are provided.

1.2 The area of the site is 2.10 hectares, equating to a density of 20 dwellings per hectare. The indicative housing mix set out in the Design and Access Statement comprises eleven 5-bedroom dwellings, nine 4-bedroom dwellings, twelve 3-bedroom dwellings and nine 2- bedroom dwellings. 40% of the new dwellings are proposed to be affordable, comprising six 3-bedroom dwellings and nine 2-bedroom dwellings. However, the revised indicative layout necessitates the removal of one of the larger 5-bed dwellings, and replacement of

87 ITEM A3 - 22

one of the affordable dwellings with two 1-bed flats. The revised scheme would retain the level of 40% affordable housing.

1.3 The development would be served by a new vehicle access in approximately the same location as the existing eastern site access.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.4 The application site lies to the west of the village of Washington on the northern side of the A283. The site lies within Washington Parish, but is very close to Storrington and Sullington Parish, to the west. The site is roughly rectangular in shape. The South Downs National Park boundary lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and opposite on the southern side of the A283. The neighbouring site to the west is being developed to provide 78 dwellings (see outline planning permission DC/10/1457 and reserved matters application DC/13/0609). Other than the adjacent new development, the majority of the surrounding area is characterised by sporadic residential development. The dwelling Old Clayton is a grade II listed building, and a number of the existing outbuildings are therefore curtilage listed.

1.5 The application is supported by a number of detailed studies, which include:-

· Design and Access Statement · Planning and Heritage Statement · Archaeological Desk Based Assessment · Transport Statement · Landscape Appraisal · Drainage Feasibility Study · Flood Risk Assessment · Noise Impact Design Development Note · Environmental Noise Survey and Site Suitability Assessment · Air Quality Assessment · Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey · Sustainability Statement · Arboricultural Impact Assessment · Phase 1 Assessment (Desk Study) (land investigation)

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

88 ITEM A3 - 23

2.5 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent Examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings on 19th December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

The Inspector has suspended the Examination of the HDPF until June 2015 to allow time for the Council to show how the annual housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). It is important to note that the Examination will re-open to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. Given the Inspector’s findings the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.6 PLANNING HISTORY

WS/7/01 Erection of 13 kennel units and kitchen Permitted

WS/53/03 Stationing of mobile home no1 occupied by kennel staff Permitted

DC/04/2084 Erection of 2 staff dwellings in replacement for 2 existing Permitted, mobile homes subject to a Legal Agreement restricting occupation to kennel staff only.

DC/14/0915 Listed Building Consent for Demolition of Outbuildings Pending around 'Old Claytons' consideration

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

89 ITEM A3 - 24

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 HDC Engineering Section: No objection in respect of flood risk. Recommend conditions in respect of drainage.

3.3 HDC Parks and Countryside: No objection, subject to a contribution to off-site green space provision, to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. The area of Sandgate Park that the Council already owns is nominated for an off-site green space contribution towards access and habitat enhancements.

3.4 HDC Environmental Health Officer: No objection, subject to conditions in respect of further investigation of contaminated land. Concludes that it is unlikely that noise from the kennels would be the source of an audible statutory noise nuisance to occupiers of the Millford Grange development.

3.5 The Council’s Landscape Consultant raised no objection in their initial consultation response. On receipt of further information, the Council’s Landscape Consultant issued a further consultation response, which raises objection to the scheme and includes the following points: · The development would have an adverse urbanising impact on the attractive rural landscape character and quality of the SDNP, particularly the open rural landscape to the east and the attractive setting of the SDNP as perceived along the A283. · The landscape impact is likely to be cumulative when considered in combination with adverse impact resulting from the adjacent new development. · The proposal will erode two of the identified special qualities of the SDNP, namely Tranquil and Unspoilt Places and Diverse Inspirational Landscapes. · There will be some adverse impacts in short, middle and long distance views from local rights of way within the SDNP. · Failure to show retention of mature trees and sections of hedgerow which contribute to the character of the site and locality demonstrates poor design. · The indicative layout does not show any robust planted buffer at the SDNP boundary and does not take account of or respond to the existing settlement and townscape character within the SDNP and nearby. · Proposal is not considered to meet the environmental role of planning set out in the NPPF and is contrary to section 7 of the NPPF (Requiring Good Design). · A key statutory purpose of the SDNP is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. The proposal is considered to be contrary to this.

3.6 HDC Heritage Consultant: Objection. Summary of response to the initial scheme:

Recommend refusal of listed building consent for demolition on the grounds that the case for substantial demolition of the courtyard buildings to the west and northwest, forming part of a post medieval regular courtyard farmstead, are significant in terms of their heritage value and association with the main listed building, is unjustified and unwarranted. Their demolition would harm the historic setting and experience of the heritage assets within this predominantly isolated and rural landscape. It would also remove the historical association of the farm house with its farm buildings and practically eradicate the significance of the farm group.

The applicants have failed to explore other options for the retention of the courtyard buildings as set out in paragraph 133 of the NPPF The substantial loss of the courtyard buildings and harm to the significance of the heritage asset is not outweighed by substantial public benefits in respect of the heritage asset, due to the demonstrable that would arise.

90 ITEM A3 - 25

Recommend refusal of planning permission for residential development on the grounds that the proposed redevelopment of the site would detract from the significance of the heritage asset, Old Clayton, not only through the loss of its historic courtyard but the historical relationship between farm house and farm building, and would severe its current association with the rural landscape.

The proposed residential development would have a significant urbanising impact on the site, the rural environment and setting of the heritage asset both in the immediacy and from within the South Downs National Park. The harm that would arise would be substantial and permanent and would fail to enhance the setting of the listed building, changing the dynamics of the relationship with the site, and both views to and from it.

The Heritage Consultant has also considered the revised scheme, which retains the western courtyard buildings and part of the northern courtyard buildings. Comments in respect of the revised scheme include the following points: · Previous comments still stand. · Existing reception/shop appears to have been in existence prior to 1948. · No historic or design justification for the proposed quantum of development, further intensification of the site and its urbanity. · There does not appear to be any case for ‘enabling’ development here associated with maintenance of the listed building.

3.7 The HDC Strategic Planning Officer highlights the lack of a 5-year housing land supply, and the recent Inspector’s initial findings arising from the Horsham District Planning Framework examination in public, in which he set out that the concentration of growth in the main settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst to be sound, rather than greater dispersal around the district which he considered to be less sustainable. Given that the overall strategy is considered sound, it is recommended that great weight is afforded to it, and therefore the proposal for development in an unsustainable location is not considered to be necessary at the current time in order to contribute to the 5-year supply. Concern is also raised in respect of loss of employment associated with the kennel use, noting that the Inspector’s findings expressed concern in respect of employment uses within the District.

3.8 The HDC Collections Supervisor raises concern in respect of the detail of the indicative layout, in terms of its width and construction.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.9 West Sussex County Council- Monitoring and Records: A S106 contribution of £325,525 for education, libraries, waste, fire and transport should be sought.

3.10 The South Downs National Park Authority: Objects. Summary of response (no change in respect of amended plans): · The existing access would need to be widened and visibility splays improved, which would have an urbanising impact on the setting of the SDNP. · The introduction of 41 dwellings on this site, with associated urban layout of access roads, domestic gardens, lighting etc in this rural location outside the settlement boundary would exacerbate the urbanising of this predominantly rural location. · The principle of such intensive urban development in this rural location on the edges of the National Park has the potential to be harmful to the special qualities and landscape setting of the SDNP. · The SDNPA are concerned that existing planting, together with new planting is not sufficient to provide an appropriate, essential and effective soft-scape transition from the

91 ITEM A3 - 26

proposed urban form to open rural countryside on both the southern and eastern boundaries, resulting in substantial urban built form impact on the fringe of the countryside setting of the SNDP. · The development would be clearly visible and open viewed against the predominant rural landscape of the locality and the wider open countryside setting of the SDNP from the elevated bridleway leading up to the South Downs Way National Trail and nearby open access land on the Downs, approximately 1.6-1.8km to the south. · The lighting seen at night from various places in the SDNP has the potential to be detrimental to the dark night skies objective of the SDNP, and potentially on wildlife within the SDNP.

3.11 Environment Agency: No comments provided due to the low risk of the development type and location.

3.12 English Heritage: Advise that they do not consider that it is necessary for this application to be notified to English Heritage under the relevant statutory provisions.

3.13 West Sussex County Council Archaeologist: No objection, subject to conditions.

3.14 West Sussex County Highway Authority: Initially responded 21st August 2014 requesting additional information, and have been in discussion with the Applicant’s Transport Consultant in respect of the application. However, despite additional information and amended drawings being received, the Highway Authority remain concerned due to an increased risk to highway safety and likely obstruction to the free flow of traffic on the A283. It is recommended that a full right-turn lane is provided, or the current site access should be retained as the sole access to the site, but no agreement has been reached on this matter.

3.15 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council raise a strong objection, including the following points: · The proposed development is extremely dense, particularly adjacent to the new Millford Grange site and is out of character with the area. · The proposals would mean that the listed building (Old Clayton) would be completely surrounded. The listed building Chanctonbury Lodge (about 180 metres west on Storrington Road) should also be taken into consideration. · The access from the A283 is unacceptable. · The site is not included in HDC’s Local Plan which is currently under inspection nor is it included in the list of sites in our emerging Neighbourhood Plan and of course is outside the built-up area. · Members also agree with all of Washington Parish Council’s objections. · Members question the fact that the site would be sustainable, owners would not be able to walk to the village to purchase their weekly shopping and very much doubted that they would cycle. · Whilst the site is technically brownfield, it is indeed outside of the built-up area and not in Horsham’s Plan and is not an allocated site. · In fact, what has become apparent whilst conducting Neighbourhood Plan surveys is that residents of all surrounding villages want to protect the gaps between each individual village. · Members felt that it should be noted that the kennels had not received any noise complaints before the new development (Millford Grange) had been built, and that these had only resulted since residents had moved into the new development. The kennels had been in existence for many years before the development had been approved.

3.16 Washington Parish Council strongly object on the basis that: · Traffic flow will be increased onto a major arterial road at peak times.

92 ITEM A3 - 27

· The creation of a 4th entrance/exit in close proximity to 3 others will increase congestion and compromise safety. · The proposed development is premature and does not take into account the provisions of the Emerging Local Plan or the proposed Neighbourhood Plan. · The proposal contradicts the reasons given for the reduction in homes by the Inspector on the neighbouring development and is therefore contradictory to an existing finding. The proposal has an adverse impact on the rural environment both in terms of ecology and view. The housing would be clearly visible from the SDNP. · The provision for ‘affordable housing’ is neither guaranteed in respect of number, availability to local people or affordability and therefore provides no benefit or support to the proposal. · Washington and the proposed site is not a Category A site and the proposal constitutes overdevelopment and unnecessary urbanisation. There is a real danger of “ribbon development” along the A283, diminishing the countryside between Storrington & Washington. · The proposed development does not constitute part of the existing development (‘keys seamlessly’) but is a further and separate isolated development. · There is no provision for facilities within the site itself or its surrounds for the impact on infrastructure that the further increase in housing will create in terms of health, leisure and education. · Air quality will be further compromised. · Light pollution will be increased in a no light area. · No changes to original comments in light of amended plans.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.17 Twenty seven letters of objection have been received, which include the following points: · Overdevelopment of the site. · Density is higher than the surrounding area. · Further ribbon development, contrary to Neighbourhood Plan guidelines. · Proposal would decrease the strategic gap between settlements. · Unsustainable site with, no facilities without a car journey. · The kennels are a working business. · Traffic onto the A287 is already a nightmare, and the development will exacerbate this. · Will create a traffic rat-run through Heath Common. · Development at Millford Grange already increased usage of Hampers Lane, a quite single- track road. · No traffic calming is proposed. · The listed building will not sit well in an estate environment. · Development will enclose and over-power the listed building. · Urbanisation of a rural area. · Field to the rear is used for exercising dogs and is not a brownfield site. · Light pollution in an area with no street lighting. · Noise and pollution not inkeeping with current schemes to reduce pollution in Storrington. · Overburdening of local services, particularly schools and medical facilities. · Adjacent development does not set precedent for the proposal. · Adjacent site included benefits such as delivery of community land east and west of Hampers Lane, direct access to the Heath Common network of bridleways and an extensive Unilateral Undertaking. · Noise mitigation should be put in place in accordance with the permission at the adjacent Cemex site. · Anyone purchasing a house at the adjacent site will be aware of the kennels. · The kennels are a welcome amenity to Washington and the surrounding area.

93 ITEM A3 - 28

· The application should not be considered until all of the Highway Authority’s queries are answered. · Many of the letters of support referring to plight of the kennels are from addresses some distance from the kennels. · 10% reduction in CO2 emissions would be counteracted by the increase in traffic and pollution transporting children to schools. · Loss of existing employment use. · Parking problems in the area will be exacerbated. · There is sufficient new housing in the area. · Future residents are likely to want fences adjacent to Washington Road. · The site should be used for community business and facility if the kennel were to close. · Loss of habitat.

3.18 Twenty eight letters of support has been received, which includes the following points: · Continuation of the kennels in this location is impossible. · Complaints from new occupants have already been received. · The kennels causes new residents of the adjacent site more noise than imagined. · Construction works distress boarding dogs. · Lights and traffic at night at the adjacent site will distress boarding dogs. · Noise levels will increase as more people move in and dogs are unsettled by the noise of new neighbours. · The kennels would relocate to a new site without loss of jobs · The kennelling service is vital to the community and should continue at a more suitable site. · Proposal compliments the adjacent scheme. · Support the provision of affordable housing for people with a local connection and local workers. · The arguments that allowed the adjacent site apply to this proposal. · Proposal will reduce traffic compared to the kennels and reduce congestion. · There are links to public amenities and a regular bus service, which is due to be improved in connection with the adjacent development. · Tree planting would enhance views. · The day care part of the kennels business should be extended and developed. · Growing kennels business would benefit from a larger site. · Developing smaller sites will share the need for new homes across the District without having the significant local disruption big sites cause. · Scheme appears very well thought through.

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

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

5.2 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 principal issues in the determination of the application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to both central government and local Development Plan policies, highway safety, and the effect of the development upon the character and

94 ITEM A3 - 29

appearance of the area. The site has been put forward for consideration in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, and has been assessed as deliverable given the single ownership and the landowners intention to develop, but development would still need to be subject to the development management process including consideration of relevant planning considerations, and the site is not allocated for development by the Council. The SHLAA is a theoretical exercise to show what sites could potentially be available for planning permission in the District. It does not preclude the normal planning application process nor does it allocate sites for development. The SHLAA forms a useful starting point for the consideration of sites that may be suitable for allocation for residential development in Neighbourhood Plans. However this site is not allocated for development at the current time in a Neighbourhood Plan. Therefore, although the site is included in the SHLAA, it is not allocated for development and consideration must be given to the principle of development.

6.2 Members will be aware that the District is currently experiencing a shortfall in housing land supply. Recent appeal decisions within the District suggest that any shortfall in a five year land supply is an important material consideration that carries significant weight in decision making. This imposes an even stronger presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sustainable development. In cases where there may be other issues or harm arising from a proposed development, the provision of new housing must be balanced against the harm identified when assessing whether development is sustainable and appropriate. In light of the identified shortfall of housing supply, the application should be considered in relation to the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD which allows for flexibility in the location of development outside of the built-up area boundaries, to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the Core Strategy, and provides guidance as to the location and size of developments that could be appropriate.

6.3 The FAD SPD sets out the requirements against which those planning applications for development on sites (both greenfield and brownfield) which adjoin defined settlement boundaries in the District will be considered, and contains a number of criteria which must be complied with in order for a proposal to be considered ‘appropriate’. Although Storrington is a category 1 settlement, where the FAD SPD allows for cumulative development of up to about 150 dwellings outside of built-up area boundaries, appropriate development sites should be contiguous with the built-up area boundary, which this site is not. The site is between Storrington and Washington, and although the eastern extreme of the current application site does not extend beyond that of the new development at the adjacent site to the north and west, its location closer to the road than the new development and set at a higher ground level than it (there is a substantial difference in land levels towards the north of the site), would make the proposed development more prominent in public viewpoints, particularly from the A283, than the adjacent development. The prominence of the proposal would also result in perceived encroachment towards the settlement of Washington, reducing the visual break between Storrington and Washington. The site is not located in a sustainable location, with poor access by public transport and few services or facilities located in walking distance of the site. As such, the location of the site is not in accordance with the FAD SPD. Furthermore, the NPPF sets out that new development should be located and designed to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and have access to high quality public transport facilities, and that the social role of sustainable development involves creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services. The unsustainable location of the site therefore does not weigh in favour of the proposal. In addition, the Inspector’s initial findings in respect of the examination of the emerging HDPF (19.12.2014) advises that the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst is sound, rather than the alternative strategy of greater dispersal around the District, which he considered to be less sustainable. This site is somewhat distant from the settlement of Storrington, which is about 1 km from the built-up boundary further west along the Washington Road. The Strategic Planning Officer advises that although the HDPF is

95 ITEM A3 - 30

therefore not yet adopted and the Council do not have a 5-year housing land supply, the acceptance of the Council’s overall strategy as sound by the Inspector is a material consideration and should be afforded great weight. As such, the Strategic Planning Officer does not consider it necessary for this site to be developed for residential use at the current time, given the unsustainable location. Intensification of the residential use of this site is therefore contrary to Policy DC1 and the FAD SPD.

6.4 The Heritage Consultant highlights the relevant legislative framework in respect of development and heritage assets such as listed buildings. In particular, the duty of the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest is noted. The NPPF sets out that the environmental role of sustainable development includes contributing to protecting and enhancing the built and historic environment. The demolition of curtilage listed buildings is dealt with separately by application DC/14/0915 (also on this agenda). However, that demolition is integral to the proposal, given that it is required in order to achieve the density of development proposed. The Heritage Consultant raised concern in respect of the loss of the courtyard buildings, which reflect the medieval farmstead pattern and are integral to the setting of the listed building. In light of this concern, the Applicant revised the indicative layout to show the retention of courtyard buildings to the west of the main dwellinghouse. However, the Heritage Consultant remains of the opinion that the proposal would be harmful to the listed building and its setting, particularly given the removal of part of the northern courtyard group which appears in some form on maps dating from 1843 and therefore is curtilage listed, in addition to the western courtyard which is now proposed to be retained. In contrast to the existing scattered assortment of single storey buildings on the site, the proposed development of 41 dwellings would necessitate development in much closer proximity to the listed building, with the indicative layout showing new development to the rear and side of the listed building, and set further forward than the new development at the adjacent site, which is set back from the highway by over 40 metres, allowing the listed building to be the more prominent feature of the street scene. Although the proposed layout is indicative only, it gives a good indication of the type of development which the developer expects to bring forward at the reserved matters stage, and in this case the number of units being sought, along with the indicative scale, is likely to involve fairly high buildings in close proximity to the listed building, as the indicative site sections show the new buildings to be greater in height than the listed dwelling. The proposed amount of the development would therefore not only swamp the immediate setting of the listed building, reducing its significance particularly when viewed from the south, it would also create a more intensive and higher density development, removing the rural setting of the listed building to the detriment of its significance in the landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC13.

6.5 In terms of the impact of the proposal on landscape character, as well as the Heritage Consultant’s concern in respect of the rural setting of the listed building being important to its value and significance as a heritage asset, the SNDPA and the Council’s Landscape Consultant also comment on the impact of the proposal on landscape character. The SDNPA identify the urbanising of this predominantly rural location on the edge of the National Park, the existing and proposed boundary planting which is insufficient to provide an appropriate transition from the urban to rural areas, the increase in traffic and the additional external lighting affecting the Park’s dark skies objectives as resulting in harm to the SDNP. The Council’s Landscape Consultant did not initially raise objection to the proposal, but on receipt of additional information their view is that the proposal would result in landscape harm, when viewed from the SDNP.

6.6 The site is currently occupied by a number of buildings, concentrated mainly towards the western side and south, with more open areas to the east and north. The NPPF is clear that although previously developed land is land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure and includes the curtilage of the developed land, it should not be assumed that

96 ITEM A3 - 31

the whole of the curtilage should be developed. As such, the presence of existing buildings on parts of the site is not justification alone for development across the entire site. In this case, existing development is concentrated towards the western part of the site, away from the SDNP boundary to the east. Furthermore, the existing buildings to be demolished are all single storey in height, with the only two storey building (the listed dwelling Old Claytons) being retained. Replacing a scattered assortment of modest single storey buildings, concentrated mainly to the western part of the site, with dwellings of at least two storeys in height (indicative details show up to 2.5 storeys) across the entirety of the site, including adjacent to the SDNP boundary, results in a significant impact on the character of the site and its value as part of the rural landscape and setting of a heritage asset. Although the site is adjacent to a number of dwellings under construction, most of the adjacent site is set at a much lower land level, and therefore the rear part of the adjacent site is screened by land levels as opposed to vegetation, particularly from the SDNP to the east. As a result of the topography of the area, the extent of the adjacent development is not as prominent in the landscape as the current proposal would be. The Landscape Consultant highlights the importance of boundary screening to soften the appearance of development when viewed from the SDNP, however the indicative layout and landscaping schemes show loss of some existing mature trees and hedgerows, and do not allow sufficient space for substantial boundary planting outside of residential curtilages, with no parts of the site indicated as being reserved for screening planting or landscape buffer areas. The reduction of developable area would result in a more cramped layout for the 41 dwellings proposed than that shown on the indicative drawing, which would have a more urban appearance than that currently shown. The proximity of buildings to the SDNP boundary is of particular concern given the indicative scale of buildings proposed, up to 10 metres in height, which would create a harder, more urban edge to the SDNP, and would not respect the smaller scale of farmhouses, cottages and other dwellings associated with the strongly rural character of the SDNP, or the low height, low density development in larger plots in nearby Health Common. The Landscape Consultant notes that the adjacent new development is set back from the boundary with the SDNP, is separated by a communally managed, structure planted buffer and is set down at a lower ground level in comparison to the proposed scheme. When viewed from the road, the new development would affect the setting of the SDNP due to loss of trees and hedgerows and the proximity of large dwellings to the SDNP boundary. In addition, there are highway works underway in connection with the adjacent development, and some additional highway works likely to be necessary to accommodate this proposal. The Landscape Consultant highlights these works as contributing to the cumulative urbanising effect of the development.

6.7 In conclusion therefore on the matter of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, there are clear and harmful implications of the urbanisation of this site in terms of landscape character and the setting of the SDNP, the setting of a heritage asset and the reduction of the gap between the settlements of Storrington and Washington. While it is noted that the proposed layout and scale are indicative only, the indicative information submitted at the outline stage serves to provide a good indication of the developer’s intention for the layout they expect to bring forward at the reserved matters stage. Furthermore, the concerns above relate to the amount of development, which could not be satisfactorily addressed through an alternative layout. As such, the proposal would result in harm to the open and rural character of the area and to the setting of the SDNP. The proposal therefore does not fulfil the environmental role of sustainable development and is contrary to the NPPF and to Policies CP1, DC1 and DC2.

6.8 The County Highway Authority has objected to the proposal on the basis of increased risk to highway safety and likely obstruction to the free flow of traffic on the A283. Although solutions have been suggested by the Highway Authority, these have not been incorporated into the proposal by the Applicant. In the absence of clear information to demonstrate that the proposal would be acceptable in highway safety terms, Officers cannot conclude that there would be no harm to highway safety arising from the

97 ITEM A3 - 32

construction of 41 dwellings on this site, and the proposal is contrary to Policies CP19 and DC50. The concern of the HDC Collections Supervisor are noted in respect of the width, alignment and construction of the access road for collections vehicles, however layout is a reserved matter and the number of units proposed could be accommodated while ensuring suitable access for collections vehicles.

6.9 The application site is set at a higher level than the adjacent residential dwellings under construction. However, the spacing between the buildings means that the proposal would not result in an overbearing or visually intrusive appearance when viewed from those neighbouring dwellings. The layout of the adjacent development is such that the dwellings under construction face the application site and are separated from the application site by their access road. As such, the proposal would not involve direct overlooking of any private gardens and no objection is raised in terms of the privacy of neighbouring residents.

6.10 The supporting information submitted with the application sets out that part of the reasoning behind this proposal is the need for the kennels to relocate as a result of noise complaints from occupiers of the adjacent new development, which is still under construction. The matter of the relationship between residential development and the existing kennels was considered by the Inspector determining DC/10/1457, who observed that the sound of barking dogs was only audible in the part of the site adjacent to the kennels, and considered that acoustic fencing should reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of disturbance to future occupiers by boarded dogs and vice versa. He therefore included condition 16 in his decision notice, which requires a scheme of acoustic mitigation including along the northern and western boundaries of the kennels site to be approved and installed prior to occupation of the dwellings. It is noted that acoustic barrier fencing has only been erected on part of the boundary thus far and details pursuant to condition 16 of DC/10/1457 are currently under consideration. However, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer does not consider it likely that noise from the kennels would become the source of an actionable statutory nuisance to occupiers of the new development, and confirms that there have been no noise complaints since 2012 (which was not substantiated and therefore did not progress to formal action). Furthermore, the supporting information indicates that the construction works at the adjacent site have resulted in stress being placed on the animals residing at the kennels. The additional stress during construction could therefore result a greater level of barking than post-construction. As such, to conclude that the kennels cause amenity issues to such a significant degree as to require cessation of the kennels before construction works have been completed, before the acoustic mitigation measures are fully in place and before the development is completely occupied, would be premature and the impact of removal of the kennels use on the amenity of neighbouring residents is considered to be a neutral consideration, which does not weigh either in favour or against the proposal.

6.11 Although the re-location of the kennels to another local site is referred to in the supporting information, details of the alternative site are not provided, and it is therefore not clear that existing local employees could be retained, that the location of the site would be suitable to serve the existing customer catchment area, or that the establishment of a kennels at the alternative site would be acceptable in planning terms. As such, although many third party representations have referred to support for an alternative local site, it is not certain that the proposal will achieve this outcome. As there is no mechanism by which to secure the alternative location, the proposal would result in both the loss of a local employer and the loss of a facility used by both the local and wider community. While the Core Strategy contains policies designed to protect existing employment uses, and defines employment floorpsace as offices, industrial uses, warehousing and other commercial industrial uses within Classes B1, B2 and B8, paragraph 4.62 of the Core Strategy goes on to confirm that other uses such as retailing and leisure also provide employment opportunities, even though they are not included within the definition. The NPPF, and prior to that Planning Policy Guidance 4 (Economic Development), moved away from the former view that

98 ITEM A3 - 33

employment uses encompassed the B-classes and similar uses only, and included a much wider range of uses which generate employment when considering proposals involving economic development. The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework acknowledges this, and does not include a definition of employment use. Therefore the emerging Policies in respect of employment and economic development would apply to any use that generates employment or an economic output. The existing kennels use is a sui generis use, and is an employment generating use to which Policy CP11 applies. This Policy sets out that development which would result in the loss of existing employment sites or premises will not be permitted where their retention is justified by the need to protect the stock of premises in the area. In this case, although the site is not in a sustainable location, the kennels use is one which is often found outside of the built-up area, given the space required for kennelling and also for outdoor exercise of the animals, and could be considered to be a rural enterprise. The HDPF lists size priority themes for the Council, the first of which is Economic Development (to plan for a successful local economy with high levels of employment). One of the key spatial objectives set out in the HDPF is to “promote a living and working rural economy where employment opportunities exist which reduce the need for residents to travel, including reducing commuting distances”. It acknowledges (paragraph 5.7) that there is a shortfall of employment space to meet the future needs of the District over the plan period, and at paragraph 5.17, the ongoing need to maintain and enhance the rural economy is highlighted. In light of this need and the identified shortfall, Policy 8 of the HDPF requires redevelopment of employment sites and premises outside Key Employment Areas to demonstrate that the site/premises is no longer needed and/or viable for economic use, a similar requirement to Policy CP11. In this case, the kennels are currently functioning as a business and does not appear to be unviable. There is significant support for the kennels, as set out in letters of support, both in terms of provision of a useful facility for customers and provision of employment, indicating that the use is still needed. The Inspector’s initial findings of the examination of the HDPF (19.12.2014), sets out that the annual housing target set out in the submission document should be increased. In turn, the additional increase in new dwellings in the District will place greater importance on the need to plan for the retention and growth of employment uses over a variety of Use Classes. Therefore, in light of the change of emphasis away from considering only the B-Class uses to be the employment generating uses in National policies, and as this has been carried through to the emerging HDPF, it is considered that the loss of employment use at this site is objectionable and contrary to Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy and to chapters 1 and 3 of the NPPF.

6.12 Although the application is put forward as including the provision of 40% affordable dwellings, this must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement, as do the infrastructure contributions requested by the County Council and the contribution to open space requested by the Council’s Parks and Countryside team. The proposed development has the potential to give rise to contributions totalling £97,865, part of which could be used for these projects, should permission be forthcoming. At the time of determination of this application, there is no completed Legal Agreement to this effect in place and therefore no means by which to secure these contributions. The proposal therefore does not secure any affordable housing and does not make sufficient provision for infrastructure and open space.

6.13 The submitted Sustainability Statement makes reference to the development providing at 10% reduction in CO2 emissions, as well as numerous other sustainability measures that will be incorporated at the detailed design stage. While the sustainability of the construction of the buildings themselves could therefore be in accordance with the relevant Policy requirements, this is not considered to outweigh the harm arising from the unsustainable location of the development.

6.14 The supporting information makes reference to precedent set by other development in locations outside of the built-up area boundaries, including the adjacent development at the

99 ITEM A3 - 34

former Cemex site, which adjoins the application site. The Inspector determining that application identified the various benefits and harm arising from that proposal. Benefits included a contribution to housing and affordable housing provision in the District, highway safety benefits from the improvement of visibility at the access of the Kennels and Hamper’s Lane and the provision of a right-turning lane into the kennels, funding for a limited period of improvements to bus services, and the provision of 12 hectares of public access land for the Sandgate Country Park. Although the Inspector identified harm arising from the impact on rural character and appearance of the area generally (and not to any particular landscape characteristic), this was considered in light of the topography of the site, which is at a lower level than surrounding land due to the former excavation works, and concluded to be moderate, decreasing to a neutral impact in the longer term as a result of tree planting. The Inspector attributed substantial weight against the proposal due to the unsustainable location and poor access to services and facilities other than by private car, and this conclusion was reached despite the Appellant’s proposed enhancements to local bus services. The Inspector balanced these factors, concluded that the benefits outweighed the harm and therefore granted planning permission.

6.15 In comparison to the adjacent Cemex development discussed in the preceding paragraph, although the current proposal would also contribute to housing provision, including affordable housing, the benefit of contributing to a long-term Policy objective in the form of securing land for the Sandgate Country Park is absent in this case, and there are no highway benefits coming forward. Although there is a request from the Council’s Parks and Countryside team for contributions to improve access and habitat within Sandgate Park, this does not hold the same weight in Policy terms as the contribution to the expansion of the park (a long-term Council objective set out in Policy AL19). In addition to the harm arising from the unsustainable location of the development, there is further harm arising in this case in respect of landscape harm and the setting of a listed building, and the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities of the area is greater than that which was present in the Cemex case, given the greater prominence of the application site and the closer proximity of buildings to the southern boundary, and harm to highway safety. The harm to the setting of the listed building has been assessed by the Conservation and Design Consultant as being substantial. In terms of heritage assets, the NPPF advises that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, as they are irreplaceable and any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. In cases such as this, where substantial harm has been identified, the NPPF requires the Local Planning Authority to refuse the application unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm to, or loss of, a listed building is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. It is therefore considered that great weight should be afforded to the harm to the listed building in this case. The NPPF states (at paragraph 14) that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means that permission should be granted without delay unless specific Policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. In this case, the Policies set out in chapter 12 of the NPPF (conserving and enhancing the historic environment) indicate that development should be restricted in cases where there is substantial harm to a heritage asset, and therefore there is no presumption in favour of granting permission in this case. In conclusion, it is considered that the harm (unsustainable location with poor access to services, substantial harm to the setting of a listed building, landscape harm and harm to the visual amenities of the area) does not outweigh the benefits (provision of housing, including affordable housing) in this case.

6.16 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the three dimensions of economic development (i.e. the economic, social and environmental roles), and it is clear (paragraph 8 of the NPPF) that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation because they are mutually dependant and in order to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains must be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. In this case, the unsustainable location of the development means that it does not

100 ITEM A3 - 35

fulfil the social or environmental roles, and the harm to landscape character and a heritage asset means that it does not fulfil the environmental role. As such, the proposal is not sustainable development and there is no presumption in favour of granting permission. Therefore, although substantial weight is attributed in the decision making process to the delivery of new housing, this does not outweigh the harm identified above does not above, and therefore on balance, Officers recommend the refusal of this application.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of and not contiguous with the defined built-up area boundary and development of the extent proposed would result in harm to the open and rural landscape character of the area and to the setting of the South Downs National Park. Residential development of the amount proposed would not respect of reflect the pattern of rural development in and around the South Downs National Park and would result in the urbanisation of the site, to the detriment of the character of the area. Furthermore, the site is in an unsustainable location, remote from local services and centres, conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car. The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

2. The development of the site would harm the historic setting of Old Clayton and the experience of the heritage asset which is currently within a predominantly isolated and rural landscape. The proposed amount of residential development would dominate the current semi-rural setting of the building and diminish its value as a farmstead of historic interest. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC13 of the Horsham LDF: General Development Control Policies.

3. The proposed development would result in the loss of an economic development use which generates employment. This would therefore result in the loss of local employment opportunities, reducing the ability of the District to meet existing employment needs, and anticipated employment needs in light of residential growth in the District, increasing reliance on out-commuting to other sites. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP11 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and to the NPPF, in particular chapters 1 and 3.

4. The proposed development would result in increased risk to highway safety and likely obstruction to the free-flow of through traffic on the A283. As such, the proposal does not provide a safe means of access and does not maintain and improve the existing transport system. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and DC50 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

5. Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy

101 ITEM A3 - 36

(2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.

Note to the Applicant: The reason for refusal (above) in respect of affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions could be addressed by the completion of a Legal Agreement. If the Applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application, you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

102 DC/14/0921

Old Clayton Boarding Kennels

2 For Business5 use only - not for distribution to the general public

53.5m

L D

r S a

R i n 1 E 8

M JO A H N IR H E LAN D W AY H Cadrona R

12 1 6 2

f e D

F 56.7m Old Clayton Kennels F 0 .91m RH El Sub Sta Def

n o t U y a n 55.5m l d C

Pond t s e

LB W in ra D A 283 Netherdown

Pond 57.7m

S Woodman's

Scale: 1:2,144

Date 07/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

103 104 ITEM A4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 19th January 2016 Full planning application for the construction of 45 two storey residential dwellings (Class C3) comprising of 8 x 2 bed, 16 x 3 bed, 14 x 4 bed, 5 x DEVELOPMENT: 5 bed, 2 x 6 bed with associated access works ,landscaping and open space SITE: Land at Bax Close Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/15/0107 APPLICANT: Mr Julian Walker

RECOMMENDATION: To authorise Officers to defend an additional objection in respect of the appeal of this application

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Application DC/15/0107 sought outline planning permission for the erection of 45 new dwellings. The application was considered by Members at the Development Management Committee (South) on 21st April 2015. Members resolved to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the Officers report of the application (which is appended to this report), which, in summary related to (1) landscape harm, (2) townscape harm, (3) insufficient information to demonstrate that acceptable living conditions can be achieved, (4) insufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not result in harm to the Storrington Air Quality Management Area and (5) absence of a Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing provision and financial contributions towards infrastructure. An appeal against the refusal of DC/15/0107 has now been lodged and is to be dealt with by a Public Inquiry.

1.2 Following the appeal being lodged, a subsequent application, DC/15/1995, was received. This application proposed 35 units across a smaller area. This application was considered by Members at the Development Management (South) Committee meeting on 17th November 2015. Members voted to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the report (which is also appended to this report). It was considered that the revised scheme

Contact Officer: Rosemary Foreman 105 Tel: 01403 215561 ITEM A4 - 2

addressed most of the previous reasons for refusal, with an improved layout and scale of buildings no longer resulting in landscape and townscape harm, and additional technical information submitted to demonstrate that acceptable living conditions could be achieved and that the proposal would not result in harm to the AQMA.

1.3 In the intervening period between determination of the first and second applications, the Horsham District Planning Framework had progressed and gained weight as a material consideration in decision making. Therefore, the decision notice of DC/15/1995 made reference to the Policies of the emerging HDPF.

1.4 The revised Policy context also generated an additional reason for refusal of DC/15/1995, which was not included in the decision notice of DC/15/0107 as it related to the strategy for growth set out in the emerging HDPF. This reason was as follows:

The application site is located outside of the built-up area boundary and is not allocated for residential development in a Made Neighbourhood Plan. The development of the site is therefore contrary to the emerging spatial strategy for growth in Horsham District and is contrary to Policies 2, 3, 4 and 15 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION & POLICY

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Please refer to the original report appended

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Planning Framework (2015)

3. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

3.1 As set out above, application DC/15/0107 is the subject of an appeal following the Council’s refusal of planning permission. An appeal has been lodged in respect of DC/15/1995, and it is likely that this will be co-joined with the appeal of DC/15/0107, once the Planning Inspectorate have confirmed the appeal is valid.

3.2 In light of the revised Policy context arising from the adoption of the HDPF, and reflecting the decision of DC/15/1995, this report seeks only to gain Members authority to defend an additional objection in respect of the appeal of DC/15/0107.

106 ITEM A4 - 3

4. RECOMMENDATION

4.1 To authorise Officers to defend an additional objection in respect of the appeal of DC/15/0107, as follows:

107 ITEM A4 - 4

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 17th November 2015 Erection of 35 two storey dwellings comprising 8 x 2 bed, 12 x 3 bed, 12 x DEVELOPMENT: 4 bed, 3 x 5 bed with associated access works, associated infrastructure works, including a pumping station, landscaping and open space SITE: Land at Bax Close Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/15/1995 APPLICANT: Mr Julian Walker

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: The proposal is a Departure within the meaning of the Town and Country (Development Plans and Consultations) (Departures) Directions 1999

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse the application

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.2 This Full Application proposes the development of the site to provide 35 dwellings. The proposed dwellings would be arranged around a roughly north-south access road, with areas of open space at the southern and eastern corners of the site and an open space around an attenuation pond towards the northern part of the site. A roughly east-west belt of trees across the site would be largely retained, with removal only to allow construction of the vehicle access. A pumping station is proposed to the northern end of the site, enclosed by fencing and hedge. Access would be taken from the existing turning head of Bax Close, across and existing public right of way.

1.3 The housing mix comprises 8no 2-bed units, 12no 3-bed units, 12no 4-bed units and 3no 5-bed units of these, 6no 2-bed units, 6no 3-bed units and 2no 4-bed units are proposed to be affordable. This equates to 40% affordable provision. Each dwelling would be provided with at least two parking spaces and there are eight visitors parking spaces proposed.

1.4 Most of the dwellings would have gabled roofs, to between 8.1m and 8.8m in height. External materials would comprise tiled roofs and mainly brick elevations, with some areas

Contact Officer: Rosemary Foreman 108 Tel: 01403 215561 ITEM A4 - 5

of render and hanging tile. Garages in the scheme would be a mix of single and double, with gabled and pyramidal roofs.

1.5 The application is accompanied by a number of supporting statements, which include: · Design and Access Statement · Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment · Heritage Statement · Transport Statement · Road Safety Audit · Air Quality Assessment · Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment · Environmental and Sustainability Statement · Landscape and Biodiversity Management Strategy · Flood Risk Assessment · Ecological Report · Planning and Affordable Housing Statement · Arboricultural Report · Noise Assessment · Statement of Community Involvement · Summary Access Report

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The application site is largely rough grassland, with permissive footpaths around the site perimeter accessed from the public footpath to the north and Amberley Road/New Town Road to the south. The site slopes down to the north, with a high point close to the junction of Amberley Road and New Town Road. There is a belt of trees running approximately east-west across the centre of the site. The majority of site boundaries are made up of dense, mature vegetation, although there is a low hedgerow to the public footpath to the north, and the understorey vegetation on the boundary with dwellings to the east, Little Orchard and The Downs, is fairly thin. A small brook/stream runs within the vegetation on the western boundary.

1.7 To the north and north east lie residential properties, including a listed building at Cobb Court. The dwellings on Downlands are set at a slightly lower level than the application site. To the west, beyond the brook/stream, lies agricultural land currently in use for pig farming. To the south, on the opposite side of Amberley Road, the land lies within the South Downs National Park.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), sections 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The development plan consists of the Core Strategy (2007), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD and the

109 ITEM A4 - 6

Proposals Map (2007). Other relevant local development documents are the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (May 2009) and the Planning Obligations SPD.

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19 of the Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF has been undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector who has found the HDPF sound in his report published on 8th October. The HDPF is expected to be formally adopted by Council in November. Given the Inspector’s conclusions the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of significant weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.6 It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

2.7 Therefore, upon adoption in November, the HDPF will be able to formally demonstrate a full 5-year housing land supply, including flexibility, as acknowledged by the Inspector in paragraph 49 of his Final Report: ‘the projected supply represents about 116% of the requirement (including the 5% buffer), ensuring the Council has a 5 years supply with a considerable degree of flexibility to take account of any slippage on major sites. Even without the NP sites, the five year supply requirement is just met.’

2.8 The relevant Policies of the HDPF are 1 (Sustainable Development), 2 (Strategic Development), 3 (Development Hierarchy), 4 (Settlement Expansion), 15 (Housing Provision), 16 (Meeting Local Housing Needs), 24 (Environmental Protection), 25 (The Natural Environment and Landscape Character), 26 (Countryside Protection), 31 (Green Infrastructure), 32 (The Quality of New Development), 33 (Development Principles), 34 (Cultural and Heritage Assets), 35 (Climate Change), 36 (Appropriate Energy Use), 37 (Sustainable Construction), 38 (Flooding), 39 (Infrastructure Provision), 40 (Sustainable Transport) and 41 (Parking).

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

2.9 The Draft Storrington, Sullington and Washington Neighbourhood Plan has been submitted to the District Council and was subject to public consultation, closing on 9th October 2015. Policy 2(iv) of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan allocates sites for development. Part of the Application site is identified as ‘Land off Amberley Road, Storrington’ in this Policy, which states:

The Neighbourhood Plan allocates land at the following locations for development, as shown on the Policies Map, provided development proposals have regard to the development principles outlined: Land off Amberley Road, Storrington for residential development including a proportion of smaller homes of 3 bedrooms or less provided: a. The developable area of the scheme is confined to the north western part of the site adjacent to the Built Up Area Boundary and is accessed from Amberley Road. b. The scheme design must provide a natural green transition from urban to rural by maintaining undeveloped green space of sufficient depth and type so as to prevent the

110 ITEM A4 - 7

urban impact on the sensitive landscape, tranquillity and dark night skies of the adjoining South Downs National Park c. The development must minimise the level of lighting infrastructure, including street and domestic lighting required.

2.10 Policy 18 of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan designates local green spaces, where development will be resisted, and includes land in the southern part of the application site.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/15/0107 Full planning application for the construction of 45 two Refused. storey residential dwellings (Class C3) comprising of 8 x 2 Appeal bed, 16 x 3 bed, 14 x 4 bed, 5 x 5 bed, 2 x 6 bed with submitted. associated access works ,landscaping and open space

2.11 The above planning application was refused for the following five reasons:

1 The proposed development, by reason of the location, size, layout, height and siting of the residential development, would have a significant impact on the rural landscape of the site and its surroundings, the rural gap between the settlement edge of Storrington and the South Downs National Park together with the setting of the latter, and would cause significant harm to views to and from the site of the South Downs National Park. Therefore failing to comply with paragraphs 7, 14, 17 and 115 of the Framework, and policies CP1, CP3, DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

2 The proposed development, by reason of the poor design, layout, scale and siting of the residential development on the site, would cause harm to and fail to relate sympathetically to the character of the adjacent and surrounding townscape, contrary to paragraphs 7, 14, 56, 61 and 64 of the Framework, and policies CP3 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

3 In the absence of a sufficiently robust noise impact assessment it is not possible to demonstrate that the living conditions of residential dwellings will not be significantly harmed by road traffic on Amberley Road, contrary to paragraph 123 of the Framework and policies CP2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

4 In the absence of a sufficiently robust air quality assessment it is not possible to demonstrate that the development would not result in cumulative and unmitigated harm to the Air Quality Management Area of Storrington, contrary to paragraph 124 of the Framework and policies CP2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

5 The proposed development, by reason of the lack of a completed legal agreement to secure the necessary infrastructure contributions, would have a significant, cumulative and unmitigated impact on community facilities, leisure open space and recreation, libraries, education, fire & rescue and improvements to transport accessibility, as well as fail to provide affordable housing, contrary to policies CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

111 ITEM A4 - 8

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 HDC Housing Manager supports the principle of provision of 14 affordable units, but urges the applicant to reach an agreement with a registered provider as soon as possible, in order to clarify and confirm tenure split and ensure the layout and specification of the affordable units meets the registered provider’s requirements. Note that 4-bedroom homes might not be desirable for registered providers due to the comparatively high rents and shared ownership sale prices.

3.3 The HDC Archaeology Consultant raises no objection, subject to conditions requiring approval and implementation of a site investigation.

3.4 HDC Environmental Health Officer provides comments in respect of: · Implementation and construction phase: No objection, subject to conditions · Noise: Notes that the World Health Organisation external noise level that the development seeks to achieve can result in moderately annoying noise levels, and it is considered that a higher standard should be sought. However, the Applicant has demonstrated that the WHO levels can be achieved with mechanical ventilation of the worst affected rooms and erection of noise barriers to some plots. · Odour: The adjacent pig farm has been subject to enforcement action in the past, with an abatement notice served in 2009 and further odour complaints received in 2010, 2012 and 2015. There would be significant amenity issues for future occupants due to pig odours. [Officer Note: This concern was also raised by the EHO in respect of DC/15/0107, but the concern was not considered sufficient to warrant inclusion in the reasons for refusal] · Land quality: No objection, subject to condition. · Air quality: No objection, subject to condition.

3.5 HDC Drainage Engineer raises no objection, subject to conditions in terms of drainage strategy management. In terms of flood risk, additional information is required in the form of preliminary hydraulic calculations and an assessment of the volume of surface water run-off likely to be generated by the development.

3.6 HDC Ecology Consultant: Raises no objection, subject to conditions.

3.7 HDC Landscape Consultant: Objects to the proposal. The consultation response includes the following points: · The site is situated very close to the boundary of the SDNP. · The site is divided into two fields by a 10m wide linear copse. · Mature vegetation and/or fencing form the boundaries of the site. · While some existing residential properties are in part visible along parts of the northern and eastern site boundaries, and associated ornamental planting, the overall impression of the site is a predominantly rural, attractive character due to a combination of mainly native species, mature vegetation, pastoral land use and the low density of existing development on two sides, including some set down from the site level. · There are attractive westward and south westward views from the site to open grassland and wooded escarpments of the South Downs which form an important landscape/visual backdrop of value. · The land is at its steepest in the south eastern corner of the site, reducing to the south west and more gradually to the north, so that the northern section of the site appears essentially flat. · Permissive footpaths cross the site.

112 ITEM A4 - 9

· A public right of way runs along the northern boundary of the site and on the southern side of Amberley Road. · The western side boundary is visible from Footpath 2972 looking east, in which the backdrop of the South Downs is visible. · The South Downs Way National Trail is approximately 1.5km to the south. There are intermittent views from this and other surrounding paths. · The site lies within HDC Landscape Character Assessment (2003) E1 Parham and Storrington Wooded Farmlands and Heaths area, but adjacent to D1 Amberley to Steyning Farmlands and C3 Amberley to Sullington Scarp. · The character of E1 is described as a well-enclosed landscape and ancient hedgerow. Oaks are an important feature. It is also noted that “despite the proximity of the urban edge of Storrington…the area retains surprisingly rural qualities”. · Key issues for area E1 include urban development pressures and the landscape condition is recorded overall as being good, but with localised areas of poor or declining condition around Storrington. · Sensitivity to change of area E1 is high due to “the area’s many intrinsic landscape qualities and its general visibility from the chalk escarpment to the south”. A key sensitivity is listed as “large scale housing and commercial development”. · The site is located in an area identified in the 2014 Landscape Capacity Study as having no/low capacity for large and medium scale development. · The proposed built development, access roads and associated lighting and noise fence, despite the areas of open space and vegetation retained, and taking account of the landscape proposals and landscape management strategy would urbanise the predominantly rural character of the site. · Development would extend up onto and cut into the existing landform of the site, as well as intrude into and lead to the loss of attractive views of the South Downs from the site. · Relatively high density built form in the southern and central parts of the site would not respond appropriately to the low density character of the adjoining residential area of Downlands and New Town Road, all be it the proposed development would continue the existing development character of Bax Close to the north. · Significant adverse harm to visual amenity of users of the permissive footpaths through the site (although the permissive routes could be withdrawn at any time). · Limited scope for tree planting to soften the access road and built development due to location of a gas main. · Lack of detail of the drainage attenuation basin. This could be an unattractive steep-sided hollow. · It is unclear how the vegetation along the west and south boundaries would be reinforced and managed without removal of some existing vegetation. · Likely to be moderate adverse visual impact from the two storey height closely spaced dwellings when viewed from Footpath 2972 to the west of the site, as well as adverse landscape character impact seen against the very attractive backdrop of the Downs as perceived from this location. · The site only forms a small proportion of the overall panoramic view from the SDNP, but would still be perceived to erode the natural transition between the edge of the settlement and the SNDP. · Proposal would cause harm to the setting of the SDNP as a result of the above. · Access from Amberley Road would be likely to lead to significant adverse landscape and visual impact on existing landform and vegetation, the approach to Storrington and the SDNP. · Reduction in number of dwellings and increased open space in the southern part of the site are not sufficient to overcome landscape and visual impact concerns of the previous application.

113 ITEM A4 - 10

3.8 HDC Strategic Planning Officer: Advises that the proposal conflicts with the emerging Development Plan and should be recommended for refusal. The consultation response includes the following points: · HDPF to be afforded significant weight in decision making. · Draft Neighbourhood Plan has not been ‘made’ and is therefore a material consideration, but full weight cannot be afforded to the plan at this stage. · HDPF can demonstrate a full 5-year housing land supply. · The site is contiguous with the built-up area boundary, meeting the first criteria of the FAD SPD, and may be considered against some of the criteria set out in the FAD. · Proposed development of the northern part of this site is consistent with the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, and therefore with HDPF Policy 4. · However, access is not in accordance with the Draft NP, the scale of development is greater than the Draft NP allocation and development encroaches into a Green Space allocation in the Draft NP. · It is not clear what the final version of the NP allocation Policy for this site will specify and whether the allocation would be supported by the Inspector at Examination stage. · As the Policy has not been tested at Examination, and there is potential for changes to it, limited weight can be given to the Draft NP allocation. · Affordable housing provision exceeds the 35% sought by the HDPF. · Specialist advice should be sought to ensure that the Council’s objectives in respect of protection of landscapes and character.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.9 West Sussex County Highway Authority raise no objection, subject to conditions. It should be noted that the consultation response advises that the roads and junctions in the vicinity of the site can accommodate the vehicle movements associated with the development, subject to cutting back of some vegetation to improve visibility at the junction of New Town Road and Amberley Road.

3.10 West Sussex County Rights of Way Officer raises no objection subject to improvements to public rights of way within and in the vicinity of the site. The consultation response also highlights the need for the developer to consider arrangements for the maintenance of trees overhanging public footpaths.

3.11 West Sussex County Council Flood Risk Management Team raise no objection to the proposal, but highlight that no development should take place within 5 metres of a watercourse (with reference to the stream running along the western site boundary). They also advise that long-term maintenance for sustainable drainage systems should be secured.

3.12 West Sussex County Council Local Development Division set out the infrastructure requirements arising from the proposed development, and requests financial contributions to assist in meeting these needs.

3.13 The Environment Agency raise no objection.

3.14 Southern Water advises that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the development. However, they advise that this can be addressed by S98 of the Water Industry Act which provides a legal mechanism. Alternative means of draining surface water from the development is also required, and a condition is recommended to require approval of details.

3.15 Natural England raise no objection, subject to conditions requiring biodiversity enhancements.

114 ITEM A4 - 11

3.16 The South Downs National Park Authority object to the proposal. Their consultation response includes the following points: · Development would significantly change the overall rural character of this locality by expanding the urban conurbation of Storrington toward the special and sensitive setting of the SDNP. · The development would close an important landscape gap that provides green space between Storrington and the SNDP. Such transitions are important to control development pressures on the periphery of the SDNP. · While inclusion of open space within the development is welcome, it is not sufficient mitigation to overcome the harm to the SDNP. · Encroachment of development into open land diminishes its value as an effective green transition from the built environment to the SDNP. · Increase noise and infrastructure is likely to reduce the tranquillity of the SDNP, and lighting infrastructure will affect the dark skies and wildlife in and around the SDNP. · A landscaped buffer of at least 60-80m should be provided from Amberley Road. · Development would interrupt important views of the SDNP from Bax Close and public footpaths.

3.17 Sussex Police provide advice in respect of meeting Secured by Design standards, but raises concerns regarding public footpaths located to the rear of garden fences, particularly behind plots 11-17.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.18 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council raise strong objection for reasons including: · Access should be from Amberley Road because access through Bax Close/New Town Road onto Amberley Road is notoriously dangerous. · Additional access further down Amberley Road would give the opportunity to introduce measures to slow down traffic and improve safety. · Proposal does not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan. · SDNP supported the Neighbourhood Plan site allocation subject to suitable tree buffer. · WSCC Highways raised no objection to proposed access off Amberley Road in the Neighbourhood Plan consultations. · Double glazed windows will have to be kept closed in order for acceptable noise levels to be achieved, which is unrealistic. · Effectiveness of fencing to reduce noise levels in gardens has not been assessed. · Gardens should be demarked by hedges not fencing.

3.19 Washington Parish Council (a joint Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by Washington and Storrington and Sullington Parishes) strongly object to the proposals on the same grounds as DC/15/0107, namely that the number of houses is too high, there is no preservation of green space, there are issues of access and the proposal is not in accordance with the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

3.20 The Council has received 64 letters of objection from 40 separate households and organisations. The points raised include the following: · Previous objections to DC/15/0107 have not been addressed or overcome and remain relevant · Development is not in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan. · Although the site is allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan, this has been subject to local objection and the Plan has yet to be ratified. · Neighbourhood Plan Survey indicates strong local opposition to use of greenfield sites and development of over 25 homes

115 ITEM A4 - 12

· Greenfield site should never have been considered for building · Loss of a local amenity and recreation site used for walking, exercise, play and educational field trips. · More houses are not required here · Overdevelopment of the site · Density is too high and not compatible with surrounding area · Does not relate sympathetically to the settlement pattern and character of the built-up area · Concern in respect of the location of the site outside of the village boundary · No justification for amending the built up area boundary · Concern regarding loss of trees and vegetation · Harm to the character of the SDNP · Loss of rural character · Development results in a loss of wildlife and habitat · Ecology survey was not sufficiently detailed · Harm to trees and vegetation, particularly the Oak trees at the access point from Bax Close · Loss of privacy to surrounding properties · Concern in respect of flood risk, as water levels in the stream behind Bax Close often rises and has caused part of the garden of 8 Bax Close to collapse · Inadequate parking provision leading to on-street parking which is dangerous and unsightly · Access from Amberley Road makes more sense than from Bax Close · Children play in Bax Close, which currently only serves 13 dwellings · Applicant’s Transport Statement does not accurately represent a number of matters including existing vehicle movement levels, accessibility to public transport, existing vehicle speeds and visibility splays at junctions near the site. · A Transport Assessment should be provided · Proposal will add to existing traffic problems · Existing on-street parking on Bax Close and New Town Road is dangerous · New Town Road and Bax Close are not two-way in places and lack pedestrian walkways in some areas. · There are no cycle facilities and Amberley Road is dangerous for cyclists · Public transport provision is poor in this area · Few residents will walk into the village, and most journeys will be made by car · Harm to the Storrington Air Quality Management Area and exacerbation of associated health problems · TRICS assessment is not based on suitable comparable sites · Traffic survey was undertaken at a time when traffic was reduced on the roads due to people avoiding roadworks that were being carried out. · Junction of New Town Road and Amberley Road has poor visibility. · Junction with Pulborough Road has a difficult, five-way layout. · Speeds are excessive on surrounding roads. Many are used as rat-runs to the A27 by commuters. · Residents will suffer noise and odour from the adjacent pig farm · Residents will suffer noise from Amberley Road · Local facilities, particularly doctors and schools, are under capacity pressures already · There is no dentist in Storrington · Sewage infrastructure is at capacity. Some residents experienced rising sewage when Bax Close was built · Electricity supply is overstretched, with frequent power cuts · No consideration given to protection of Grade II listed Cobb Court. Proposal would harm the setting of Cobb Court due to proximity and scale of development. · Proposed pumping station would be noisy and hazardous to health · Insufficient detail has been provided in respect of the proposed pumping station and its future maintenance

116 ITEM A4 - 13

· No details of safety measures around the proposed balancing pond have been provided. · Detrimental impact on flight paths into and out of Parham Airfield · Residents are likely to experience noise disturbance from aircraft movements · Concern about precedent for future applications at nearby sites · A full archaeology report should be produced · Concern regarding impact of construction phase on residential amenity

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

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 ASSESSMENTS

Main Issues

6.1 The principal issues in the determination of the application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government guidance, local Development Plan policies and any other material considerations. This application follows the refusal of application DC/15/0107, which proposed a development of 45 dwellings. The reasons for refusal of that application are set out in full in the Planning History section and the Officers’ report of that application is appended to this report. The main considerations in assessing this application are therefore whether the revised scheme addresses the previous reasons for refusal and whether there have been any other changes, for example to the on-site situation or to the Policy context, since the previous refusal which would warrant a different view being taken.

Changes Since Previous Refusal and Impact on Consideration of the Principle of Development

6.2 In comparison to DC/15/0107, the proposed development has been reduced in scale from 45 dwellings to 35, and these are sited across a smaller area of land with a greater proportion of the site retained as open space in the southern part of the site. The maximum height of buildings within the proposed development has been reduced from 9.3m to 8.8m. An existing belt of trees across the middle of the site is now proposed for retention, although the access road would cut through this. Buildings fronting the access road have been set slightly further back into their plots, increasing the front garden space. No terraced dwellings are now proposed, and the scheme only comprises detached and semi-detached dwellings.

6.3 In terms of other changes since the previous refusal, the weight afforded to the HDPF in decision making has increased in light of the Inspector’s Report of 8th October 2015, which found the draft HDPF to be sound. When adopted, the HDPF will demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and this is now a significant material consideration in decision making. In addition, the Parishes of Storrington and Sullington and Washington have prepared a draft Neighbourhood Plan which has been out to public consultation. The Neighbourhood

117 ITEM A4 - 14

Plan can be afforded limited weight in decision making as it has not been to referendum and has not been formally ‘Made’ by the Council.

6.4 The previous application was determined at a time when less weight was afforded to the emerging HDPF, as the Examination in Public of the HDPF was at that time suspended to allow time for the Council to show how annual housing provision could be increased to allow for an increased provision of dwellings per annum. At section 9.2 of the Officers’ report of DC/15/0107, the Officer sets out that although the urbanising form of development would fail to meet the fundamental constraints of established settlement policy, the absence of strategy and site allocations to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply plus 5% buffer was a significant material consideration which carried very substantial weight, and at paragraph 9.6.5 that “the provision of housing is a material social benefit sufficient in weight to, in principle, consider the site outside of the settlement boundary”. The report of DC/15/0107 also made reference to adoption of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD, which allowed for the development of sites outside of, but contiguous with, the built- up area boundary (such as the application site), in order to assist in addressing the shortfall in housing allocations through the Development Plan. In light of the Policy context in which the previous application was considered, the reasons for refusal of DC/15/0107 therefore did not refer to any ‘in principle’ objection to the development of the site, and instead focussed on the landscape harm and other harm arising from the detail of the proposal.

6.5 While the starting point for assessment of any proposed development remains the Adopted Development Plan, and therefore the same considerations of DC/15/0107 such as compliance with the FAD SPD still apply, consideration must also be given to other material considerations, which in this case now includes the emerging HDPF. The updated Policy context in which we are now considering the proposal does provide for a 5-year housing land supply (as confirmed by the Inspector in his report of 8th October 2015) and the HDPF will supersede the FAD SPD. As such, it is appropriate to now give the HDPF significant weight in assessing the acceptability of the principle of development on this site. The HDPF seeks to maintain the District’s unique character, whilst ensuring sustainable growth. Policy 2 sets out the overall strategy for growth of focussing development in the main settlements. This spatial strategy includes the requirement to retain and enhance natural environmental resources, including landscapes and landscape character, biodiversity, and retaining and enhancing environmental quality. The development hierarchy is set out at HDPF Policy 3, and this lists Storrington as one of the ‘Small Towns and Larger Villages’, which are those with some local services, but which also have some reliance on larger settlements to meet their requirements. The HDPF acknowledges the need to expand settlements outside of existing built-up area boundaries in order to meet housing demand. Policy 4 states that development outside of built-up area boundaries will be supported where the site is allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan or Local Plan and adjoins an existing settlement edge. In addition, Policy 15 sets out how the District will deliver the required dwellings to meet housing need. This includes strategic allocations, a small number of windfall sites and at least 1500 homes through allocations in Neighbourhood Plans.

6.6 As set out above, the Draft Storrington, Sullington and Washington Neighbourhood Plan can be afforded little weight in decision making as it has not been through referendum and ‘Made’ by the District Council. However, a Draft Neighbourhood Plan can provide a good indication of those developments which could be acceptable to local residents, and therefore requires some consideration when determining applications in an area covered by a Draft NP. The northern part of this site is allocated in the Draft NP, but the proposed development extends into an area identified as Green Space by Policy 18 of the Draft NP. The proposal also takes access from Bax Close, rather than Amberley Road, which is specified in the Draft NP policy. Therefore, even if the Neighbourhood Plan were ‘Made’, and therefore afforded significant weight in decision making, the proposal in its current form would be in conflict with the access requirements for development coming forward under the allocation in Policy 2(iv) and with the Green Space designation in Policy 18.

118 ITEM A4 - 15

6.7 Notwithstanding the conflicts arising between the application proposal and the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, the current situation is that the site is not allocated for development in a Neighbourhood Plan or other Local Plan document and therefore its development is contrary to the strategy for growth set out in Policies 2, 3, 4 and 15 of the HDPF. In terms of the principle of development, this is a materially different conclusion from that taken in respect of DC/15/0107. However, this is considered to be justified given the different Policy context in which the application is now being determined.

Consideration of the First Reason for Refusal of DC/15/0107

6.8 The first reason for refusal of DC/15/0107 related to the development causing harm to the rural landscape of the site and its surroundings, the rural gap between the settlement edge of Storrington and the SDNP, the setting of the SDNP and views to and from the site of the SDNP. Section 9.3 of the Officers’ report of DC/15/0107 provides greater detail in respect of the landscape impacts of the proposal. Reference was made to a ‘wall’ of development with little visual permeability, and the extent of dwellings and their height within the context of the surrounding landscape. The resulting dense form of development was considered to site uncomfortably within the rural context. The projection of development into the southern corner of the site was cited as having an urbanising impact.

6.9 The SDNP Authority maintains their objection to the proposal, citing the need for a 60 to 80 metre wide buffer strip in order to maintain separation to the SDNP. The Council’s Landscape Consultant also maintains an objection to the proposal, citing again the density of built form, proximity to open countryside and effectiveness of boundary vegetation to screen the development as reasons for the development being perceived as an urbanising feature, and poorly related to the adjacent townscape. It is also noted by the Landscape Consultant that the development would be visible in some wider views, particularly from the public footpath to the west, and from more elevated footpaths in the SDNP.

6.10 While the southern tip of the proposed developed area lies fairly close to the boundary with Amberley Road, a buffer of about 20 metres is provided between the boundary with Amberley Road and the rear gardens of plots 12, 15 and 16. In respect of plot 17, the buffer is reduced to a minimum of about 10 metres. However, these distances are to the rear boundary of gardens serving these plots, and the dwellings themselves are therefore sited about 10 metres further from the site boundary. Therefore, a 30m buffer to any built form is provided in respect of most of the site, and only the southern tip of development (largely Plot 17 and part of the turning head) encroaches into this. This landscaped buffer would include the existing retained trees and hedge, and reinforcement and maintenance of this vegetation can be required by condition to ensure that it continues to function as a screen. While the development would inevitably result in light spill from the dwellings and street lighting required for safety, this is not sufficient in itself in this instance to raise objection. In any event it is considered that conditions can be used to ensure that external lighting is limited to only that which is essential, in order to address this concern. In terms of the density of development, this has been reduced in the southern part of the site, with detached dwellings set with driveways and single storey garages separating them. Terraced houses have also been removed from the scheme, which now comprises semi- detached and detached dwellings only, and of a lower height than previously proposed. This creates a more spacious layout than proposed by DC/15/0107. The concerns of the SDNPA are noted, but it is considered that the buffer provided by the proposed layout would be sufficient to soften the appearance of the development when viewed from Amberley Road. The landscaped buffer and increased area of open space now provided in the southern part of the site, coupled with the increased spaciousness and reduced density of dwellings at the southern end of the development serves to provide the transition from settlement to countryside which was lacking from the previous submission. The proposal

119 ITEM A4 - 16

also includes retention of most of a wide planted strip across the middle of the site, which results in the revised proposal better respecting existing landscape features of the site.

6.11 The comments of both the SDNPA and the Landscape Consultant are noted. However, when the current proposal is compared in detail to the refused scheme DC/15/0107 and the discussion of landscape harm set out in the Officers’ report of that application, the revised scheme addresses the points raised therein. In light of this, it is considered that the current proposal addresses the landscape concerns raised in the first reason for refusal of DC/15/0107 and this is no longer applicable to the current scheme.

6.12 It is also useful to note at this stage that taking access from an alternative point on Amberley Road (as suggested in a number of letters of representation and by the Draft Neighbourhood Plan) would require the removal of a large swathe of this existing landscaping to create the access and visibility splays, which would increase the visibility of the development site from the SDNP boundary, reduce the screening of the development site and impact on the transition to the countryside. Any access from Amberley Road would also need to cross the area designated as Green Space in the Draft NP in order to reach the draft residential allocation.

Consideration of the Second Reason for Refusal of DC/15/0107

6.13 This reason related to the failure of the proposal to relate well to the character of the adjacent and surrounding townscape. Section 9.4 of the Officers’ report of DC/15/0107 provides additional detail in respect of impact on townscape character. No objection was raised to the overall density of development, but concern was raised regarding the siting of higher density parts of the development away from the existing settlement edges, and failing to provide a transition from the settlement edge to the countryside. Particular reference was made to the visibility of denser parts of the development when viewed from Amberley Road (note that the previous proposal brought buildings much closer to the Amberley Road boundary and did not propose retention of as wide a landscaped strip to this boundary as now proposed). The amount of hardsurfacing and parking within the scheme is also referred to as contributing to the townscape character objection.

6.14 This revised proposal does not include any terraced dwellings, and proposes detached and semi-detached dwellings only, which allows for more gaps between buildings and increases the spaciousness of the development, as well as reducing the number of dwellings. A number of the dwellings and garages have been amended to have hipped roofs to the sides, which also increases spaciousness in comparison to the previous scheme in which all but two house types had gabled ends. The revised scheme sets those dwellings that face the main access road slightly further back into their plots, allowing for planting to front gardens and reducing the dominance of hardsurfacing. It also retains an existing wide planted strip in the middle of the site, which would soften the appearance of the development overall. The current proposal provides a reasonable transition from the built-up area to the countryside, as the higher density parts of the development would not be prominent when viewed from Amberley Road, given the retention of existing landscaping to this boundary and the inclusion of lower density dwellings separated from each other by driveways and landscaped strips, in the southern end of the site, closest to Amberley Road. In addition, the proposal does not present a continuous built line to the western edge of the development. This side comprises rear gardens, side elevations of buildings and landscaped areas, including the retained landscaped strip across the middle of the site, which results in only intermittent buildings on the side adjacent to the open countryside.

6.15 The proposed development layout is separated into two distinct parts by the retained landscaped strip running east-west across the approximate middle of the site. Both parts would have a higher density than surrounding development, but no objection was

120 ITEM A4 - 17

previously raised to the overall density of development, only in how that density of development related to its surroundings. It is important to note that the lower density of surrounding development is not solely a result of the spacing of buildings. The existing dwellings on Bax Close are fairly wide and closely spaced, resulting in an almost continuous wall of development on both sides of the road. The lower density of Bax Close therefore is achieved as a result of the wide plots, as opposed to the spacious setting of buildings. Dwellings on New Town Green and The Pines comprise a mix of semi- detached, terraced and detached dwellings, but achieves a lower overall density than the proposed development as a result of deeper plots, not as a result of greater spacing between buildings. As such, although the density of development proposed is greater than that of the surrounding area, the existing development does have examples of fairly closely spaced buildings resulting in the street scene appearing fairly densely developed. Consideration must therefore be given to how the proposed density of development is delivered and the integration of development with the existing street scene.

6.16 The proposed layout continues the line of Bax Close south, with a line of dwellings to the east of the access road. The dwellings on this side are separated by parking spaces and single storey garages, reflecting the rhythm of the Bax Close street scene, although the dwellings and plots are narrower than those on Bax Close. The retained landscaped strip allows for a substantial break in the building line, as does the access drive serving plots 11 and 12. On the western side of the access, the proposed development takes a more varied layout, with the northernmost dwelling oriented with its principle elevation fronting the open space around the drainage attenuation basin, followed by a pair of semi-detached dwellings facing the access road, and then a small spur to the west fronted by two pairs of semi-detached dwellings with the retained landscape strip on the opposite side of the spur road. This varied orientation to the western side of the access road continues south of the landscaped strip, with two pairs of semi-detached dwellings fronting the access road, and the remainder of buildings side-on to the access road, with a fairly wide gap provided by the back-to-back rear gardens of plots 18 and 20, which are just to the west of the access road. The orientation of buildings within the development allows for the areas of public open space to be overlooked. The proposed external materials of brick, with areas of hanging tile and render, and tile roofs reflects the predominant materials in the locality. The proposed layout therefore provides a good transition from the regular and densely developed form of Bax Close to the settlement edge through the orientation of buildings and spacing between them.

6.17 In light of the above, it is considered that the current proposal respects the existing surrounding townscape and results in an acceptable appearance. This addresses the second reason for refusal of DC/15/0107, which is therefore no longer applicable to this current proposal.

Consideration of the Third Reason for Refusal of DC/15/0107

6.18 This reason related to the absence of a Noise Impact Assessment submitted with DC/15/0107, meaning that it was not possible to demonstrate that the living conditions for future residents would be acceptable, given the traffic on Amberley Road. A Noise Assessment has been provided with this application. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer advises that the mitigation set out in the Noise Assessment (use of mechanical ventilation to dwellings and 1.8m high brick wall to gardens of plots 11, 15, 16 and 17) will serve to reduce traffic noise to the maximum level recommended by the World Health Organisation and relevant British Standard. However, the EHO raises concern that for outdoor areas, this level is still fairly high, and could still result in annoyance to future residents to the worst affected sites at Plots 11, 15, 16 17, where about 53 dB LAeq T would be achieved. These standards recommend that noise does not exceed 50 dB LAeqT, with an upper guideline value to 55 dB LAeq T, which would be acceptable in nosier environments such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport

121 ITEM A4 - 18

network, “where a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted”. The EHO advises that the developer should demonstrate that consideration has been given to the most appropriate positioning of noise sensitive receptors (dwellings and gardens) within the available site, and only then should mitigation be considered. The EHO considers that the site layout as presented is not the best option for protection of future occupants from noise and that greater separation of the building line from Amberley Road should have been considered, which may avoid, or reduce, reliance on behavioural measures such as keeping windows closed, in order to achieve acceptable internal noise levels.

6.19 However, in this case, only a small part of the development site would be subject to the higher noise levels, and this would still be within the maximum recommended levels. As such, it is not considered that refusal on the basis of noise impacts to the outdoor amenity spaces of the development could be justified. Although acceptable internal noise levels would rely on windows being kept closed, the Planning Practice Guidance indicates that this is an acceptable solution to achieving acceptable internal noise levels, stating (at paragraph 30-006-20141224) that “consideration should also be given to whether adverse internal effects can be completely removed by closing windows and, in the case of new residential development, if the proposed mitigation relies on windows being kept closed most of the time. In both cases a suitable alternative means of ventilation is likely to be necessary”. In light of this guidance, it is not considered that it would be reasonable to refuse the application on the basis of the need to include alternative means of ventilation in some of the properties. As such, it is considered that the third reason for refusal of DC/15/0107 has been addressed, and no objection is raised in respect of noise impacts and the amenity of future residents.

Consideration of the Fourth Reason for Refusal of DC/15/0107

6.20 This reason related to the absence of an Air Quality Assessment, meaning that it was not possible to demonstrate that the development would not result in unmitigated harm to the Storrington Air Quality Management Area. An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted with this application, which the EHO advises is acceptable. No objection is therefore raised in respect of air quality, subject to a condition requiring approval of a Low Emission Strategy scheme to mitigate against the predicted increase in traffic emissions. As such, the fourth reason for refusal is no longer applicable and has been addressed.

Consideration of the Fifth Reason for Refusal of DC/15/0107

6.21 This reason related to the absence of a Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and financial contributions to infrastructure provision. Although the Applicant proposes to provide a policy-compliant level of affordable housing (40% under the current Development Plan, 35% under the HDPF), and the necessary financial contributions to infrastructure provision and improvements, these must be properly secured in order to ensure their delivery, and therefore address the Policy requirements. This must be secured by a Legal Agreement. As no Legal Agreement is in place at this time, there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements and therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Core Strategy and Policies 16 and 39 of the HDPF.

Other Matters

6.22 The previous reasons for refusal did not make reference to odour impacts, heritage assets, flooding impacts, archaeology, ecology, tree protection, amenity of neighbours, parking provision or highways. The comments of the EHO in respect of odour impacts to future residents arising from the proximity to the pig farm to the west (which has been subject to complaints in the past) are noted. However, the EHO also raised this concern in respect of

122 ITEM A4 - 19

the previous application, and this was not considered a strong enough concern to warrant refusal of the previous application. As such, it is not considered reasonable to introduce this as a reason for refusal at this stage. Comments from third parties in respect of tree protection and heritage assets (Cobb Cottage to the north is a listed building) are also noted. However, access was also taken via a route between protected trees in the previous application, and it was concluded that this could be constructed without harm to the protected trees. It was also previously considered that the proposal would not result in harm to the setting of Cobb Cottage, and the revised layout does not result in a material difference to the effect on the historic setting. The ecology consultant advises that surveys and mitigation are acceptable, but updates to these can be required by condition prior to implementation to ensure that the mitigation measures remain relevant. In terms of the amenity of neighbouring residents, the dwellings now proposed would be sited a similar distance from existing boundaries with neighbouring properties, and would not result in a materially different impact on residential amenity to the previous scheme. In terms of parking and highways, WSCC as the highway authority raised no objection to the previous scheme, and now raise no objection to the current proposal (subject to conditions). The situation now proposed is no different and does not warrant a different conclusion being drawn in these respects.

6.23 The reasons for refusal of DC/15/0107 did not relate to flooding and drainage. The Council’s Drainage Engineer has identified areas where the submitted Flood Risk Assessment was lacking information. The Applicant has submitted a revised Drainage Strategy in response to this.

Conclusion

6.24 Although the proposal has attracted objections from the SDNPA and the Council’s Landscape Consultant, it is considered that the revisions made to the scheme in comparison to DC/15/0107, address the matters set out in the first reason for refusal of DC/15/0107 and which were expanded upon in the Officers’ Report of that application. The second (townscape harm), third (noise impacts) and fourth (air quality) reasons for refusal of DC/15/0107 have also been addressed. The fifth reason for refusal remains applicable, as there is no completed Legal Agreement in place at the time of drafting.

6.26 While the previous reasons for refusal did not make reference to the development of the site being objectionable in principle, the Policy context in which the application is being considered has changed since the previous refusal, and the HDPF does not allow for the development of sites outside of the built-up area if they are not allocated in the Local Plan or a Neighbourhood Plan, which this site is not. As such, it is considered that a change in the Council’s consideration of the principle of development here is justified in this instance.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 To refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The application site is located outside of the built-up area boundary and is not allocated for residential development in a Made Neighbourhood Plan. The development of the site is therefore contrary to the emerging spatial strategy for growth in Horsham District and is contrary to Policies 2, 3, 4 and 15 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

2. Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more, while the emerging HDPF Policy 16 requires 35%. Policy CP13 and Policy HDPF 39 require new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No

123 ITEM A4 - 20

completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, the emerging HDPF Policies 16 and 39 and to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.

Note to the Applicant: 1. The reason for refusal in respect of affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions could be addressed by the completion of a Legal Agreement. If the Applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application, you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

Background Papers: Officers’ Report of DC/15/0107

124 ITEM A4 - 21

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21 April 2015 Full Application for the construction of 45 two storey residential dwellings DEVELOPMENT: (Class C3) comprising of 8 x 2 bed, 16 x 3 bed, 14 x 4 bed, 5 x 5 bed, 2 x 6 bed with associated access works, landscaping and open space.

SITE: Development site adjacent to 3 Bax Close, Storrington, West Sussex, RH20 4GZ WARD: Storrington APPLICATION: DC/15/0107 APPLICANT: Bovis Homes and Rotrust Nominees

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be refused.

1.0 THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1.1 To consider the planning application.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

2.1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 45 residential dwellings on the site described in section 3.0 of this report. The proposed dwellings range from two bedrooms to six bedrooms and are all of two storeys in height.

2.1.2 Vehicular access to/from the site is taken from the southern end of Bax Close, which is a recent development of two storey detached properties. Footpaths connect the built-up part of the development site with the eastern and southern boundaries where the site meets Amberley Road. The proposed dwellings range in height between 7.8m and 9.3m (external ground level to the ridge).

2.1.3 Parking will be provided to the total sum of 124 spaces and this is dis-aggregated to 34 garage spaces, 80 allocated/off-street parking spaces, and 10 visitor parking spaces.

2.1.4 A schedule of the proposed market and affordable housing is provided below:

125 ITEM A4 - 22

Unit Number of Market Number of Affordable % of Total as Units Units Affordable Units 2 bed unit 0 8 17.8% 3 bed unit 8 8 17.8% 4 bed unit 12 2 4.4% 5 bed unit 5 0 0% 6 bed unit 2 0 0% TOTAL 45 18 40%

2.1.5 The planning application has not been supported by a draft s.106 agreement to secure appropriate and reasonable planning contributions.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

3.1.1 The application site comprises of open grass land positioned in a triangular shape between the southern end of Bax Close, the eastern edge of rear gardens belonging to residential properties in New Town Road and Downlands, and the B2139 (Amberley Road) to the south. The site is bordered by mature trees and scrub vegetation. A stream and mature trees align the western side of the site.

3.1.2 The application site is located outside of the Built-Up Area Boundary of Storrington, but is contiguous along its eastern side. The site sits immediately adjacent to the South Downs National Park, the boundary of which touches at the southern tip of the site before continuing along its south-eastern side along the Amberley Road. The grade II listed building of Cobb Court is positioned to the north-east of the application site and has a curtilage that comprises of the residential garden to its southern side.

3.1.3 The site is gently undulating with the highest point being along the southern side of the site, and the lowest point being in the northern corner adjacent to Bax Close. There is a more discernable slope to the site when viewed from Amberley Road and the southern edge of the field that sits adjacent. The site is divided into two visibly distinct sections by the broadleaved tree group; G12.

3.1.4 The public footpath (no. 2972) crosses the northern part of the application site, and a permissive footpath connects this to Amberley Road, and continuation thereof of the public footpath (no. 2660) to the east. There is an informal circuit of footpaths on the application site, that at the time of the Officer’s visit were in use by members of the public including several dog walkers.

3.1.5 The residential development of Bax Close sits on the northern side of the application site with two storey flank elevations facing onto the northern part of the proposed scheme. Three large mature Oak trees soften this inter-face between Bax Close and the application site. The rear gardens belonging to properties in New Town Road and Downlands are softened by mature tree and shrub planting along the rear of their curtilages.

3.1.6 The application site projects outwards from the defined settlement edge of Storrington in a wedge shaped piece of land that does not follow the gradual curve of the established urban edge around Bax Close, New Town Road, and to the south of Amberley Road, Amberley Gate. This is evident from views along Amberley Road notwithstanding the partial screening afforded to the site from broadleaved tree groups G27 and G41.

126 ITEM A4 - 23

4.0 INTRODUCTION

4.1 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

4.1.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1999

4.2 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

4.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Planning Practice Guidance (2014)

4.3 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

4.3.1 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007:

CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character CP2 – Environmental Quality CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development CP5 – Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land CP12 – Meeting Housing Need CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements CP19 – Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport

4.3.2 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007:

DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement DC2 – Landscape Character DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology DC6 – Woodland and Trees DC7 – Flooding DC8 – Renewable Energy and Climate Change DC9 – Development Principles DC18 – Smaller Homes/ Housing Mix DC40 – Transport and Access

4.3.3 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Proposals Map 2007

4.3.4 Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) - The Emerging Local Plan:

“The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent Examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings on 19th December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

‘On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and

127 ITEM A4 - 24

Billingshurst, to be sound. The proposal for some development in villages, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans (NP), is also justified and accords with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services..’

4.5 RELEVANT COUNCIL GUIDANCE

4.5.1 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Planning Obligations, Supplementary Planning Document 2007

4.5.2 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Facilitating Appropriate Development, Supplementary Planning Document 2009

4.5.3 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (March 2014)

4.5.4 Horsham District Landscape Capacity Assessment (2013)

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1.1 There is no recent or relevant planning history on the application site.

5.1.2 The development of 15 houses in Bax Close was granted permission under application reference: SR/18/00 (outline) and SR/19/02 (reserved matters). The development has been completed and is largely occupied.

6.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

6.1 INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

6.1.1 Landscape Consultant: Objection

6.1.2 Arboricultural Officer: No observations subject to conditions

6.1.3 Environmental Health Officer: Request for more information on noise impact and air quality.

6.1.4 Drainage Engineer: No objection subject to conditions

128 ITEM A4 - 25

6.2 OUTSIDE AGENCIES

6.2.1 WSCC Highways: No objection subject to conditions

6.2.2 WSCC Planning Division: Request for planning contributions towards: education (£333,681); libraries (£14,992), fire & rescue (£5,230), and transport accessibility demand (£125,732)

6.2.3 WSCC Ecology: No objection subject to conditions

6.2.4 Environment Agency: No objection

6.2.5 Natural England: No objection subject to advice in respect of biodiversity gain

6.2.6 Southern Water: No objection subject to condition

6.2.7 Sussex Police: No objection subject to advice in respect of crime prevention

6.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

6.3.1 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council:

Objects on the following grounds:

The proposal does not comply with the evolving Storrington and Sullington Neighbourhood Plan, which states that: access must be from Amberley Road and not Bax Close; 3/4 bed properties not 5/6 bed properties; 40 houses and not 45 houses; fencing is contrary to the NP; the proposal is too high a density. Members of the Parish Council also note that the SDNPA objects.

6.3.2 Public Consultation Responses:

At the time of writing, a total of 122 third party objections to the proposed development were received. The main points of objection have been summarised as follows:

· Impact on highway safety, increased congestion and poor accessibility in Bax Close and surrounding road network; · Impact on landscape and views · Impact on South Downs National Park · Unsustainable development · Concerns raised against specific details of the housing and scheme · Potential impact on trees, hedgerows and vegetation · Impact on heritage · Potential impact on biodiversity and ecology · Harm caused to air quality within Storrington · Impact on operations of gliding club · Impact arising from lighting · Flooding and drainage issues raised

7.0 HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

129 ITEM A4 - 26

7.1.1 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.

8.0 HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

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

9.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

9.1 The main planning issues relevant to this application are: (i) whether the application can be said to amount to sustainable development in terms of adhering to the three functions: economic; social and environmental under paragraph 7 of the Framework; (ii) the impact of the development in terms of material planning considerations including landscape, townscape, heritage assets, highway safety, capacity and accessibility and the amenity of future and neighbouring properties (not exhaustive); and (iv) if considered sustainable, having regard to any adverse impacts of the application scheme, whether these would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the application scheme.

9.2 The Approach to Sustainable Development in the Countryside

9.2.1 The application site is located outside of the settlement boundary and within the countryside. The proposal amounts to an urbanising form of development in respect of a housing scheme for 45 dwellings, as well as ancillary parking, landscaping and open recreation space.

9.2.2 This is a proposal for a major residential development. It is an urbanising form of development, and it is on this basis alone that it would fail to meet the fundamental constraints of established settlement policy, which in the case of Horsham District Council, is controlled through policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

9.2.3 Paragraphs 47 and 49 require the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing supply. The Local Planning Authority is presently unable to demonstrate that it has a deliverable housing land supply, with the most recent AMR (2013/14) showing a total of approximately 60% on the basis of a 5% buffer.

9.2.4 It is on this basis that, the shortfall in housing land supply and the particular need for affordable housing, as Inspector Woolnough expressed in the Melton Drive, Storrington decision (para 95 of appeal ref: 13/2202943), are “highly significant material considerations and carry very substantial weight” potentially sufficient to overcome the policy restriction in DC1 of the fundamental settlement constraint.

9.2.5 It is not however, sufficient to state that a deficiency in housing land supply renders all policies out of date (paras 28 to 34, RMC Washington decision, PINS Ref: 12/2176793). Whilst a lack of housing land supply is sufficient to relax the settlement constraint policy DC1 and allow the theoretical principle of housing development into the countryside, policies for assessing the acceptability of this development such as CP1, DC2 and DC40, are not out of date and continue to be applied.

130 ITEM A4 - 27

9.2.6 The framework under which these policies are applied in the case of Horsham District Council is the Supplementary Planning Document entitled Facilitating Appropriate Development. This has been termed a toolkit for assessing the sustainability credentials of contiguous development to the settlement boundary against those policies (amongst others) detailed in 7.2.4. This is confirmed in paragraphs 32 to 34 of the Melton Drive decision. The 18 criteria fulfil the function of a test under which the 3 strands of sustainable development, as expressed in paragraph 7 of the Framework, can be assessed.

9.2.7 Turning to the principle acceptability of the proposed development of 45 dwellings on the application site, the cumulative effect of the harm that would be caused to the landscape character, visual amenity, townscape character, and particularly the adverse effect on the setting of the South Downs National Park, represents a significant and demonstrably harmful impact resulting from the proposal. The extent of this significant adverse impact is sufficient to conclude that the development cannot be considered to be sustainable in terms of the harmful environmental consequences of the proposal.

9.2.8 Even were the social and economic benefits of the proposal sufficient to concede that the development maybe considered sustainable under paragraph 7 of the Framework, the environmental impact of the proposal, in and of itself, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting planning permission.

9.3 Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

9.3.1 Paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles) of the Framework requires that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy states that the landscape character of the District, including the settlement pattern, together with the townscape character of settlements will be maintained and enhanced. Activities which may influence character should only take place where the landscape and townscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced, taking into account key landscape and settlement characteristics.

9.3.2 The site is within the setting of the South Downs National Park, and paragraph 115 of the Framework is highly relevant to the consideration of this application:

“Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding National Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.”

9.3.3 The application site is characterised by its rural nature and has been classified within the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment (2014) as having a no/low capacity for new major development. Whilst the site does adjoin the defined settlement edge of Storrington, and there is some urban pressure on the site by reason of conifer trees, close boarded fencing and overlooking from neighbouring residential properties, these boundaries are on the whole, well treed and vegetated with only glimpsed views through to the residential dwellings within the built up area.

9.3.4 The site is located within the E1 Parham and Storrington Wooded Farmlands and Heaths, which is an area that is characterised by its rolling landform and small mostly well-hedged pasture fields. The character area is also considered within the LCA as “despite the proximity of the urban edge of Storrington... the area retains surprisingly rural qualities”. It is this character that is germane to the application site, and which there is a need to ensure that development respects.

131 ITEM A4 - 28

9.3.5 Under the planning and management guidelines for the area, the LCA recommends that there is a need to:

o Conserve the undeveloped, rural tranquil character; o Ensure that any small-scale housing development on the edge of Storrington responds to traditional settlement patterns and local design and materials; o Conserve and manage the existing hedgerow network to maintain small-scale field patterns.

9.3.6 Whilst any residential development within the countryside would undoubtedly have a harmful effect, and is a consequence of considering edge of settlement sites for housing, the impact of a major residential development on the rural characteristics of this site and the surrounding area is considered to be significantly harmful.

9.3.7 The Applicant’s landscape report considers that the site is in a poor condition and therefore has a high capacity for new development, whereas conversely the Council’s landscape consultant has advised that it is their opinion that the site is not unduly harmed by the urban impact of Storrington, and that it performs an important rural buffer between the edge of the existing settlement and the area of high landscape value to the south and west within the South Downs National Park. It is the opinion of the Council’s landscape consultants that is to be preferred.

9.3.8 Specific concerns are raised with the close proximity of dwellings on the site that creates a ‘wall’ of development with little visual permeability, as well as the extent of their height within the context of the surrounding landscape. The effect of this layout and ‘wall’ of houses within the site is to create the impression of a dense form of development that sits uncomfortably within the existing rural context. The development projects outwards from the existing settlement boundary and into the southern corner of the site closest to the South Downs National Park thereby having a distinctly urbanising impact.

9.3.9 The proposed development would represent a scheme that has a significant massing of buildings and change in character from rural to very urban. This very urban form of development would infill the existing gap between the edge of the settlement of Storrington and the start of the South Downs National Park. This change will be felt as one traverses along the Amberley Road and also along the public footpath 2972, thereby fundamentally and significantly harming existing views to, from and within the site.

9.3.10 The site can be viewed from the South Downs National Trail and from other areas along the South Downs ridge, particularly the southern end where the land rises upwards. It is noteworthy that these views are described within the consultation response from the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA), and are considered to be harmed by the proposed development. The SDNPA have also raised strong concerns in respect of the infilling of the landscape gap between the edge of Storrington and the National Park boundary, and are concerned with the noise and lighting that would accompany any development having a deleterious impact on the tranquil rural character of the park, as well as the dark night sky, which is a priority of the SDNPA to achieve.

9.3.11 The proposed development is considered to have a significantly harmful impact on the rural character of the site and its immediate context, it will result in the change from a rural area to a very urban form of development, thereby substantially comprising the landscape character and views to and from the South Downs National Park. Consequently, the proposal cannot be said to comply with policies CP1, CP3 and DC2 of the Horsham District Council: Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

132 ITEM A4 - 29

9.4 Townscape Character

9.4.1 Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy requires that new development respects the existing character of the townscape, and this is reinforced through paragraph 57 of the Framework whereby developments that ‘respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials’ are to be encouraged.

9.4.2 The character of the townscape adjacent to and in the context of the application site comprises of detached two storey dwellings in relatively spacious plots. The character of Bax Close is predominantly less sylvan than the surrounding older development along the western side of New Town Road, however overall the existing townscape amounts to detached houses in well treed and vegetated plots. The density of development in the adjacent urban area is markedly lower than the denser parts of the application proposal.

9.4.3 Whilst there are no concerns raised with the general density of the site overall, the layout of development and density on the application site is of concern. This is particularly in respect of the lower density detached houses being positioned closer to the settlement edge near the access into Bax Close, and the denser forms of development such as the terraced housing being positioned further away from the settlement edge. The layout of the development on the site is considered to be inappropriate by failing to provide a transition in scale and density from the settlement edge extending outwards into the countryside.

9.4.4 The proposed development increases in density, and the separation distances get lower, as one traverses further out from the settlement edge into the countryside. The development becomes much more urban the further away from Storrington one gets, and this will be markedly evident from views along Amberley Road. The harm that this would cause is an awkward townscape arrangement whereby as one travels south out of Storrington, the density and built form decreases immediately after passing the junction with New Town Road, only to spike back up with a wall of the rear elevations of terraced and semi-detached properties (plots 13 to 21).

9.4.5 The development is also heavily dominated by parking areas and hard-surfacing at the sacrifice of any reasonable opportunity for strong tree planting within the street scenes. The effect of this is to maximise the built form on the site to create a very harsh urban environment in a sensitive part of the site. Notwithstanding other concerns raised in respect of the harm caused to the landscape character of the site, the arrangement of development across the proposal is considered to be awkward and too urban for it to relate appropriately to the surrounding layout and pattern of the townscape that the scheme will be bolted onto.

9.4.6 The application is therefore not considered to be in accordance with policies CP1, CP3 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007). Moreover, by failing to relate appropriately to the surrounding townscape for the above reasons, it is considered to be of poor design and fails to take any opportunities to improve the character of the area, and is therefore contrary to paragraphs 58, 61 and 64 of the Framework. The latter paragraph thereby intending that permission should be refused solely on the grounds of poor design irrespective of any planning balance – it is a restrictive footnote 9 policy (paragraph 14(2), bullet point ii).

9.5 Heritage Assets

9.5.1 Paragraph 128 of the Framework requires that Local Planning Authorities assess the significance of heritage assets and the impacts of a proposal. The application site is positioned to the south-west of Cobb Court, which is a detached two storey residential dwelling dating back to circa 1800. The building is grade II listed.

133 ITEM A4 - 30

9.5.2 The building is positioned on the northern side of the plot and is surrounded to the west by the new development of Bax Close, and to the south by residential development. At the time of the Officer’s site visit, the listed building was not visible from the northern parts of the application site owing to the intervening boundary vegetation, however it was evident that glimpses of the upper storeys of the new development would most likely be visible (especially during the winter months) when constructed.

9.5.3 The fact that the application site adjoins the curtilage of the listed building of Cobb Court, if only at a point, and by reason of the proximity and potential for the upper floors to be visible from Cobb Court, results in the site being within the setting of the listed building. It is therefore important to consider whether there would be an impact on the setting, and if so whether this impact (if less than substantial) is outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.

9.5.4 It is considered that the harm caused by the development, having in mind the extent of visual separation and the surrounding development that has already taken place within the listed building’s setting, means that there would be a slight, less than substantial harm. Whilst it is important to give considerable weight to this harm to the setting of the listed building, it is nonetheless considered to be outweighed by the social and economic benefits of the construction of 45 new residential homes. Consequently, the application is considered to be in accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework, together with the objectives of policy DC13 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

9.5.5 The application has been considered having in mind other listed buildings that are set a much further distance away from the application site to the west, however as the site is not considered to be within their setting, no impact would be experienced.

9.6 Housing Mix, Density, Affordable Housing & Tenure

9.6.1 Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) requires that new housing developments provide a mixed size of units, with at least 64% as small dwellings of one or two bedrooms. Of the total 45 dwellings being provided as part of this development, 8 of the units, or 17%, are either one or two bedroom with the remainder being three bedrooms or larger. The development therefore fails to achieve the target of 64%.

9.6.2 Nonetheless, policy DC18 also provides scope for the percentage of small dwellings to be less than 64% when the concentration of one and two bed units would be out of character with the surrounding landscape and townscape of the site.

9.6.3 In consideration of the size and scale of detached residential properties adjacent to the site, and importantly the sensitivity of any development being placed on the application site, the concentration of a higher number of smaller units such as in a flatted arrangement is considered to be out of character. The development therefore accords with the objectives of policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

9.6.4 The application provides 18 of the 45 dwellings on the site as affordable. These affordable homes comprise of 8 x two bed units, 8 x three bed units, and 2 x four bed units. All of the proposed affordable units will be social rented in tenure. The provision of affordable housing is broadly therefore policy compliant with CP12 of the Core Strategy (2007), and exceeds the requirement of policy 14 of the Horsham District Council Draft Local Plan.

9.6.5 In terms of the consideration of the sustainability of the development under paragraph 7 of the Framework, the provision of housing is a material social benefit sufficient in weight to, in principle, consider the site outside of the settlement boundary of Storrington.

134 ITEM A4 - 31

9.7 Amenity for Future Occupiers and Neighbouring Properties

9.7.1 Policy DC9 relates to Development Principles and requires development, amongst other matters, to recognise any constraints that exist, to not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding occupiers and to ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings.

9.7.2 The proposed development allows for sufficient separation distances to existing residential properties that would avoid any conflict in terms of a loss of outlook, amenity, privacy or daylight. Furthermore, the existing boundary treatment along the rear gardens of properties in New Town Road and Downlands would be retained, and acts as a natural privacy screen. The arrangement of development on the site ensures that sufficient outlook, amenity, privacy and daylight will be retained for future occupiers of the new houses.

9.7.3 Consequently, the application is considered to provide sufficient amenity to neighbouring properties and future occupiers, and is therefore compliant with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

9.8 Highways and Transport

9.8.1 Paragraph 32 of the Framework states that:

“Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”.

9.8.2 The application has been accompanied by a transport statement and latterly a stage 1 road safety audit. These reports consider the appropriateness of the access arrangements through Bax Close to the development site, the geometry and safety of the access onto New Town Road, and also the implications of the increased trip generation on the surrounding highway network, including the junction of New Town Road and Amberley Road. The adequacy of these reports has been assessed by WSCC Highways.

9.8.3 Bax Close forms part of the adopted highway network and is therefore designed to a specification to accord with Manual for Streets. The geometry of the road layout within Bax Close has been considered to be acceptable for the increased trip generation created from the proposed development. Likewise, the geometry of the access onto New Town Road and the overall width and suitability of this road is also considered to be acceptable. The junction of New Town Road and Amberley Road has also been considered by the County Highway Engineer, and it is proposed to increase the visibility splays on public highway land, as well as install speed repeater signs.

9.8.4 It is acknowledged that trip generation is most sensitive around the AM and PM peaks, and this development would give rise to 27 vehicle movements between 08:00 and 09:00 and 28 vehicle movements between 17:00 and 18:00. The results of this TRIP generation assessment conclude that no formal junction capacity assessments would be required for the proposed level of vehicle movements. Whilst the County Highway Engineer is recognisant of the traffic problems being experienced in Storrington, it is determined that the impact arising from this proposal, both singularly and cumulatively is not severe. A reason for refusal would not therefore be supported under paragraph 32 of the Framework.

9.8.5 The layout and parking to be provided on the site is considered to be acceptable, and the development does provide pedestrian access to the public footpaths along the highway network at Amberley Road (directly) and New Town Road (indirectly via Bax Close). The site is within 2km (walking) and 5km (cycling) of the centre of Storrington where there are a

135 ITEM A4 - 32

range of shops and services. The site is therefore considered accessible and not car dependent. Details of construction management and access will be sought by condition.

9.8.6 The application is considered to be compliant with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) and section 4 of the Framework.

9.9 Ecology and Arboriculture

9.9.1 Paragraph 109 of the Framework states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils, recognising the wider benefits of the ecosystem services, and minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.

9.9.2 The application has been accompanied by an ecology assessment that concludes that the proposal will not cause harm to protected species, habitats and ecology on the site and in the surrounding area. The application has been assessed by the County Ecologist and by Natural England. Both have not objected to the proposal and sought the attachment of conditions for the enhancement of biodiversity on the undeveloped parts of the site.

9.9.3 The three Oak trees (T1, T2 and T3) along the southern edge of Bax Close will be retained as part of the proposed scheme with the new dwellings being kept outside of the canopies and root protection areas. The remainder of the boundary trees will mostly be retained by the development, and construction work will take place avoiding pressure being placed on the trees through the setting out of tree protection areas and through good practice in accordance with the recommendations made within the arboricultural implications assessment.

9.9.4 The application is considered to be compliant with policies CP2 and CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007), policies DC5 and DC6 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), as well as paragraph 109 of the Framework.

9.10 Flooding and Surface Water Run-Off

9.10.1 Paragraph 100 of the Framework states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The requirements of the Framework are replicated in policy DC7 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

9.10.2 The application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy that has been the subject of consideration by the Council’s Drainage Engineer, Southern Water and the Environment Agency. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is not at high risk of flooding. Whilst there is presently inadequate capacity within the existing sewers to cope with the new development, the developer will need to secure improvements in accordance with the requirements of Southern Water.

9.10.3 The contents of the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy are agreed in principle, subject to further detail being submitted and assessed by means of a planning condition. The application is therefore in accordance with paragraph 100 of the Framework and policy DC7 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

9.11 Noise Impact from Amberley Road

136 ITEM A4 - 33

9.11.1 Paragraph 123 of the Framework requires that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

9.11.2 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised concerns with the adequacy of the noise assessment that has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that satisfactory living conditions can be provided without an unacceptable impact from road traffic along the Amberley Road. Specific concerns relate to the limited duration and timing of the noise survey. The Council’s EHO has recommended that the survey be carried out over the period of one week and outside of school holidays, and at all times of day and night. This survey will more accurately inform the acceptability of residential development on the site and any mitigation measures that maybe required.

9.11.3 The importance of ascertaining this information from the outset is that the application relates to full planning permission being sought. The proposed scheme is therefore fixed in terms of the layout of properties. Similarly, the landscape sensitivity of the site is very high, particularly in respect of the site’s position next to the South Downs National Park. This means that mitigation measures that may ordinarily be acceptable such as 2.5m acoustic fencing in-between the houses and the road, maybe wholly inappropriate in terms of the landscape context and sensitivity of this site.

9.11.4 It is therefore clear that there is a need to ascertain the exact impact of the noise emanating from the road traffic along Amberley Road before accepting the detailed layout of housing on the application site (notwithstanding other objections). Any change in the layout, orientation of properties, or mitigation measures such as fencing, should therefore be considered during the course of the application in order that the matter can be resolved.

9.11.5 In the absence of an acceptable noise impact assessment therefore, there is no assurance that the living conditions of future occupants would be acceptable, and on this basis an objection is raised on the grounds that the application fails to accord with the requirements of paragraph 123 of the Framework and policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

9.12 Air Quality

9.12.1 Paragraph 124 of the Framework requires that planning policies take account of the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in the local area. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

9.12.2 Whilst the application has been supported by an air quality assessment that considers the emissions and mitigation calculator, it fails to provide for the identification of the level of exposure through the change in pollutant concentrations including the cumulative impacts arising from the proposal, during both construction operations and operational phases. The submitted assessment does not consider pollutant concentrations at relevant receptor locations together with the cumulative impacts with other committed developments.

9.12.3 In the absence of this additional information, there is no confirmation that the development would not cumulatively compromise air quality in the AQMA, and the application is therefore contrary to paragraph 124 of the Framework.

9.13 Planning Obligations

137 ITEM A4 - 34

9.13.1 Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy (2007) requires that where development places infrastructure pressures on local facilities that this impact is mitigated through the provision of planning contributions. Such planning contributions relate to community facilities, leisure open space and recreation, libraries, education, fire & rescue and improvements to transport accessibility. Also required is the securement of the affordable housing units within the proposal, which are a specific policy requirement.

9.13.2 In the event that this application is refused permission, and in the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure the aforementioned contributions, a further objection would be raised against the application.

9.14 Conclusion

9.14.1 The application proposal would have a significant harmful impact on the landscape character of the site and its surroundings. The development would also have a significant harmful impact on views to and from the site and South Downs National Park. The cumulative impact of the development is therefore substantial, and notwithstanding the socio-economic benefits brought about by the delivery of housing on the site, the proposal is considered to amount to an unsustainable form of development.

9.14.2 The development has a significant harmful impact in terms of its failure to relate sympathetically with the settlement pattern and character of the built-up area. It is a layout and density that fails to perform an appropriate transition between the settlement edge and the rural countryside. It thereby fails to provide a good design that takes the opportunity to improve the character of the area. It is both unsustainable development and contrary to the restrictive policy requirements of paragraph 64 of the Framework.

9.14.3 There is inadequate information upon which to determine that the proposed development would not suffer from significant noise impact from the Amberley Road, and there is insufficient evidence to determine that the development would mitigate its impact in terms of air quality emissions and their affect on the AQMA in Storrington.

9.14.4 It is for these reasons that the development cannot be supported. It is an unsustainable form of development that would have a wholly urbanising effect on the rural character of the countryside and would erode the tranquil setting of the South Downs National Park. The proposal would cause significant and demonstrable harm sufficient to outweigh the perceived benefits created by the provision of housing on the site. It is therefore contrary to policies and objectives of the Framework and should therefore be refused permission.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1.1 It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of the location, size, layout, height and siting of the residential development, would have a significant impact on the rural landscape of the site and its surroundings, the rural gap between the settlement edge of Storrington and the South Downs National Park together with the setting of the latter, and would cause significant harm to views to and from the site of the South Downs National Park. Therefore failing to comply with paragraphs 7, 14, 17 and 115 of the Framework, and policies CP1, CP3, DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

138 ITEM A4 - 35

2. The proposed development, by reason of the poor design, layout, scale and siting of the residential development on the site, would cause harm to and fail to relate sympathetically to the character of the adjacent and surrounding townscape, contrary to paragraphs 7, 14, 56, 61 and 64 of the Framework, and policies CP3 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. In the absence of a sufficiently robust noise impact assessment it is not possible to demonstrate that the living conditions of residential dwellings will not be significantly harmed by road traffic on Amberley Road, contrary to paragraph 123 of the Framework and policies CP2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. In the absence of a sufficiently robust air quality assessment it is not possible to demonstrate that the development would not result in cumulative and unmitigated harm to the Air Quality Management Area of Storrington, contrary to paragraph 124 of the Framework and policies CP2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007).

5. The proposed development, by reason of the lack of a completed legal agreement to secure the necessary infrastructure contributions, would have a significant, cumulative and unmitigated impact on community facilities, leisure open space and recreation, libraries, education, fire & rescue and improvements to transport accessibility, as well as fail to provide affordable housing, contrary to policies CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

Background Papers: DC/15/0107 Case Officer: James Hutchison

139 DC/15/0107

Development Site Adjacent To 3 Bax Close

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:4,288

Date 07/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

140 ITEM A5 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 19th January 2016 Demolition of existing vacant garden nurseries and associated structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide 72 units comprising 6 x 1- bed, 17 x 2-bed, 6 x 3-bed (29) affordable units and 9 x 2-bed, 15 x 3-bed and 19 x 4-bed (43) market residential units with associated car parking DEVELOPMENT: spaces, hard and soft landscaping and new access arrangements from West End Lane and Hollands Lane

(Development affects the setting of a Listed Building) SITE: Sandgate Nursery West End Lane Henfield West Sussex WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/14/0588 APPLICANT: Stonegate Homes and Littleworth Properties Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This application was refused following the resolution of Members and is now subject to an appeal. Committee agreement is requested for the introduction of two objections to the scheme, following the adoption of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

RECOMMENDATION: To authorise Officers to defend two additional reasons for objection in respect of the appeal of this application.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Application DC/14/0588 sought permission for 72 No. dwellings with associated works and was considered by Members of the Development Management (South) Committee on 17th November 2014 (that report to Committee is appended to this report). Members resolved to refuse planning permission for the following three reasons:

1. The site is identified for development at a lower density in the SHLAA and to develop the site at the density proposed would represent an overdevelopment of the site and result in an unacceptable form of development in this location.

2. The overdevelopment of the site would, by reason of the number of associated traffic movements, prejudice public safety and the efficiency of the access roads running from the site through to the A281 London Road Henfield.

Contact Officer: Lesley Westphal 141 Tel: 01403 215189 ITEM A5 - 2

3. The proposed development is unacceptable as there is no provision for contributions towards improvements to, and maintenance of, transport, education, community facilities and fire and rescue infrastructure, green space, allotments, and a Sustainable Urban Drainage System and is therefore contrary to Policy CP13 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

1.2 An appeal against the refusal of DC/14/0588 has subsequently been lodged to be dealt with by Public Inquiry.

1.3 Since the application was considered and determined, the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) has been adopted and now forms the Development Plan for Horsham District. Following the resulting evolution of the policy background to this scheme and the consequent changes to the balancing exercise required, two further reasons for objection to this scheme are now considered appropriate by Officers. These reasons relate to the principle of development of the site, given its situation outside of the built-up area, and the impact of the proposed development on the setting of a nearby heritage asset, and are proposed as follows:

1. The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside the defined built- up area boundary of Horsham, on a site not allocated for development within the Horsham District Planning Framework, or an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. The Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and consequently this scheme would be contrary to the overarching strategy and hierarchical approach of concentrating development within the main settlements. Furthermore the proposed development is not essential to its countryside location and would cause harm to the landscape character of the area. Consequently it represents unsustainable development contrary to Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 25 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) and paragraphs 7, 14, and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. The proposed development would cause unacceptable permanent and irreversible harm to the rural setting of the Grade II Listed Building, Camellia Cottage. This harm would not be outweighed by any public benefits arising from the proposed development and as such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policies 26 and 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) and paragraphs 7, 14, 126 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION, POLICY & PLANNING HISTORY

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Please refer to the original report appended

2.3 Historic England – Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Notes 1, 2 & 3 (March 2015) English Heritage – Conservation Principles, Policies & Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Horsham District Planning Framework (2015)

142 ITEM A5 - 3

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/15/0412 Demolition of the existing vacant Garden Nurseries and Pending associated structures and the redevelopment of the site to Consideration provide 82 units, comprising 12 x 1 bed, 17 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed (35) affordable units and 13 x 2 bed, 16 x 3 bed and 18 x 4 bed (47) residential units, with associated car parking spaces, hard and soft landscaping, and new access arrangements from West End Lane and Hollands Lane

Affects the setting of a Listed Building

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Design & Conservation: (summarised comments)

· The Sandgate Nursery site occupies a semi-rural location on the western edge of Henfield village, providing open space and glimpses southwards of the designated South Downs National Park between the edge of the existing 20th century housing at Hollands Road to the east and the Grade II listed Camellia Cottage with its associated barn (now converted) and other farmstead buildings to the west. The site is approximately 500m west of the Henfield Conservation Area boundary and does not contain any designated heritage assets, but shares its western boundary with Camellia Cottage.

· In order to ensure the development meets the requirements of national and local planning policy, it is therefore necessary to consider the potential impact of the proposed development on the setting of the listed building and curtilage listed farmstead. It should however be noted that matters of setting are not restricted to publicly accessible locations as this can vary over time. The site was visited in August and early December 2015. Camellia Cottage and the barn were viewed from the application site and publicly accessible areas only.

· Camellia Cottage was formerly known as Dears Farm, under which the name appears on historic maps. The building is listed Grade II. It is described as a ‘C16th timber-framed house rebuilt in red brick. Tiled roof. Casement windows. Two storeys. Three windows’. A modern two storey extension has been added to the south of the building. This reflects the character of the original house but is clearly discernible as a recent intervention. The house is oriented at right angles to West End Lane, presenting its main facade to the west and its associated farm buildings, which include a barn on an east-west axis and a smaller outbuilding also on an east-west axis, adjacent to West End Lane. The barn is now in residential use and

143 ITEM A5 - 4

occupies an evidently separate curtilage to Camellia Cottage but the farmstead context and relationship between the buildings remains easily read.

· The Henfield Extensive Urban Survey (EUS) identifies the origins of the parish as scattered farmstead settlements, which still characterised outlying areas of the village in the medieval and late medieval periods. Dears Farm dates from this timeframe and inspection of map regression shows that it is relatively typical in scale and location of the disbursed agricultural groups around the nucleus of the village.

· The use of the land as a nursery has not significantly altered the historic relationship between the listed building and the land. The greenhouse structures are clearly identifiable as a ‘horticultural’ use and the extent of the residential area of the village remains easily visually defined as the c.1920s houses on Hollands Road. In this sense, the nursery has had a very limited impact on the setting of the listed building and still contributes to preserving its historic context as an agricultural group in a rural setting.

· The proposed development of 72 houses would infill this important open space with a residential estate. This would further erode the rural setting of the listed building and its historic context of relative isolation, which is one of the aspects of its significance as an example of the scattered patterns of medieval settlement in the parish. The close juxtaposition of the houses with the listed building and the road frontage to West End Lane would also alter the context in which the listed building is experienced. Although Camellia Cottage is visually well screened from the development by trees within its curtilage, the small break provided by the nursery land provides a sense of rural stillness at the junction with Stonepit Lane, which would be compromised by the proposed 72 dwellings.

· In addition, a development of 160 homes, application reference DC/13/0787 has been granted at appeal for the site to the north of Dears Farm, at the junction with Stonepit Lane and West End Lane. This is a further significant erosion of the rural setting of the listed building, which was acknowledged by the Inspector in the appeal decision. The cumulative impact of both these developments would overwhelm the setting of the listed building and incorporate it into an urban residential expansion, resulting in no visual or physical separation between the historic farmstead and the village. This would compromise its historic relationship with Henfield and the wider landscape. Although the significance of the building could still be understood from historic mapping and interpretation of the phasing of the spread of development from the east, its setting would undoubtedly be compromised.

· Despite attempts to incorporate landscaping along the boundaries and within the site, it is considered that the rural sense of place would read as a more urban place where the development pattern, although attempting to see a lesser density toward the western side, fails to respond positively to the role of the site. The scale and height of the houses shown would have an imposing presence within the site and along the road. The large expanses of roof would add to the visual and physical interruption into the setting of the listed building, with those closest being visible from the listed building and its grounds creating a sense of negative enclosure by creeping urban form.

· The proposed development at Sandgate Nursery would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises that where less than substantial harm would be caused, any harm should require clear

144 ITEM A5 - 5

and convincing justification and must be given significant weight. This includes harm to the setting of a listed building where it is deemed to have an important role to play in contributing to significance.

· The proposed development, especially when considered in conjunction with the 160 homes allowed at appeal to the north of West End Lane, would erode the rural setting of Camellia Cottage and its associated farm buildings and would undermine its relationship with the landscape as well as its historic significance as an outlying group typical of the parish. The experience of the listed building, in both public and private spheres, would also be compromised by glimpsed views of the adjacent houses in close proximity and the intrusion of residential noises into the relatively peaceful rural setting.

4. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

4.1 As outlined above, the original decision in respect of this scheme is at appeal with a Public Inquiry scheduled for February 2016. The application was originally recommended for approval by Officers against the background that the Council could not, at that time, demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. However, Members resolved to refuse planning permission for three reasons, as set out in paragraph 1.1 above. Of those three reasons:

- Reason 1 is retained and will be considered at the Inquiry;

- Reason 2 has been withdrawn following discussion with the Committee Chairman: it was not possible to provide a robust technical case to demonstrate the highways and safety harm that the Committee believed would be caused and in the absence of such evidence this reason had to be withdrawn;

- Reason 3: A legal agreement has been signed and this reason is no longer being contested;

4.2 This report relates only to the consideration of the two additional objections to this scheme that arise as a result of the adoption of the HDPF.

Principle of Development

4.3 When the original decision was taken the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Accordingly officers identified an “over arching and evidential need for housing across the District”.

4.4 The report identified that the proposed development would be within the setting of the listed building and would have a harmful impact by reason of the residential development encroaching across the open fields and well into the building’s setting, thereby adversely affecting its significance as a heritage asset. It was concluded that the harm would be less than substantial. In such circumstances the NPPF advises that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

4.5 As part of the balancing exercise Officers carried out, it was concluded that the need for housing, in the policy context of that time, outweighed the identified impact upon the significance of Camellia Cottage.

4.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision- taking (paragraph 14). In terms of the determination of planning applications this should mean the approval of developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that

145 ITEM A5 - 6

permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise.

4.7 The NPPF further requires, at paragraph 47, that Local Planning Authorities should identify, and update annually, a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to meet their housing requirements for a 5 year period, with an additional buffer of 5%. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF indicates that, in the absence of a demonstrable five year housing supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should be considered out-of-date.

4.8 With the adoption of the HDPF the Council is able to formally demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Whilst the numbers identified in Policy 15 of the HDPF are not maximum numbers and permission may be granted that provides additional housing, it must, in such circumstances, comply with the strategic approach within the HDPF.

4.9 This site lies outside the built confines of Henfield within the countryside. Therefore it is not compliant with the strategic policies which seek to guide development either to allocated site or to sites within the settlement boundaries. Furthermore by virtue of its location in the countryside it does not protect, conserve and enhance the landscape or protect the rural character and undeveloped nature of the countryside. These are ‘in principle’ objections to the scheme.

4.10 Given the weight to be attached to the policies of the HDPF, this site is not compliant with the Council’s strategic development approach and the housing provided by this scheme is not needed to help the Council demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land.

Impact upon Heritage Asset

4.11 The NPPF is clear that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including securing its optimum viable use.

4.12 S66(i) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the decision maker must give special regard to the desirability or preserving or enhancing listed buildings and their settings.

4.13 At a local level Policy 26 seeks to protect the development pattern of the area, its heritage and ecological qualities, tranquillity and sensitivity to change. Policy 34 recognises that the historic environment is an irreplaceable resource and, through part 6, seeks to sustain and enhance its historic environment by retaining and improving the setting of heritage assets, including views, public rights of way, trees and landscape features including historic public realm features.

4.14 By virtue of the fact that the Council can now demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply the impact of the scheme upon the nearby heritage asset of Camellia Cottage needs to be considered afresh as part of the balancing exercise.

4.15 The applicant’s site sits adjacent to Camellia Cottage (formerly Dear’s Farm) which is a Grade II listed ‘farmstead’ building. As can be seen from the Design & Conservation Officers assessment the existing nursery is considered to have had a very limited impact upon the setting of the listed building with the site still contributing to the preservation of the historic context of this asset.

4.16 By contrast the development of the site with 72 houses would infill this important open space with a residential estate that would further erode the rural setting of the listed building and its historic context of relative isolation, (which is one of the aspects of its significance).

146 ITEM A5 - 7

4.17 In addition, a scheme for 160 dwellings has been approved on appeal on land to the north of this site, which constitutes a further significant erosion of the rural setting of the listed building which was acknowledged by the Inspector in that appeal decision. The cumulative impact of both these developments would overwhelm the setting of the listed building and incorporate it into an urban residential expansion, resulting in no visual or physical separation between the historic farmstead and the village. This would compromise its historic relationship with Henfield and the wider landscape.

4.18 It is considered, as it was previously, that the proposed development would cause harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Camellia Cottage. However, as the Council is now able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land there are not considered to be overriding public benefits arising from the development that would outweigh the significant weight which should be applied to the harm caused. The proposal is therefore now considered to result in unacceptable harm to a heritage asset.

Conclusion

4.19 The Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and the benefit of providing housing, in addition to the 5 year housing land supply, does not therefore carry the weight previously attributed to enable a favourable recommendation.

4.20 The site is not allocated in either a local plan or neighbourhood development plan.

4.21 The location of the site in the countryside causes fundamental and in principle harm to the landscape character and rural character of the site, even though it is not considered that the scheme would cause a wider landscape impact.

4.22 The proposed scheme would cause unacceptable permanent and irreversible harm to the rural setting of the Grade II Listed Building, Camellia Cottage.

4.23 This scheme does not comprise sustainable development when assessed against the NPPF.

4.24 Assessing the scheme against the provisions of the NPPF and the adopted Development Plan, the scheme clearly and fundamentally conflicts with the strategic locational approach to development pursued by this framework and causes harm to the natural environment, countryside and the setting of a heritage asset.

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 To authorise Officers to defend an additional two reasons for objection to the appeal of DC/14/0588, as follows:

147 ITEM A5 - 8

Background Papers: DC/14/0588 & DC/15/0412

148 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 17 November 2014

Demolition of the existing vacant ‘garden’ nurseries and associated structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide 72 units, DEVELOPMENT: comprising 6 x 1 bed, 17 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed (29) affordable units and 9 x 2 bed, 15 x 3 bed and 19 x 4 bed (43) residential units, with associated car parking spaces, hard and soft landscaping, and new access arrangements from West End Lane and Hollands Lane.

SITE: Sandgate Nurseries, West End Lane, West Sussex WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/14/0588 APPLICANT: Stonegate Homes and Littleworth Properties Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Major development

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate authority to Officers to grant planning permission subject to conditions and s.106 agreement

1.0 THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1.1 This is a full planning application seeking permission for the construction of 72 residential dwellings on the Sandgate Nurseries site in Henfield. The proposal comprises of two vehicular access points with the northern access being provided onto West End Lane, and the southern access being provided onto Hollands Lane. The residential development spans the majority of the application site, with a denser grain of development along the eastern side where the site is contiguous with Hollands Road and a steady transition to a lower density form of development towards the western boundary.

1.1.2 The proposed mix of dwellings on the site amounts to: 6 x one bed; 26 x two beds; 21 x three beds; and 19 x four beds. The application proposes 40% of the total number of units as affordable with the policy compliant tenure split (70:30 in favour of rented). All of the proposed dwellings will benefit from two off-street parking spaces each with the exception of the 6no one bed flats that each have one space. A limited number of visitor parking

Contact Officer: James Hutchison 149 Tel: 01403 215162 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 2

spaces have also been provided. Again, with the exception of the one bed flats, all dwellings are provided with private garden amenity space.

1.1.3 The application site has been designed in a loop with the majority of dwellings aligning north-south. The ‘island’ within the centre of the site provides, in addition to the housing shown, areas of communal open space, allotments, a SUDS area, and landscaping. A separate pedestrian footpath is to be provided in the north-eastern corner of the site to allow direct access onto the pavement that runs eastwards on the southern side of West End Lane.

1.1.4 The proposed dwellings are two storeys in height and of a traditional design. Their total height varies between 8.26m and 8.94m with little variation across the site. There is however, an evident step down in density from the eastern edge of the site to the western side, moving from closer knit semi-detached properties to larger and more spaciously laid out detached properties towards what would become the new urban edge to the west.

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

2.1.1 The application site is located on the western side of Henfield, which is a category 1 settlement in the southern part of the District. The town is considered to be a sustainable location for new development (policy CP5 of the Core Strategy, 2007). The position of the application site relative to the town is that it sits contiguous with the existing western Built- Up Area Boundary, which runs along the western end of the rear gardens of Hollands Road before crossing Hollands Lane to the south and following the line of the industrial area.

2.1.2 The application site has two frontages onto the highway with the northern frontage and existing access onto West End Lane, and the southern frontage and access onto Hollands Lane. The north, west and southern boundaries of the site are formed of a heavy screen of trees and hedgerows. The eastern boundary of the site is more open and is characterised by a harsh edge of closed boarded fences and outbuildings that serve the adjoining properties in Hollands Road. It is apparent that there are several instances of historic and informal creep of residential curtilages onto the application site.

2.1.3 The site is relatively flat in the central and northern areas of the site, however there is a gradual slope down towards Hollands Lane. The existing site comprises of open land and glass houses and horticultural buildings, the latter of which are in various states of severe dis-repair. In addition, there is some hard-standing across the site and predominantly in the more central areas, however this has now become quite overgrown.

2.1.4 The application site is broadly rectangular in shape but is absent of a square segment missing from the north-western corner. This square segment is the curtilage of Deer’s Farm (Camellia Cottage) – a grade II listed building. The boundaries around the listed building comprise of dense evergreen hedgerow and tree screening such that there is negligible inter-visibility between the asset and the application site.

2.1.5 Notwithstanding the limited inter-visibility, the extent to which the listed building can be experienced from within the application site and the frontage onto West End Lane, together with the historic connection between the asset (a historic farmstead) and the surrounding fields, means that the application site does fall within the setting of Deer’s Farm.

2.1.6 Other notable features surrounding the application site comprise of the interwar development of two storey semi-detached properties in Hollands Road to the east, the industrial area opposite the southern access to the site in Hollands Lane, and the large field on the opposite side of West End Lane that has recently had full planning permission granted under appeal for 160 dwellings.

150 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 3

2.1.7 The extant permission on Land North of West End Lane, the background to which is described more fully in section 4.0 of this report, provides a new access onto West End Lane that is broadly opposite that of the application site. The appeal scheme maintains some of the existing hedgerow screening on the northern side of West End Lane, and provides for additional supplemental planting.

2.1.8 A Grampian condition was attached to this extant permission requiring that development would not be commenced until such time as a scheme for traffic calming along West End Lane had been agreed in accordance with the requirements of the County Highway Authority. The timing of the implementation of the agreed traffic calming works is subject to determination as part of the discharge of condition. The extant permission needs to be commenced prior to 02 June 2017.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

3.1.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

3.2 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

3.2.1 The following sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), hereinafter referred to as the ‘Framework’, are relevant to the consideration of this application (Note: This list is not exhaustive and other paragraphs of the Framework are referred to where necessary within the contents of the report):

“Achieving Sustainable Development” NPPF 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes NPPF 4 - Promoting sustainable transport NPPF 7 - Requiring good design NPPF10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change NPPF 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment NPPF 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

3.2.2 Planning Practice Guidance (2014).

The sections of the PPG on Design, Natural Environment and Heritage are considered to be particularly pertinent to the consideration of this application.

3.3 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

3.3.1 Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007):

CP1 - Landscape and Townscape Character CP2 – Environmental Quality CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development CP5 - Built-up Areas and Previously Developed Land CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs CP13 - Infrastructure Requirements CP15 – Rural Strategy

151 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 4

CP19 – Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport

3.3.2 Local Development Framework (General Development Control Policies 2007):

DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement DC2 – Landscape Character DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology DC6 - Woodlands and Trees DC7 - Flooding DC8 - Renewable Energy and Climate Change DC9 - Development Principles DC13 – Listed Buildings DC18 – Smaller Homes/ Housing Mix DC40 - Transport and Access

3.3.3 Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy:

The Horsham District Local Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 08 August 2014, and is being heard at the time of writing this report (November of this year). It is ultimately anticipated for adoption in March 2015. As yet however, the present stage of the HDPF, and the fact that it is only presently going through examination, affords it a limited amount of weight in terms of decision taking.

3.4 OTHER PLANNING GUIDANCE

3.4.1 Supplementary Planning Documents:

- Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD - Planning Obligations SPD (& Annex 2008/09)

3.4.2 English Heritage’s Guidance on the Setting of Listed Buildings

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1.1 There have been no recent and relevant planning decisions on the appeal site itself, however of relevance to the determination of this application is the SHLAA designation for the site (SA 317), which confirms that it is developable within a 6-10 year period.

4.1.2 The SHLAA specifies that the site would be suitable for the provision of 40 units over a site area totalling 3.7ha. The full justification reads as follows:

“The site adjoins the existing built form of Henfield and is relatively well screened to the south and west. The site is however accessed from West End Lane which is very rural in character and maybe a constraint to development. The development would extend the built form of the village westward. The access issues and impact on rural character would need to be resolved before development could take place therefore it is considered that the site is not developable in the short term, but a small amount of development could come forward in years 6 to 10.”

4.1.3 Also of relevance to this application on the Sandgate Nurseries site is the appeal decision on land to the north of West End Lane (referred to as “Land North of West End Lane” and containing the LPA ref: DC/13/0787). The Local Planning Authority refused permission on 22 August 2013, and the appeal sought to overturn this decision and allow full planning

152 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 5

permission for the scheme, which comprised of 160 units with associated access, open space and landscaping.

4.1.4 The appeal on Land North of West End Lane was allowed on 02 June 2014. It is currently the subject of a s.288 challenge by the Local Planning Authority on the grounds that the Inspector had erred in his judgement on a matter pertaining to paragraph 64 of the Framework. The challenge is the subject of a hearing at the Court of Justice on 19 November 2014, however in terms of the materiality of the Inspector’s decision for this appeal, it is still considered to be a highly relevant consideration.

4.1.5 There are no other directly related or relevant permissions to the application site.

5.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk.

5.2 INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

5.2.1 Landscape Officer:

No objection subject to conditions requiring a comprehensive landscaping scheme to be submitted at reserved matters stage.

5.2.2 Housing Services:

No objection. The following comments from the Council’s Housing Manager were provided:

“Housing Officers welcome the applicant’s intention to provide 40% affordable housing. The tenure split of 70% rent/30% shared ownership is particularly pleasing, as there is a substantial need for general needs rented accommodation in the District.”

5.2.3 Public Health And Licensing (Env. Health):

No objection subject to conditions

5.2.4 Arboricultural Officer:

No objection subject to tree protection conditions

5.2.5 Leisure Services:

No objection subject to contribution towards play space improvements on open space to the east of Station Road

5.3 OUTSIDE AGENCIES

5.3.1 WSCC Ecology:

No objection subject to agreement of the site investigation report.

153 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 6

5.3.2 WSCC – Highways:

No objection subject to conditions and s.106 agreement to secure local highway infrastructure contributions. In view of the extent of concerns raised by third parties in respect of highways matters, the WSCC Highway response is appended to this report for the consideration in full by members.

5.3.3 Environment Agency:

No objection.

5.3.4 Natural England:

No objection subject to standing advice

5.3.4 Southern Water:

No objection subject to a condition preventing development from being commenced until such time as an agreed foul and surface water drainage strategy is submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

5.3.5 Sussex Police:

No objection.

5.4 PARISH COUNCIL

5.4.1 Objection raised against the application on the following grounds:

· It fails to conserve and enhance the natural environment including the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes; · This is not a sustainable development; · The proposal does not promote sustainable transport, and will exacerbate traffic congestion and conditions of highway safety in the village; · The proposal will place excessive demands upon local infrastructure provision, not least education, health and sewerage disposal; · The proposed development does not adequately provide for a satisfactory layout for affordable housing by pepper-potting; · It is contrary to Horsham District Council’s Adopted Development Control Policies; · It is contrary to advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework; · It is contrary to the adopted Henfield Parish Design Statement; · The Applicants have not pursued acceptable pre-application consultation Procedures.

154 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 7

5.5 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

5.5.1 73 letters of representation were received and the following is a summary of the comments:

· Additional traffic in the area on the highway network causing safety and capacity problems · Poor design that is not in-keeping with the character of the area · Adverse impact on landscape, views and countryside character · Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties · Contrary to policy · Exacerbation of local flooding and poor drainage · Cumulative effects of this development and the allowed appeal at West End Lane would result in significant impacts · No facilities and infrastructure to support the additional housing · Remoteness of the site and poor accessibility · Impact of lighting on the countryside · Overdevelopment of the site · Adverse impact on grade II listed building of Deer’s Farm/ Camellia Cottage · Premature before HDPF and Neighbourhood Plans · The development is within the countryside · Unplanned and piecemeal development · No need for additional housing

6.0 HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

6.1 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.

7.0 HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

7.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder. Further consideration will be given to this when considering any reserved matters application.

8.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

8.1 Principle of Development

8.1.1 Paragraph 7 of the Framework establishes that in order for an application to be considered as amounting to sustainable development, it must fulfil all three of the following functions: an economic role; a social role; and an environmental role.

8.1.2 This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 72 residential dwellings, of which it can be determined that there will be economic benefits in terms of construction, jobs and increased expenditure within the local centre. The proposed scheme will also contribute significantly to meeting the Council’s current lack of a deliverable five-year housing land supply, which as of 31 December 2013, amounted to only 64.3% of the supply (including a 5% buffer). This application will enable the provision of a relatively large

155 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 8

number of market and affordable dwellings, and this is a matter to which significant weight is attributed.

8.1.3 This report will assess the environmental aspects of the proposed development in terms of its impact on the natural, built and historic environment. Whilst the development of greenfield land outside of the settlement boundary will, by definition, always derive some harmful impact on the natural environment, this report concludes that the level of impact is not significant. The development is considered to respond sympathetically to the adjoining built environment along Hollands Road, and whilst a less substantial harmful impact has been identified on adjacent heritage assets, the significance of this harm is considered to be overcome by the public benefits that would be accrued from this scheme.

8.1.4 On the basis of the above summary therefore, it is evident that the proposed development meets the necessary criteria of sustainable development under paragraph 7 of the Framework.

8.1.5 Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires that Local Planning Authorities identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five year’s worth of supply against their housing requirement (plus a 5% buffer). As stated above, the latest Annual Monitoring Report 2012/13 shows that the Local Planning Authority is only able, at the present moment in time, to demonstrate a supply of 64.3% of the total requirement.

8.1.6 Paragraph 49 of the Framework is therefore engaged whereby the policies relevant to the supply of housing are out of date, and consideration has to be given to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The implementation of the FAD SPD and the relaxation of policies DC1 and CP5 of the GDCP and CS (2007) allows for housing to be provided in a sustainable location on the edge of an adopted settlement such as Henfield.

8.1.7 The above summary of the assessment of the scheme under paragraph 7 concludes that the development is in accordance with the three strands of sustainable development, and it is therefore the case that paragraph 14 and the presumption in favour of sustainable development can be applied to the proposed development (Davis & Jelson vs. S of S [2013] and Dartford BC vs. S of S [2014]). It is therefore necessary to consider whether the adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, having regard to the Framework as a whole.

8.1.8 In carrying out the planning balance on recent appeal decisions, Inspectors have attributed very significant or substantial weight to the delivery of housing in light of the current shortfall in the identified supply of deliverable sites. The Inspector for the appeal on Land to the North of West End Lane (APP/Z3825/A/13/2205204) also opined in respect of full planning applications where delivery of housing would be expected sooner that considerable weight and importance is attributable to the provision of new homes:

“… the early provision of new homes in circumstances of local shortfall also merits considerable weight and importance, particularly as the recent regional and national shortfall in housebuilding has been widely reported, as has the current high level of demand.”

8.1.10 The principle of development on the site has been considered as acceptable within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), and this has, in part, informed the Council’s targeted Housing Land Supply. Whilst the number of residential units on the appeal site are in excess of the quantum stated within the SHLAA, the detailed consideration of this in terms of such matters as landscape and townscape support the provision of a scheme for 72 units on the site. The adverse impacts are not, in this case, considered to outweigh the benefits of the supply of housing.

156 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 9

8.1.11 The position of the development within the setting of the listed building of Deer’s Farm, and the less than substantial harm that has been identified in this case, is a matter to which considerable importance and weight is attributable under s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990.

8.1.12 Paragraph 134 of the Framework requires that less than substantial harm can only be acceptable where outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. This report considers the social and economic benefits of the proposal, together with the harm caused to the listed building, particularly in respect of the allowed appeal for the development to the north of the application site, and the acceptance of development on this site through the SHLAA.

8.1.13 It is considered that the harm caused to the setting of the listed building in this instance, is such that it is outweighed by the public benefits, and the development therefore accords with paragraph 134. The principle of the development is therefore accepted in this regard, as well as the general planning balance in paragraph 14.

8.2 Housing Mix, Amenity, Density, Affordable Housing & Tenure

8.2.1 Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) requires that new housing developments provide a mixed size of units, with at least 64% as small dwellings of one or two bedrooms. Of the total 72 dwellings being provided as part of this development, 32 of the units, or 44.4%, are either one or two bedroom with the remainder being three bedrooms or larger across a mix of tenures.

8.2.2 The development would therefore fail to achieve a compliant mix of units on the application site to accord with policy DC18, as well as the SHMA Update 2012 that identifies a need for between 55-70% of a development as small dwelling units. However, in and of itself, this is not objectionable where the characteristics of the site dictate that larger units in a less dense arrangement maybe preferable. The layout of the development is considered later in this report, however the circumstances of this case are such that the character dictates a preference towards larger properties, especially on the rural edge of the site.

8.2.3 The provision of 32 small dwelling units, of which 23 will be provided as affordable housing, is still a significant provision of new dwellings in a sustainable location. In addition, there is a need to balance the size of the proposed dwelling units against the need to ensure that the development contributes and respects the pattern and typology of the townscape in the existing and adjoining part of the settlement, the majority of which are detached and semi- detached larger sized units of 3 bedrooms or more.

8.2.4 Density is an indicator of the extent of built coverage on the site and is a useful tool in terms of determining how efficient the proposed scheme is in terms of utilising the site area. This application proposes a density of 19-21 dwellings per hectare, which is considered to be acceptable in terms of the need to make efficient use of the land after the principle of building on this greenfield site is accepted, and whilst retaining margins to areas of the site that maybe more constrained. The government has long since abandoned its desired density of new developments achieving 30 dwellings per hectare, now favouring individual site-by-site assessments. As a background comparison however, it can be seen that this proposal is broadly within an acceptable range.

8.2.5 There is an evidential need for Affordable Housing within the District. The proposed development will provide the full 40% requirement for on-site affordable dwellings in accordance with policy CP12 of the Core Strategy (2007). The Applicant has held discussions with the Council’s Housing Department in respect of the exact tenure mix of

157 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 10

the affordable units, and the Council’s Housing Services Manager is supportive of the proposed scheme, and especially the larger proportion of rented units.

8.2.6 The application is in full detail form and so the position, size and spacing of the residential units are fixed for consideration. The development is considered to relate sympathetically to the residential properties to the east of the site in Holland Road, and the separation distances, orientation of properties and level of private garden amenity is acceptable within the development site itself. The proposed scheme also provides a swathe of public open space through the centre of the site, including some allotments and children’s play area, all of which are supported.

8.2.7 It has been demonstrated that the proposed scheme would provide a good standard of residential amenity, with an acceptable mix and affordable housing element, and will be set within an attractive and well-spaced out residential environment. The application therefore accords with policies CP3, CP12, DC9, DC18 and DC31 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007), and wider policies of the Framework as a whole.

8.3 Landscape Character

8.3.1 Paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles) of the Framework requires that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (2007) amplifies this principle in more detail by referring to the need for development to protect the rural character of a site and its surroundings.

8.3.2 It is inevitable that there will be some harm on landscape character derived out of a residential development on greenfield land, however for the reasons set out under section 8.1 of this report, there is a necessity to release this land unless it can be convincingly demonstrated that there is to be a significant harm, and moreover that that harm is so significant as to outweigh all other material benefits that may stem from this proposal. To identify harm to landscape character where it is not significant, and refuse permission on this ground alone, would not be a sustainable basis for a refusal.

8.3.3 The application site of Sandgate Nurseries is characterised by its containment by dense tree and hedgerow boundaries along the south and western sides of the site. The existing eastern boundary is less vegetated and depicts the somewhat harsh boundary treatment of the edge of the western edge of Hollands Road. The northern boundary of the site that sits adjacent to West End Lane is well screened by trees and hedgerows with the only intervisibility between the site and street scene being at the entrance in the north-western corner.

8.3.4 The application site is relatively flat when compared with the adjacent topography of the area, and particularly the steeper incline of land to the north of West End Lane. The cumulative effect of the flatness of the site and its contained field boundaries around the perimeter, means that any visual effects of development would be localised. The most sensitive of all of the views into and across the site would come from the residential properties along Hollands Road, whose more sparsely vegetated boundary would afford a greater visibility of the development.

8.3.5 Landscape character is also derived from the grade II listed building of Deer’s Farm (now Camellia Cottage), which is positioned outside of the application site and to the north-west. This historic farmstead, despite its lack of intervisibility with the application site as a result of the dense tree screening, does provide a more rural setting to the site than the built up residential boundary to the east.

158 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 11

8.3.6 The landscape character of the application site has also been heavily influenced in the past and at the present time by the horticultural use of the land, and this is typified by the large greenhouses and polytunnel frames that are still positioned openly in the centre of the site. Evidence under the existing ground cover of a previous metalled road through the site from the current collection of buildings/frames to the north-western access, as well as various small outbuildings/stores, all add to the present developed nature of the application site and detract to a certain degree from the rural idyll of a field within the countryside.

8.3.7 Planning Officers, including the Council’s Landscape Officer and the author of this report, are very familiar with the application site and the surrounding area through the extent of work that has taken place on the Public Inquiry on Land North of West End Lane (DC/13/0787), and borne out of the more detailed assessment of the surrounding area is the less sensitive nature of Sandgate Nurseries to development. The edge of Henfield depicted by the eastern boundary of Holland Road properties was described and accepted by the Inspector as being a ‘harsh edge’ with much evidence of built form and residential paraphernalia, including outbuildings and various means of enclosure.

8.3.8 The Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the application and raises no objection subject to landscaping and a management plan being secured by condition. Whilst some additional viewpoints/ photomontages were requested in respect of the proposed street scene, Officers consider that there is sufficient information contained within the application at present to support the proposal in landscape terms.

8.3.9 The design, massing, scale and layout of the development are considered to be appropriate in terms of the landscape context of the site. Whilst the building of houses on greenfield sites would naturally cause some amount of harm to the landscape character of the countryside, the proposed built form would not have a significant prejudicial impact on the landscape character of the site and surroundings.

8.3.10 Members will note that the built form is spread across the site and so as the development grain is tighter and denser closer to Hollands Road, and then disperses outwards across the site the further to west one travels. The development has been deliberately set-away and reduced in scale close to the north-western corner of the site in order to respect the setting of Camellia Cottage.

8.3.11 The re-positioning of the access on the northern boundary of the site would have a limited impact on the character of the street scene owing to the closing up of the existing access, and the retention of trees and vegetation in the proposal along the remainder of the northern boundary. The opening up of a new access in the south-eastern corner of the site, whilst removing some of the existing landscaped edge in this area, would not open up significant views into the site and therefore of the development within.

8.3.12 The Inspector’s decision on the appeal on Land North of West End Lane is material to the consideration of this application in terms of landscape character and the cumulative effects of development. The full planning permission for 160 residential dwellings on the opposite side of West End Lane would bring the developed edge of Henfield significantly out to the west, and beyond the cutting of the Downs Link and the western edge of Hollands Road. Notwithstanding the present s.288 challenge on the Inspector’s decision, it still remains material in terms of the acceptance of the extent of development out to the west, and this emphasises the in-principle acceptance of a similar reach of development on a less constrained site to the south of West End Lane.

159 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 12

8.3.13 When the application is viewed overall, there is no objection to the proposed form and extent of development being proposed on the application site on the basis of landscape character and visual effects, and is compliant with policies CP1 and DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007), and the wider policies of the Framework and PPG as a whole.

8.4 Townscape Character

8.4.1 Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy also requires that new development respects the character of the townscape, and this is reinforced through paragraph 57 of the Framework, which states that new development should ‘respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials’.

8.4.2 The townscape context for the application site is heavily influenced by Hollands Road, which runs north-south along the eastern boundary. Hollands Road is a residential street with a uniform pattern and style of inter-war housing. These properties are two storeys in height, mostly semi-detached with a series of 3no terraced properties on the corners of the junction with Hollands Lane and West End Lane. Hollands Road has a medium density with properties being afforded reasonable separation distances of 2-3m, and having a good plot to building ratio.

8.4.3 To the south of the application site opposite the proposed new access onto Hollands Lane are some industrial/ commercial units. The remainder of the areas to the west and south of the application site are typically rural areas with only the occasional residential dwelling house. The site is therefore considered to perform a transitional point between the built-up area of Hollands Road and Henfield to the east, and the rural countryside to the south and west.

8.4.4 A material consideration in the assessment of the proposal in terms of the impact of the development on the townscape character of the surrounding area is the recent appeal decision on the site to the north of West End Lane. This appeal decision accepts the principle of development westwards beyond a longitudinal line taken from the western edge of Hollands Road/ Downs Link. The scale and form of development needs to reflect the characteristics and visibility of the site.

8.4.5 The proposed development is considered to be a sensitive approach to providing a residential scheme on the application site. The proposal places higher density semi- detached properties along the eastern side of the site where the development assimilates with the already built up area of semi-detached houses in Hollands Road. Whilst it is noted that the plot to building ratio of the development on this side of the site is moderately greater than the existing pattern of housing in Holland’s Road, this is acceptable in view of the fact that this is the least sensitive part of the site and is contiguous with the existing built-up area. It also enables a reduced density on the remainder of the site.

8.4.6 The development then steps down in scale further to the west of the site, with the creation of wider separation distances between buildings, larger detached houses as oppose to a more urban form of closer grain semi-detached houses, and more open space. The pattern and layout of the development is also well laid out in terms of providing a central area of open space for use by the community.

8.4.7 The architectural detailing of the buildings is considered to be an acceptable approach to the overall design of the site in its surroundings, and subject to appropriate elevational treatment in terms of materials, and also through the wider integration of buildings into the

160 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 13

landscape scheme, the built form is considered to be well proportioned, of an appropriate scale and appearance, and would therefore be acceptable in this location.

8.4.8 The proposed development is considered to respond to the characteristics of the site in terms of its transitional function. It takes the opportunity to create a step-change in the density and grain of development to reflect its rural surroundings, whilst it harmonises and sits sympathetically with the existing development of Hollands Road. The application is therefore considered to comply with policies CP1, CP3 and DC9 of the Local Development Framework Policies, as well as section 7 of the Framework, and specifically paragraph 64 as it achieves good design that takes the opportunities where available for improving the character of the area.

8.5 Heritage Assets

8.5.1 Section 66(i) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the decision maker must give special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing listed buildings and their settings. The heightened importance of this ‘special regard’ has been underlined through two recent High Court decisions, the most notable of which is Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd vs. East Northants DC, English Heritage, National Trust and DCLG.

8.5.2 The application site sits adjacent to Camellia Cottage (formerly Deer’s Farm), which is a grade II listed ‘farmstead’ building. Notwithstanding the lack of intervisibility between the application site (when viewed internally) and the listed building, the historical connection between the farmstead and the surrounding agricultural/ horticultural fields is present. The open farmland around the farmstead represents a historical relationship that is directly related to the significance of this building.

8.5.3 Any residential development would therefore, firstly be within the building’s setting, and secondly would have a harmful impact by reason of the residential development encroaching across the open fields and well into the building’s setting, thereby adversely affecting its significance as a heritage asset. This harm to the listed building, although being termed ‘less than substantial’ by reason of the fact that it does not wholly undermine the significance of the asset, is to be given considerable importance and weight in the decision making process.

8.5.4 The proposed development has been designed in such a manner as to restrict the amount of built form closest to the listed building, and the layout ensures that the existing landscape screening would be retained. It is considered that whilst any residential development of the application site would cause harm through the encroachment into the setting of the listed building, the proposed scheme has been designed to off-set this harm as far as is reasonable in respect of the balancing exercise of paragraph 134 of the Framework would deem necessary.

8.5.5 Paragraph 134 reads as follows:

“Where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal...”

8.5.6 The above paragraph of the Framework makes it clear that whilst less than substantial harm maybe derived from any development within the setting of a designated asset, this harm would need to be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal in order that an objection would not be raised.

161 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 14

8.5.7 It is considered that there are significant economic and social benefits arising out of the appeal scheme as described earlier in the report, and in view of the extent to which the development has been restricted around the listed building, it is considered that there are public benefits to this proposal sufficient to outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the listed building in this respect.

8.5.8 The application therefore complies with section 12 of the Framework, and specifically paragraph 134 that allows for less than substantial harm when there are over-riding public benefits to the proposal.

8.6 Highways and Transport

8.6.1 Paragraph 32 of the Framework requires that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. The proposed development is to be served off two separate vehicular access points. The northern access provides vehicular access/egress onto West End Lane, and the southern access/egress leads onto Hollands Lane.

8.6.2 A pedestrian access splits off to the south of the entrance to the site onto West End Lane, and directs pedestrians and cyclists on a safer route onto the pavement further south of West End Lane. The internal road network includes bends and traffic calming (narrow sections), and provides a footpath on one side of the carriageway.

8.6.3 The proposed development provides car parking for 181 vehicles, which achieves a dwelling unit/ car parking ratio of 1: 2.5.

8.6.4 The application has been assessed in detail by the County Highway Engineers, and a full assessment has been made in the applicant’s Transport Assessment as to the cumulative and singular effects of traffic in the surrounding highway network having due regard to the allowed appeal on land to the north of West End Lane.

8.6.5 With regards to specific concerns raised by third parties in respect of the impact on the operation of the junctions of Church Street/ A281 London Road/ High Street junction and the Nep Town Road/ High Street/ A2037 Barrow Hill Junction, the operation of these junctions has been modelled both with and without development. Their safe operation has been endorsed by these studies and modelling scenarios.

8.6.6 The County Highway Authority has assessed the impact of the development on the safety and capacity of the highway network, and is satisfied that the development would not have a severe impact, and that on this basis permission should not be withheld on transport grounds. The County Highway Authority has also considered the development in respect of the now extant permission on the northern side of West End Lane, and remains minded to support the scheme subject to detailed conditions controlling the implementation and future use of this development.

8.6.7 The application is therefore considered to be compliant with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policy (2007), and the relevant policies contained within section 4 of the Framework. Moreover, of significant importance in the assessment of this outline application is that the impacts arising from this development cannot be considered to be ‘severe’, and for this reason the development should not be prevented or refused, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the Framework.

162 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 15

8.7 Ecology and Arboriculture

8.7.1 Paragraph 7 of the Framework makes it clear that sustainable development incorporates the need to improve biodiversity, indeed this is reflected in paragraph 109 of the Framework where it states that ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity. Where significant harm results from development and this cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, then permission should be refused under paragraph 118 of the Framework.

8.7.2 The applicant has commissioned an ecology report, which investigates the ecological biodiversity and habitats on the site and in the surrounding ‘study area’, and assesses the impact that the development would have both during and post-construction. The assessment concludes that there would be no harmful impact on ecological habitats. A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan is to be produced prior to the commencement of construction, and this will include details of ecological monitoring.

8.7.3 Policy DC6 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) provides protection at a local level for protected trees and woodland. The Framework, although promoting the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment as one of the core planning principles, which of course includes trees, does not extend any further protection for undesignated trees and woodland.

8.7.4 The trees on the application site would therefore have to hold a significant value in order that they can be justified as being retained on the site or hold weight in the case of their removal against the overarching benefits of the development. The applicant has provided arboricultural information in support of this application, and this shows that there will be limited impact on trees, and that where development is proposed adjacent then this is protected by condition.

8.7.5 The application is considered to be satisfactory in terms of identifying that the development, subject to appropriate safeguards that can be secured by condition, will not result in the loss of ecological habitats and trees of significant individual or cumulative amenity value in accordance with policies CP2, DC5 and DC6 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007), and paragraphs 7, 17, 109 and 118 of the Framework.

8.8 Flooding and Surface Water Drainage

8.8.1 Section 10 of the Framework states that:

“When determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere”

8.8.2 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 (1:1000 year chance of flooding). It is therefore considered to be at low risk of flooding from all sources. The conceptual drainage scheme that has been designed for the site, and which is set-out in detail within the Flood Risk Assessment, recommends a drainage design that will create betterment to the existing conditions. The development would not therefore increase flood risk both on the site and in the surrounding area.

8.8.3 Subject to details of the drainage scheme being received and agreed by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with Southern Water, the application is considered to comply with

163 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 16

the requirements of section 10 of the Framework and the associated technical guidance on flooding.

8.9 Planning Obligations

8.9.1 Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy (2007) requires that the release of land and the granting of planning permission will be dependent on there being sufficient capacity in the existing local infrastructure to meet the additional requirements of the development, or that a suitable arrangement(s) can be put into place that would secure the necessary improvements.

8.9.2 Policy CP13 is supported by the Council’s SPD on Planning Obligations, together with policies CP12 (meeting housing needs), DC18 (smaller homes/ housing mix) and DC40 (transport and access) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007)

8.9.3 Section 6.3 of this report identifies the need for an affordable housing provision on-site, and the application’s provision to meet this need is detailed there, and will form part of the s.106 legal agreement. Other planning contributions that will be sought through the means of a s.106 legal agreement are as follows:

· Commuted sum towards school infrastructure · Commuted sum towards library infrastructure · Commuted sum towards fire & rescue infrastructure · Commuted sum towards Primary Care Healthcare Infrastructure · Provision of off-site highway improvement works · Provision and transfer of on-site allotments to HDC · Provision and specification of multi-functional green space (landscape) and landscape management plan · Commuted sum towards a local provision of multi-functional green space for recreation · Commuted sum towards a local provision of community centres and services · Provision of the LEAP and NEAP on the application site · The provision and management of SUDS on the site · Compliance and monitoring of the Travel Plan

8.9.4 The above planning obligations have been assessed by Officers and they are considered to be compliant with paragraph 204 of the Framework, and the CIL tests (2010). The applicant has provided a commitment to enter into a s.106 agreement to secure these contributions, and on this basis the application is compliant with policies CP12 and 13 of the Core Strategy (2007) in this respect.

8.10 Conclusion

8.10.1 The application has firstly been assessed in respect of the three main functions of sustainable development: a social role; an economic role; and an environmental role. The proposed scheme provides significant social and economic benefits through the provision of housing and expenditure in the local area, and despite some inevitable harm through the development of a greenfield site, this is considered to be limited in respect of landscape character and visual effects of the site and surrounding area as a whole. The development is considered to amount to a sustainable form of development.

8.10.2 There is an over-arching and evidential need for housing across the District in terms of market and affordable provision. The District is failing to meet its five-year housing land

164 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 17

supply, and this is highly material in respect of the need for the Local Planning Authority to apply its policies relevant to the supply of housing flexibly under paragraph 49 of the Framework. Accordance with the criteria within the FAD SPD, and the provision of housing, allows for policies CP5 and DC1 – CS and GDCP (2007) to be considered flexibly enough to allow development outside of the settlement boundary.

8.10.3 The impact of the development on the setting of the adjacent listed building has been assessed having special regard to the desirability to protect and enhance these heritage assets. However, with an identified ‘less than substantial harm’ to Camellia Cottage, the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the identified effect on the significance of this building, and the application therefore accords with paragraph 134 of the Framework.

8.10.4 As it has first been concluded that the proposal is a sustainable form of development, it is therefore necessary to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 14 of the Framework. The matter of whether or not the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits has been considered in detail within the context of this report.

8.10.5 It is concluded that the significant benefits brought about by the provision of 72 dwelling units, 40% of which are affordable, on a sustainable site on the edge of a category 1 settlement, are sufficient to outweigh the limited adverse impacts that have been identified in the assessment of this application.

8.10.5 There are no restrictive policies within the Framework that have been engaged and which necessitate the application being refused outside of the balancing exercise in paragraph 14, and it is therefore recommended that permission should be granted subject to conditions and the aforementioned s.106 agreement.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1.1 The application is recommended for approval subject to a s.106 agreement being completed and in accordance with the following conditions:

Commencement Condition:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Approved Plans Condition:

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full compliance with the approved plans as listed below: [to be listed in decision notice]

Design Related Condition:

3. 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 external walls and roofs of the approved buildings have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.

165 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 18

4. No development shall take place until details of screen walls and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

5. No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

6. Before development commences precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point along West End Lane/Hollands Lane shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

7. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B C D E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected, constructed or placed within the curtilages of the dwelling types B, C, D, E, F, G and H hereby permitted.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gate or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto a road.

Tree Related Conditions:

10. The burning of any materials from site clearance or from any other source shall not take place within 10m of the furthest extent of the canopy of any tree, group of trees, or hedgerow, targeted for retention on the site or on land adjoining.

11. The proposed development shall be carried out in full accordance with the details contained in the submitted Tree Implications Report, and no works on site shall commence until the tree protection details hereby agreed are fully implemented, and a pre- commencement meeting on-site has been held between the Council’s Arboricultural Officer, the Site Manager and any other persons as so required. Any reasonable requirements as set out within this meeting shall be complied with in full and the approved protection measures retained until the relevant time as agreed post completion of the development.

Landscape Related Condition:

12. Prior to the commencement of development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

166 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 19

· A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice · Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers · Tree pit and staking/underground guying details · A written specification (National Building Specification compliant) for hard landscape and soft landscape works (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) · Existing and proposed levels, contours and cross / long sections for all earthworks, including for SUDS features · Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels · Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials · Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, play equipment, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting shall be carried out according to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.

Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

13. Prior to the commencement of development details of all underground trenching requirements for services, including the positions of soakaways, service ducts, foul, grey and storm water systems and all other underground service facilities, and required ground excavations there for, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the landscape scheme submitted pursuant to condition [8], and with existing trees on the site. All such underground services shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

14. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

The plan shall include:

· Aims and Objectives · A description of Landscape Components · Management Prescriptions · Details of maintenance operations and their timing · Details of the parties/organisations who will be maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for

The plan shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of planting shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan

Highways Related Conditions:

15. No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the traffic calming of West End Lane adjacent to the site entrance, including full construction details and details of the

167 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 20

timing of implementation and phasing of the works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

16. No development shall be commenced until the proposed access to West End Lane has be designed/constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The visibility zones shall be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction to a height of 600mm.

17. No development shall be occupied before the proposed access to Hollands Lane has be designed/ constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The visibility zones shall be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction to a height of 600mm.

18. The development hereby permitted shall not be implemented until the surface water drainage of the site has been designed so as to prevent the discharge of water onto the public highway. Details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

19. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for maximum 175 cars/minimum 144 cycles to be parked. The parking spaces shall be used and retained exclusively for their designated purpose.

20. No development shall start until a Construction Management Plan, to include details of:

Element 1: Public Safety, Amenity and Site Security Element 2: Operating Hours, Noise and Vibration Controls Element 3: Air and Dust Management Element 4: Storm water and Sediment Control Element 5: Waste and Materials Re-use Element 6: Traffic Management

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

21. No development shall be commenced unless and until an effective vehicle wheel cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such facility shall be retained in working order and operated throughout the period of work on the site to ensure that vehicles do not leave the site carrying earth and mud on their wheels in a quantity which causes a nuisance, hazard or visual intrusion from material deposited on the road system in the locality.

22. Prior to the occupation of the development the applicant shall:

(a) Submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority a Travel Plan in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework in general accordance with West Sussex County Council guidance on travel plans.

(b) The applicant shall then implement the approved travel plan before 40 dwellings have been occupied and for each subsequent occupation of the development, thereafter maintain and develop the travel plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

168 19/01/16: APPENDIX – Item A05 DC/14/0588 ITEM A1 - 21

Sustainability Condition:

23. The dwellings shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such national measures of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwellings shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.

Surface/Foul Water Drainage Condition:

24. Construction of the development shall not commence until the final details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.

Archaeology Condition:

25. No development shall be carried out on the land until the applicant or their agents or successor in title has secured the implementation of a programme or archaeological works in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Environmental Conditions:

26. Any visibly contaminated or odorous material encountered on the site during the development work must be investigated. The Local Planning Authority must be informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present.

27. The dwellings/buildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

28. Prior to the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved, details of a LEAP (play space), including the specification of play equipment, shall be submitted for the agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented in full prior and opened for public use prior to the occupation of the 75th percentile of dwelling units, or unless where agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Background Papers: DC/14/0588

Contact Officer: James Hutchison

169 DC/14/0588

Sandgate Nursery

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:4,288

Date 07/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

170 ITEM A6 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 19 January 2016

Deed of variation to amend definitions and paragraphs 7 and 8, of DEVELOPMENT: Schedule 5, of S106 agreement to planning application DC/14/1478.

SITE: Land East of 14 and 15 Alley Groves Cowfold West Sussex WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: S106/15/0003 APPLICANT: Phil Tunnicliffe

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Variation to a S106 Agreement

RECOMMENDATION: That a Deed of Variation be agreed and completed

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application seeking a variation to a S106 Agreement

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks to make amendments to the Section 106 Agreement attached to the planning permission for the above site, referenced DC/14/1478, which granted permission for the erection of 20 No. dwellings with parking, new vehicular and pedestrian access and the re-routing of a public footpath. Application DC/14/1478 was considered by the Development Management (South) Committee on the 17 November 2014 and permission was subsequently issued on 7 May 2015, following the completion of the legal agreement.

1.2 The original application gained permission for the provision of 4 x one bed flats, 9 x two bed houses and 7 x three bed houses, all of which were to be provided as social rented affordable homes, secured through the legal agreement.

1.3 This current application seeks to vary the legal agreement to enable the delivery of all of the units as affordable rented properties, rather than as social rented units and to alter the mortgagee clauses contained therein. The applicant, Saxon Weald, has advised that following the July 2015 budget, Registered Providers are required to reduce their rents by 1% per annum for the next four years. This will result in a significant reduction in rental income from affordable units and renders the provision of these new homes under the social rented tenure as unviable.

Contact Officer: Helen Lowe 171 Tel: 01403 215346 ITEM A6 - 2

1.4 The changes sought to the legal agreement are as follows:

· Replace definition of Social Rented Units with Affordable Rented Units; · Replace all references to Social Rented Units with Affordable Rented Units; · Amend paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 5 to incorporate a mortgagee in possession clause

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The site lies to the north eastern side of Cowfold, adjacent to but outside of the built-up area of the village. The site is situated to the eastern end of Alley Groves, a cul-de-sac leading from Fairfield Cottages and accessed from the A272. The site lies to the immediate east of, and borders the side boundaries of, No’s. 14 and 15 Alley Groves. The public right of way Footpath 1749 crosses the site from the south west, where it has joined following its route across the north of the recreational ground, to the north east, where it continues out towards open countryside.

1.6 At present the site comprises a largely open field of rough grassland enclosed by existing mature trees to both the northern and southern boundaries and to the southern portion of the eastern boundary. The northern portion of the eastern boundary is somewhat open with views into the adjacent field. The western boundary is formed by a 1.8m high fence and some boundary planting. The ground level of the site slopes gently downwards from the north towards the south.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

- Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes

2.3 Planning Practice Guidance

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Horsham District Planning Framework (2015)

- Policy 15 – Strategic Policy: Housing Provision - Policy 16 – Strategic Policy: Meeting Local Housing Needs - Policy 17 – Exceptions Housing Schemes - Policy 39 – Strategic Policy: Infrastructure Provision

2.5 Supplementary Planning Documents

- Planning Obligations (2007)

172 ITEM A6 - 3

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/14/1478 20 new affordable dwellings comprising 4 one-bed (2 Permitted person) flats, 9 two-bed (4 person) houses and 7 three-bed (5 person) houses with parking and new vehicular and pedestrian access, including re-routing of public footpath

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 HDC Strategic Housing Manager (summarised): Support

· The Council is receiving a number of requests to vary Section 106 agreements following the announcements within the July 2015 budget and the proposals outlined in the Housing and Planning Bill and the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement. Housing Associations are revisiting their development programmes following an imposed rent reduction; · The applicant wishes to change the tenure of these properties from Social to Affordable Rent, and this is supported. The change of tenure will ensure the delivery of much needed affordable homes on this site and will not materially affect the purpose of the scheme and the objective to provide homes for rent for households with a local connection to Cowfold; · Affordable Rent allows Associations to charge up to 80% of market rent (including service charges) and thereby increases the rental income from properties and enables Associations to borrow from the market to fund new affordable housing. This is essential as central Government Grant has been drastically reduced since 2011. As Associations now borrow extensively from the market, lenders require levels of security should for any reason the Housing Association fail. The likelihood of this is extremely remote; · It is important to allow flexibility for borrowing to Housing Associations in order to deliver the affordable homes needed by the District.

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

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.

173 ITEM A6 - 4

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issue for consideration in relation to this proposal is whether the proposed changes to the legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, would impact upon the delivery of affordable housing as secured by the original agreement.

6.2 Policy 16 of the HDPF seeks to address local housing needs and requires the provision of affordable homes on developments exceeding the stated thresholds. This policy also states that in terms of its implementation, the Council will assess each scheme’s viability including in respect of the overall mix of affordable unit size and tenure to ensure that they meet local need.

6.3 Furthermore, the Department for Communities and Local Government letter of 9 November 2015 (from the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis MP) sets out that housing associations are reviewing their existing financial commitments following the Budget announcement (July 2015) of a reduction in social rents over the coming years. This letter recognises that such announcements and subsequent reviews may well lead to delays in the delivery of planned homes and encourages Councils to be flexible in their requirements, taking into account changing circumstances.

6.4 The DCLG letter goes on to advise that planning authorities should respond constructively, rapidly and positively to requests for re-negotiations of legal agreements, taking a proportionate and pragmatic approach to the viability of schemes. It also states:

‘Where it is simply proposed that the tenure mix is adjusted, with the overall affordable housing contribution remaining the same, it is our view that this is unlikely to justify reopening viability by either side. We would ask local authorities to expedite such renegotiations so they can be dealt with in a timely manner, and avoid action which might result in unnecessary delay.’

6.5 This site has permission to deliver a scheme of entirely affordable homes and the number, size and form of these would remain as approved. The changes sought to the agreement, which would be realised through a Deed of Variation, seek only to change the tenure of the units and to amend clauses relating to mortgagees.

6.6 The current agreement secures the 20 No. dwellings to be delivered as Social Rented properties, which under current legislation, means that a housing association would charge around 50% of market rent levels. Given that this type of tenure is no longer supported by the Homes and Communities Agency and the reduced rental income that could now be obtained from such a tenure, it is proposed to alter the scheme to deliver 20 No. Affordable Rented properties. Affordable Rent being chargeable at up to 80% of market rent rates and thereby providing a higher revenue to the housing association, which in turn enables them to borrow for future homes and schemes. The allocation of the properties to those on the Housing Register remains unchanged – the higher rents charged will preclude no eligible household from nomination, as any increased rent is still within the Local Housing Allowance and the shortfall would be covered by Housing Benefit.

6.7 Changing the tenure of the units to Affordable Rent will still ensure the provision of much needed rented properties in Cowfold and would accord with the requirements of Policy 16 of the HDPF, which seeks to prioritise rented units over shared ownership units. The existing preference set out in the legal agreement for allocating these homes to households with a Cowfold connection, would remain. Furthermore, as evidenced from the DCLG letter, it is the Government’s clear intention that Council’s should look to assist, and be flexible with, housing associations to ensure the delivery of affordable homes, bearing in mind the need for schemes to remain viable.

174 ITEM A6 - 5

6.8 The second element of the proposed variation to the agreement relates to alterations to the mortgagee clauses. The applicant has advised that in order to be able to secure the necessary funding from mortgage lenders, they require a ‘mortgagee in possession’ clause to be incorporated into Schedule 5 of the agreement. The use of such clauses is not considered unreasonable and versions of them have been agreed in respect of other sites within the District.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That it is agreed to delegate authority to the Development Manager to vary the legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act in respect of this development, in order to allow for the change of tenure and incorporation of mortgagee in possession clauses.

Background Papers: DC/14/1478

175 S106/15/0003

Land East of 14 and 15 Alley Groves

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

The Coach House Brookhill Ponds Cottage Brookhill Old BrookhillHouse

Swimming Pool Pond

Drain

The Red House

)

u ( Pond h t

a 11 P

ES 6 V Pond 1 RO G 14 5 EY HA LL G N A 0 D OV 1 NS ER 1 34 2 4 13 2

8 1

1 E

S Scale: 1:2,144

Date 07/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

176 ITEM A7 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 19 January 2016 Improvement and extension of the existing Five Oaks Audi on-site car parking and vehicle storage, including substantial landscaping and tree DEVELOPMENT: planting

Affects The Setting of a Listed Building SITE: Harwoods Group Limited Horsham Road Five Oaks Billingshurst WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/15/1530 APPLICANT: Harwoods Group

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: More than 5 letters of representation contrary to the Officer recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: To approve the application subject to conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the extension of the Five Oaks Audi Showroom and garage to provide 130 additional parking spaces and 12 cycle parking spaces. The proposed parking would cover an area of 1.73 acres. The parking on the site as a whole (including the blue and red edge) would consist of 275 spaces. The application has been amended during the application process with the removal of 5 parking spaces (from 135 to 130), the provision of 12 covered cycle parking spaces and increased landscaping.

1.2 The proposed parking spaces as a whole would be divided into; · 64 spaces for vehicle display, · 15 spaces for demonstrator vehicles, · 42 spaces for new vehicle storage, · 10 spaces for used vehicle storage, · 12 spaces for sales customer parking, · 45 spaces for service customer parking, · 18 spaces for bodyshop customer parking, · 8 spaces for petrol filling station parking,

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason 177 Tel: 01403 215289 ITEM A7 - 2

· 61 spaces for visitor and staff parking.

1.3 A landscape buffer zone would be provided to the northern, eastern and western boundary to the site. The access to the parking area would be located in the south eastern corner of the site with access from Horsham Road.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is located to the north of the existing Audi site and consists of a field which lies between Horsham Road and Stane Street. On the boundaries to Stane Street and Horsham Road are established hedgerows whilst the Harwood’s Audi site forms the southern boundary. To the north of the site is a public footpath. To the east of the site are residential dwellings, whilst to the west are further residential dwellings and the listed buildings known as Cherry Tree Cottage and Smithy House.

1.5 The main Harwoods Garage site is located on a triangular shaped plot where the Horsham Road and Stane Street converge at the roundabout. The business is an established new and used car dealership with associated showroom, servicing and repair workshops. Within the site is also a petrol filling station and related car wash and retail space.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF) Section 1 – Building a strong competitive economy, Section 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy, Section 7 – Requiring good design and Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

National Planning Policy Guidance (March 2014)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

The following policies of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) are considered relevant to the consideration of the is application;

Policy 1 – Sustainable Development Policy 2 – Strategic Development Policy 7 – Economic Growth Policy 9 – Employment Development Policy 10 – Rural Economic Development Policy 24 – Environmental Protection Policy 25 – District Character and Natural Environment Policy 26 – Countryside Protection Policy 31 – Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Policy 32 – The Quality of New Development Policy 33 – Development Principles Policy 34 – Heritage Assets and Managing Change within the Historic Environment Policy 40 – Sustainable Transport Policy 41 - Parking

178 ITEM A7 - 3

PLANNING HISTORY

The most recent planning history relating to the site is set out below;

BL/22/01 Erection of building for valeting of cars PER Site: Harwoods Garage Horsham Road Five Oaks Billingshurst

BL/40/01 1 free-standing & 3 fascia signs PER Site: Harwoods Rover Horsham Road Five Oaks

BL/41/02 Additional parking and alterations to access REF Site: Harwoods Rover Horsham Road Five Oaks

DC/04/0102 Additional parking, soft landscaping, improved access and turning REF

DC/04/0143 Retention of 6 lighting bollards PER

DC/05/0986 Overcladding of part of buildings PER

DC/06/2909 3 flag poles and flags and 2 free standing totem signs PER

DC/11/0120 Retrospective permission for the replacement of 1 No. air PER conditioning unit and installation of 2 No. additional air conditioning units on wall of service station

DC/11/0121 Retention of 1 No. replacement illuminated pole sign, 1 No. REF 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/11/2131 Retrospective application for the retention of temporary storage PER unit to northern elevation of existing building with timber fence

DC/12/0838 Retention of 1 No. replacement illuminated pole sign, 1 No. PER 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/13/1862 Extension of the existing Five Oaks Audi car showroom with PER provision of a new vehicle handover bay

DC/15/0004 Full Planning application for the rationalisation, and extension of WDN the existing Five Oaks Audi on-site car parking and vehicle storage, and associated landscaping Affects the setting of a Listed Building

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal and external consultation, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk.

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Economic Development (summarised) – Supports the application which will enable a long standing Horsham District business to:

179 ITEM A7 - 4

• Improve and extend its business trading facilities and operate on a more cost/carbon efficient basis. • Retain its current car dealership agreement. • Secure the long term future for its business within the Horsham District. • Secure future employment for its existing workforce. • Retain the retail shop and petrol filling station as important local amenities.

3.2 Ecology (summarised) – No objection subject to conditions

3.3 Public Health and Licensing (summarised) – No objection subject to conditions.

3.4 Landscape Architect (summarised) - The proposed significant landscape buffer could have a beneficial visual and ecological effect, although concerns are raised regarding encroachment into the countryside.

3.5 Strategic and Community Planning – comments awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

3.6 Heritage Consultant (summarised) - whilst the existing development has already harmed the setting of these assets, the further extension of the site northwards into the field, will cumulatively add to that harm and additional planting would not make it any more acceptable.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.7 West Sussex County Council Highways (summarised) - No objection; subject to the extension of the visibility splay to the north east.

3.8 West Sussex County Council Highways Drainage (summarised) - The site does not have any known surface water flood risk issues from historic events, or highways flooding. Surface water flood modelling does indicate some localised risk of surface water flooding on the north western corner of the proposed site. This does not mean that the sites will flood but just that it is indicated as being susceptible by the data we hold. Discharge of surface water from any hard standing and vehicle parking area into a sewer or watercourse should be via a petrol / oil interceptor. Discharge rates should be no greater any existing green field run-off and agreed with the LPA.

Groundwater Risk

The site is indicated to be at low risk from groundwater flood risk according to the risk susceptibility mapping we hold. This is based on topography, geology and historic groundwater data and does not represent any detailed site specific investigations.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.9 Billingshurst Parish Council has raised no objection to the application.

3.10 Ten letters of objection have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds; · Parking on the site is already excessive · Transporters can enter and exit the site and do not need to park in the road · Cars have to be transported from the port to the site and slow moving vehicles are not uncommon in a rural setting · Main hazard relates to the traffic island in Five Oaks · Concern at speeding

180 ITEM A7 - 5

· There are other car dealerships located in the area operating from smaller sites · Main dealers have few new cars in stock · The large number of cars on the fore court are all pre-owned cars · Footpath would lose its countryside views · Development is disproportionate and involves the expansion of an industrial activity on to land designated for agricultural use · Entrance to site cannot be screened off or softened by landscaping · Water runoff has been excessive from the site and has resulted in flooding of neighbouring land. · Use is already oversized for a small hamlet such as Five Oaks · Current number of vehicles offered for sale and floodlighting already distract drivers and jeopardise road safety · Increase in noise and light pollution · Audi documents already state that Harwoods have special dispensation given the size of the site · Application does not show the 35 spaces to the rear of the BP forecourt, the 10 spaces around the perimeter of the showroom or that spaces would be provided within the garden/boundary of the demolished bungalow. · A smaller scheme has already been dismissed at appeal. · Impact on setting of listed building · Houses opposite site would have direct views into car park · Existing use results in pollution and antisocial behaviour · Entrance and exit are on blind hill and use by low loaders and the increase in traffic will cause highway safety concerns · An application on a neighbouring site was refused for housing due to its location in an unsustainable rural location.

3.11 A petition signed by 30 residents has also been submitted objecting to the application.

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

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 ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in the consideration of this proposal are considered to be:

• Principle of development • Character of the area and amenity of neighbouring properties • Impact on setting of listed building • The existing parking and traffic conditions in the area

Principle of development

6.2 The principle issue in the determination of this application is whether the economic justification for the expansion of the existing business would outweigh the proposed

181 ITEM A7 - 6

encroachment into the countryside and the requirements of the economic and environmental policies within the Horsham District Planning Framework.

6.3 The application site has been the subject of two previous applications for the extension of the parking area (BL/41/02 and DC/04/0102). Each application was refused and dismissed at appeal. The Inspectors comments are therefore a material consideration in the current application. The first application (BL/41/02) sought permission for additional parking, soft landscaping and improved access to the Horsham Road for car transporter access and turning on site. The Inspector noted that the proposal would conflict with the countryside protection policies and that the scheme failed to provide sufficient economic benefits.

6.4 Application DC/04/0102 was submitted in February 2004 to try and overcome the issues raised as part of the previous appeal. The application sought to provide an additional 110 parking spaces increasing the area of the business by 0.45ha. In considering the appeal proposal the Inspector noted that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the open land, and whilst this would be softened by landscaping this would not be sufficient to overcome the visual impact on the countryside.

6.5 The NPPF promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development which is a ‘golden thread’ running through the document (paragraph 14). The NPPF is explicit in its aim to actively promote and encourage sustainable economic growth - instructing decision- takers to place significant weight on the need to support economic growth through the planning system, and not to act as an impediment to it. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF notes that “planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.”

6.6 Policy 10 of the HDPF follows the thrust of paragraph 28 by confirming that: “Sustainable rural economic development and enterprise within the district will be encouraged in order to generate local employment opportunities and economic, social and environmental benefits for local communities.

In the countryside, development which maintains the quality and character of the area, whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity will be supported in principle. Any development should be appropriate to the countryside location and must:

1. Contribute to the diverse and sustainable farming enterprises within the district or, in the case of other countryside-based enterprises and activities, contribute to the wider rural economy and/or promote recreation in, and the enjoyment of, the countryside; and either a. Be contained wherever possible within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion or, in the case of an established rural industrial estate, within the existing boundaries of the estate; or b. Result in substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside particularly if there are exceptional cases where new or replacement buildings are involved. New buildings or development in the rural area will be acceptable provided that it supports sustainable economic growth towards balanced living and working communities and criteria a) has been considered first.

2. Demonstrate that car parking requirements can be accommodated satisfactorily within the immediate surrounds of the buildings, or an alternative, logical solution is proposed.”

6.7 In general terms, it is clear that both the NPPF and HDPF actively promotes and encourages the development of a prosperous but sustainable economy which supports opportunities for growth; whilst respecting and taking into account the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment as well as the vibrancy, health and character of existing settlements and communities within them. Taking the provisions of the NPPF and HDPF into account, it is considered that a balanced approach must be taken when

182 ITEM A7 - 7

considering the merits of the proposed development in order to determine whether any harm inflicted to the countryside and established community would be outweighed by any economic benefits that the development may provide to the local or wider area.

6.8 The application site is located outside any defined built-up area boundaries, therefore classed as being in a countryside location where countryside policies apply. The application site would be used as additional parking for the existing garage and showroom at Harwoods Audi. The application states that there is insufficient space available at the site for the current operation. Therefore Harwoods Audi currently store 60-80 cars at an industrial site known as Bramble Hill approximately 3.3km north-east of the site. Cars are moved on a daily basis to and from the off-site storage and are often in ‘transport mode’ which means they can only travel at 20mph.The applicant has stated that the parking area is required to enable the business to continue trading and meet the demands of the Audi brand. It is also stated that if the current business was to relocate it would result in the loss of the petrol filling station and its associated shop. At present the business employs 45 full time and 5 part time members of staff. If the application was to be approved this would allow the staff numbers to increase to 60 full time and 10 part time members of staff with at least 8 apprenticeships both in the workshop and in the sales area.

6.9 The applicant has through their agent justified the number of spaces required for the development noting that; “The total number of proposed parking spaces are to provide flexibility and to ensure that the company will not need to seek planning permission for additional spaces in the future. Where spaces are not required by staff they will be used for car storage. It is not a case that spaces will be left unused. It is also worth pointing out that, whilst there are a number of allocated ‘Demonstrator’ spaces (cars that customers can test drive / are shown) there are also additional Demonstrator cars that are used by the Harwoods employees. It is a vital part of the business that there are sufficient vehicles, of different types, available as and when they are needed. This further demonstrates the flexibility and economic efficiency that a layout such as this will provide.”

6.10 Within the application documentation details have been provided with regards to the company seeking to find suitable alternative sites. The applicant’s agent notes that they have been investigating sites for over two years and that there are few available commercial sites in general and none of those investigated met the requirements of Audi UK. The applicant is therefore seeking to establish and improve their existing premises.

6.11 Policy 26 of the HDPF relates to countryside protection and requires that any development should be essential to its countryside location and should support the needs of agriculture or forestry, enable the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste, provide for quiet informal recreational use or enable the sustainable development of rural areas. It is considered that whilst the proposed use of the site is not essential to its countryside location, the proposal could enable the sustainable development of rural areas. As noted in policy 10 of the HDPF proposals for sustainable rural economic development and enterprise within the district will be encouraged in order to generate local employment opportunities and economic, social and environmental benefits for local communities.

6.12 The current application differs from the previously refused schemes in that the layout of the parking area has been changed and additional landscaping provided. The current scheme also provides additional information with regards to the needs of the business as well as information relating to alternative sites for relocation. The retention of the business on the site would also maintain on-site shop provision. The applicants agent has stated that “At present the on-site shop is run to support the local community rather than as a particularly commercial entity. Some years it may make a small amount whilst other years there may be a slight loss. Despite this, Harwoods are keen to retain this facility on site, rather than use this land in a potentially more ‘commercial’ manner, and continue to provide this important local amenity to the area.” The proposed scheme would result in the retention of

183 ITEM A7 - 8

45 full time and 5 part time jobs on the site and would enable a further 15 full time positions and 5 part time posts to be created. The proposal would also provide for at least 8 apprenticeships. It is considered that a condition may be appropriate if the application was to be approved to require further detail demonstrating how the development would provide or enable the delivery of apprenticeships and other on-site training opportunities for local residents and how the development would, support local training and placement schemes targeted at local residents.

6.13 Economic Development has been identified as one of the Council's top District priorities. As a top priority the Council recognises that if the economy works this sustains a good quality of life for all. The Economic Development Strategy 2013-23 sets out a vision and a framework for the development of the economy over ten years to 2023. Job creation and the retention and growth of businesses are key to this strategy, whilst at the same time ensuring that the District retains its high quality of life status. The Councils Economic Development Officer has noted that; “For many years Horsham District has been under pressure to provide additional housing which has not been matched with new business land allocations and local job creation opportunities which has increased the number of residents commuting out of the area. The last new business land allocations were in the 1990’s. Freehold and leasehold employment land in the District and business premises are scarce and much of the business accommodation stock is low grade and does not meet the requirements of existing businesses or attract new businesses, resulting in Horsham District being placed 86th in England in a recent Local Futures survey of ‘best places to do business’.”

6.14 It is therefore considered taking into account the background of economic development within the District, the details provided within the application as well as considering the previous appeal decisions that on balance, the proposed scheme would result in the retention and generation of local employment and protect the existing on-site shop.

Character of the area and amenity of neighbouring properties

6.15 As previously identified in the earlier appeal decisions the application site is in a rural location with the existing commercial use forming a boundary between the open field to the north and the hamlet of Five Oaks. The site is bordered to either side by Horsham Road and Stane Street, with residential dwellings following the linear pattern of the road, on the opposite side. In relation to noise and light pollution, the Councils Public Health and Licensing Team have raised no objection to the scheme subject to conditions. It should also be noted that paragraph 122 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that “local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.”

6.16 Concern has also been raised with regard to the impact of the proposed scheme on properties whose windows face into the site. Whilst the loss of view and any impact on the value of properties is not a material planning consideration, the appearance of the proposed development and its impact on the character of the area needs to be carefully considered. Paragraph 187 of the Planning Practice Guidance notes that “Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.”

6.17 The proposed application has been considered by the Councils Landscape Architect who has considered the proposal in terms of its visual effect (as the effect on views and visual amenity as experienced by people) and landscape effect (as the change to landscape as a

184 ITEM A7 - 9

resource and the contribution of landscape character to sense of place). With regards to the landscape effect the Landscape Architect has stated that due to the size of land lost and the nature of the development the proposals would have a landscape impact. However the Landscape Architect also noted that “it is recognized that the proposals and mitigation measures show a significant area of screen planting and that the buffer proposed could have beneficial visual and ecological effect.” The decision to grant or refuse a planning application ultimately rests with the local planning authority taking into account all relevant planning considerations. A balanced view therefore needs to be undertaken weighing the comments of each consultee against relevant material planning considerations with the need to justify a decision taken, including where it is contrary to a consultee’s view.

6.18 In this instance it is considered that the economic benefits of the proposed scheme would outweigh the landscape effect on this occasion. It is also considered that the increase in the depth of the proposed landscape buffer to a maximum of 40 metres on the eastern boundary, a minimum of 7 metres on the northern boundary and maximum of 13 metres on the western boundary would have a beneficial and mitigating visual effect. The depth of the proposed boundary would also provide an effective barrier to any future expansion of the site.

Impact on setting of listed building

6.19 In both appeals the Inspector’s considered the impact of the proposed development on the setting of Smithy House and noted that in terms of BL/41/02 “the separation distance and the nature of the separation results in there being no significant harm to living conditions or the setting of the listed building.” This was again reflected in DC/04/0102 where the Inspector stated that “there would be no significant harm to the setting of the nearby listed building or to the living conditions of occupiers.” It is therefore considered that it would be difficult to raise an objection to the current scheme in terms of the impact on the setting of the nearby listed building as these matters have already been considered by the appeal Inspectors.

The existing parking and traffic conditions in the area

6.20 The layout plan shows the application site being accessed via an existing vehicular access from the Horsham Road with the access being modified to enable access to the new parking and storage areas and articulated vehicle turning. The Highways Authority at WSCC has reviewed the proposed access and have not raised any objections to the proposed development. Currently transporters enter the site from Horsham Road and leave via Stane Street. A condition was placed on BL/1/98 that required that at all times space should be made available on the site for petrol/diesel tankers and car transporters to enter the site, load and unload and exit onto the highway in forward gear. However it appears that as the site is over occupied HGV’s have to manoeuvre around customer parking and if the route is blocked reverse back onto the public highway. The proposed development will provide for a segregated access from the eastern access from Horsham Road. The onsite access road/parking area has been designed to allow transporter vehicles to turn within a hammer-head and re-enter the highway in a forward gear. The Highways Authority therefore considers that the proposal is a considerable improvement on the existing arrangements.

6.21 Similarly, no objection is raised by the Highway Authority in relation to traffic movements and highway capacity or safety. The Highways Authority have indicated from the information submitted that; “the likely increase in trips as a result of this development would be 44% of the gross increase derived from the TRICs analysis. This results in an increase of 10 vehicles in the AM peak and 10 vehicles in the PM peak – this level is unlikely to have a significant impact on the public highway. In addition there will also be a decrease in the

185 ITEM A7 - 10

number of trips to the Bramble Hill facility which would reduce the increase further.” Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ It is not considered that the proposed development would lead to impacts upon the highway that could be considered severe. The proposal would utilise a vehicular access that could accommodate development at the scale proposed, would not cause any significant impact in terms of an increase in traffic movements within the vicinity of the site and could provide car parking to a level that would accord with the WSCC Parking Calculator. The proposal therefore complies with policy 40 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

6.22 The application site is located outside of the defined built up area boundary in an area with limited alternatives to the private car. Concerns have been raised with regards to the amount of employee parking (1x parking space per employee) which would not promote sustainable travel patterns by encouraging opportunities which reduce staff dependency on running individual vehicles. The applicant’s agent has considered these concerns and has reduced the car parking spaces by 5 and submitted a Green Travel Plan. The Green Travel Plan resolves to provide a complimentary taxi service between Billingshurst Railway Station and the garage for customers, the collection and home delivery of vehicles, car sharing by staff being promoted as well as bus and train timetables being displayed in the staff kitchen area. It is therefore considered that due to the location of the site, a condition relating to a Green Travel Plan should be considered and the applicant reminded that a further extension of the site may not be supported especially as it has been stated that the current scheme aims to “future proof” the needs of the business.

Conclusion

6.23 It is considered on balance that the proposed application would enable the expansion of an existing rural business and support local employment opportunities. The proposed scheme would result in the retention of 45 full time and 5 part time jobs on the site and would enable a further 15 full time positions and 5 part time posts to be created. The proposal would also provide for at least 8 apprenticeships. The landscape impact is noted however it is considered that the benefits of the proposal outweigh these concerns. It is also considered that the visual landscape impact would be mitigated by the proposed landscaping scheme which can be conditioned to ensure the boundary treatment is provided prior to the area being utilised by the business. It is therefore considered that the proposed scheme would support opportunities for growth; whilst respecting and taking into account the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment as well as the vibrancy, health and character of existing settlements and communities within them in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy 1, 2 and 10 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application is approved subject to the following conditions;

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Full details of the visibility splays to the north east vehicular entrance onto Horsham Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site. The agreed works shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and shall thereafter

186 ITEM A7 - 11

be maintained and kept free of all obstructions over a height of 0.6 metre above adjoining carriageway level or as otherwise agreed.

Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy 40 and 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

3. The use of any land for car parking shall not be commenced until details of the layout, surfacing and drainage of the land have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The details approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details and be maintained as part of the development prior to vehicles being parked on the land. Such land shall not be used thereafter for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policy 33 and 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

4. Full details of cycle storage and parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site. The agreed works shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the site and shall thereafter be retained solely for the purpose of cycle storage and parking.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy 40 and 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

5. No works or development shall take place unless and until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season, following commencement of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details prior to the use of the land for the parking of vehicles. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

6. No development, including works of any description, including demolition pursuant to the permission granted, ground clearance, or bringing equipment, machinery or materials onto the site, shall take place until the following preliminaries have been completed in the sequence set out below: · All required arboricultural works, including permitted tree felling and surgery operations and above ground vegetative clearance within such areas set out for development as indicated on the approved site layout drawing to be completed and cleared away; · All trees on the site targeted for retention, as well as those off-site whose root protection areas ingress into the site, shall be fully protected by tree protective fencing affixed to the ground in full accordance with section 6 of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations' (2012). Once installed, the fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development works and until all machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Areas so fenced off shall be treated as zones of prohibited access, and shall not be used for the storage of materials, equipment or machinery in any

187 ITEM A7 - 12

circumstances. No mixing of cement, concrete, or use of other materials or substances shall take place within any tree protective zone, or close enough to such a zone that seepage or displacement of those materials and substances could cause them to enter a zone.

Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

7. Before development commences a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibility and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and nature conservation in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

8. No external lighting serving access roads, car parks or other areas shall be installed unless details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in conjunction with an ecologist. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any lighting that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy 25 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

9. Prior to the commencement of development a walk over survey of the site shall be undertaken to check for protected species particularly badgers and reptiles by a person agreed by the Local Planning Authority to be suitably qualified. If the ecological value of the site has changed, and protected species are present a mitigation method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure protected species and biodiversity is protected and enhanced in accordance with policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

12. Prior to the use of the land for the parking and storage of vehicles hereby approved being occupied for that purpose a Training and Employment Plan demonstrating how the development will: a. Provide or enable the delivery of apprenticeships and other on-site training opportunities for local residents. b. Provide or support local training and placement schemes targeted at local residents. The plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the site. The agreed details shall thereafter be maintained and reviewed every two years for an ongoing period to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide employment and training opportunities within the District in accordance with the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 policy 1, policy 2 and policy 10.

188 ITEM A7 - 13

13. Within 3 months of the first use of the parking area, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall be completed in accordance with the latest guidance and good practice documentation as published by the Department for Transport or as advised by the Highway Authority. The Travel Plan shall thereafter be adhered to and kept updated in accordance with best practice as part of the development.

Reason: To encourage and promote sustainable transport in accordance with policy 40 and 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

14. All vegetation clearance including the loss of the arable land should be timed to avoid the bird nesting season (nesting season: February-September inclusive). If this is not possible then any vegetation proposed to be cleared shall be inspected by a suitability qualified ecologist prior to removal.

Reason: To ensure protected species and biodiversity is protected and enhanced in accordance with policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

15. There shall be no importation of soil and other fill materials onto the development site unless the soil/fill has been certified as fit for purpose by a competent person and has been subject to analysis by an accredited laboratory to ensure that it is free from contamination.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

16. Prior to the occupation of the land for the parking and storage of vehicles hereby approved, a Deliveries Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Deliveries Management Plan should provide, amongst other details, information relating to the ongoing management of space within the site to enable Heavy Goods Vehicles including petrol/diesel tankers and car transporters to enter the site, load and unload and exit onto the highway in forward gear, and hours of delivery and operation. The site shall operate in strict accordance with the requirements of the approved Deliveries Management Plan.

Reason; In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

Informatives

The applicant is further advised that compliance with planning conditions does not necessarily prevent action from being taken by the Local Authority or members of the public to secure the abatement, restriction or prohibition of statutory nuisances actionable under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or any other statutory provisions.

Please be advised that there are conditions on this notice that will require formal discharge. In order to secure the discharge you will need to submit an "Application for approval of details reserved by condition" application form and pay the appropriate fee, guidance and the forms can be found at www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/paperforms

Statement pursuant to Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application

189 ITEM A7 - 14

(as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Background Papers: DC/15/1530, DC/15/0004, DC/13/1862, DC/04/0102, BL/41/02

190 DC/15/1530

Harwoods Group Limited

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Five Oaks Cottage

68.0m Morris's Cottages 1 Pa th ( um) 4

t D e A e r t O 65.1m S R

e N n A Smithy House a t M S O R

4 26 e A e 69.3m r Garage T e g y r a t r t T Hatari e o h E C C E Poplar Bungalow R Fern Cottages T S 1 Hayeswood E 5 H N D House A A A O R Y T M E S A SH S 1 R

O 8 W HT w 1 O o OR 4 6 O D A 2 H 4 o 5 A o D t The Lodge O s 8 t t e 1 r D s L Path (um FIE ) Old 4 PS East Cottage Forge HO BeISs Mews ag ott El Sub Sta C es 1 West ay Cottage H 4 tle 8 5 Lit 1 LBStanewell h 2 at House P

Scale: 1:2,144

Date 07/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

191 192 ITEM A8 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (south) BY: Development Manager DATE: 19th January 2016 Demolition of commercial and agricultural buildings and the erection of a DEVELOPMENT: single detached dwelling with garage SITE: Oreham Manor Farm House Oreham Common Henfield West Sussex WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/15/2389 APPLICANT: Mr Andy Barrott

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters received at variance to Officers recommendation. Councillor Coldwell has also requested the application is referred to committee.

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 full planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of a detached four bedroom dwelling and associated two bay garage with attached lockable store.

1.2 The proposed dwelling would be constructed with a basement level set below the existing ground level, and would appear from the north as a single storey building whilst from the south the building would have three floors. The proposed dwelling would be 15 metres wide and 13.51 metres deep at its furthest point with a height from the existing ground level of 5.745 metres. The proposed dwelling would be constructed with vertical timber cladding to all elevations apart from the ground floor of the southern elevation which would have a flint finish. The roof of the proposed dwelling would be formed of grey pressed steel sheeting.

1.3 The proposed garage would have a curved roof and would be 9 metres wide, 6 metres deep and would be 2.65 metres high. It would provide parking for two vehicles with a lockable store to the side. The excavation works would also create a sunken garden to the south of the proposed dwelling. The application has been amended since the last refused

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason 193 Tel: 01403 215289 ITEM A8 - 2

application (DC/15/0088) with the southern elevation of the basement now proposed to be finished in flint rather than stone.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is situated in a rural location outside of any defined built up area boundary. The boundary to the South Downs National Park is located some 67metres to the north, 45 metres to the east and 63 metres to the south of the boundary of the application site. A public footpath runs to the north of the site along Oreham Common, and also to the west of the site.

1.5 To the east of the site is Oreham Manor Farm which shares the access with the application site. Oreham Manor Farm is a detached dwelling which gained permission following the granting of a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use following the noncompliance with the conditions and plans of application HF/48/01. To the north of the site is Oreham Farmhouse and Oreham Manor. The access to both the application site and Oreham Manor Farm is located between these two properties.

1.6 Within the application site are a number of outbuildings and former agricultural buildings in varying states of repair. There is also a large amount of hardstanding and building materials. To the rear and western boundaries of the site is an established hedgerow. To the northern boundary is a single storey out building. The site has open views to the South Downs to the south.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF).

• NPPF 7 – Requiring good design • NPPF 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

2.3 National Planning Policy Guidance 2014 (NPPG).

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 The relevant policies of the Horsham District Planning Framework are considered to be policy 1, 3, 4, 10, 25, 26, 30, 21, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41.

194 ITEM A8 - 3

PLANNING HISTORY

Overall site

HF/95/84 Renewal of temp permission to station mobile home PER

HF/21/91 Renewal of temporary permission to station a mobile home REF

HF/3/91 Erection of agricultural worker's chalet bungalow REF

HF/12/94 Erection of one 3-bedroomed agricultural house REF

HF/37/95 Erection of 1 x 3 bedroomed agricultural house REF

HF/38/95 Retention of an agricultural mobile home (temporary period) REF

HF/52/96 Use of agricultural building for the storage of refrigerators REF

HF/11/99 Erection of 1 agricultural house PER

HF/48/01 Erection of 1 agricultural dwelling & garage PER

DC/09/0045 Excavation of wildlife lake on wet pasture land INVW

DC/12/0647 Application for confirmation that the property and its use as a Class 3 single-family dwelling is lawful outside the terms of any planning permission including HF/48/01 (Erection of one agricultural dwelling and garage) (Certificate of Lawful Development - Existing) PER

DC/13/1477 2-storey rear extension to provide kitchen and bedroom PER

Application site

DC/14/2167 Demolition of commercial and agricultural building and the erection of dwelling with garage REF

DC/15/0088 Demolition of Commercial and Agricultural Buildings and the Erection of Dwelling with Garage REF

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Public Health and Licensing (summarised) – additional information would be required with respect to the presence of contamination which may pose a risk to the proposed dwelling.

195 ITEM A8 - 4

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 Southern Water (summarised) – There is no public foul sewer in the vicinity of the site. The exact position of a public water distribution main must be determined on site by the applicant prior to the layout of the development being finalised.

3.4 West Sussex County Council Highways (summarised) – No objection subject to conditions

3.5 South Downs National Park Authority (summarised) - Whilst the principle of the design of the new dwelling is to reflect that of rural buildings and to “soften its impact in views from the nearby South Downs National Park”, the SDNPA are concerned that the combination of the design, appearance and use of external materials, particularly the profiled metal sheet roof, would not be sufficient to conceal the fact that a new dwelling would be introduced in the countryside, close to the boundary of the National Park, with no apparent agricultural or other rural enterprise justification

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.6 Henfield Parish Council – No objection.

3.7 Twenty Five letters (four addresses have sent two letters each) have been received supporting the application on the following grounds;

· Improve view especially with regards to the National Park · Provide much needed accommodation · Remove heavy traffic from road · Improve safety on access road · Proposed dwelling is of an ecological design · Unsightly buildings would be removed

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

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 ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

• The principle of the development • Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area • Impacts upon the amenities of nearby residents • Highway impacts

196 ITEM A8 - 5

Principle of development

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision-taking. In terms of the determination of planning applications this should mean the approval of developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise.

6.3 The application site lies in the countryside outside of the identified built-up area of any settlement. Given this location, the initial principle of the proposal moves to be considered in the context of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, and policy 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF).

6.4 Policy 3 seeks to locate appropriate development, including infilling, redevelopment and conversion within built-up area boundaries, with a focus on brownfield land. As the site is outside of the built-up area boundary of a town or village it would not meet the requirements of Policy 3 of the HDPF.

6.5 Policy 4 relates to settlement expansion and states that; “Outside built-up area boundaries, the expansion of settlements will be supported where; a.the site is allocated in the Local Plan or in a Neighbourhood Plan and adjoins an existing settlement edge. b.the level of expansion is appropriate to the scale and function of the settlement type. c.the development is demonstrated to meet the identified local housing needs and employment needs or will assist the retention and enhancement of community facilities and services. d.the impact of the development individually or cumulatively does not prejudice comprehensive long term development, in order not to conflict with the development strategy; and e.the development is contained within an existing defensible boundary and the landscape and townscape character features are maintained and enhanced.”

The site has not been allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan or the Local Plan and it is not considered that the proposal has demonstrated how it would meet identified housing needs, and would not maintain or enhance the locality’s landscape character features. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not comply with policy 4.

6.6 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. Consistent with this, Policy 26 states that any development should be essential to its countryside location and should support the needs of agriculture or forestry, enable the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste, provide for quiet informal recreational use or enable the sustainable development of rural areas. Policy 30 relates to protected landscapes and requires that proposals close to protected landscapes need to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impacts on the natural beauty and public enjoyment of these landscapes.

6.7 The proposed development of the site for residential purposes would not constitute a development which is essential to this countryside location, neither is it considered that the proposal would contribute to existing rural enterprises, activities or recreational opportunities. The proposal does not involve the conversion of existing rural buildings, but rather would result in the loss of existing agricultural and commercial facilities. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the NPPF and with policy 26 of the HDPF.

197 ITEM A8 - 6

6.8 The applicant’s agent has stated that the removal of the existing buildings on the site would represent an improvement to the overall appearance of the site. However, it is not considered that the proposed removal of the existing structures across the site and their replacement with a residential dwelling would lead to any significant benefit in terms of visual improvement to the surrounding area. The existing buildings, whilst spread across the site, are not unduly prominent within their surroundings and would not be unexpected in a rural location. It is considered that they have a functional appearance appropriate to the countryside, and although not attractive, do not cause significant harm to the character or appearance of the area.

6.9 The applicant’s agent has submitted a sworn declaration stating that a number of buildings on site have been used for commercial uses and not solely for agriculture. The statement advises that one building has been used in connection with the applicant’s builders business. Another building has been rented out to a blacksmith and a further two buildings have been rented out for general storage. The applicant’s agent notes that these uses have been on site for a number of years and remain in use. There is no planning history relating to the uses purported to be undertaken on the site. It would therefore be open for the applicant to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate to formally establish the lawful use of the site. However if it was accepted that the uses on the site are lawful for planning purposes it would appear that the buildings are capable of housing such uses and are in an acceptable condition to rent them for such uses. There are no known complaints in relation to noise and disturbance that have been received in relation to the uses on site. The demolition of these building and loss of the commercial uses on the site would therefore be contrary to policy 10 and the aims and objectives of the NPPF in terms of economic rural development.

6.10 As previously noted there is no planning history relating to the commercial uses quoted by the applicant’s agent. An application for an agricultural workers dwelling was submitted by the applicant in 2001 on the neighbouring site which showed the application site within the agricultural holding supporting the dwelling. A dwelling was subsequently built which did not meet the conditions of the application. A certificate of lawfulness was then submitted and allowed as the dwelling had been substantially completed for over 4 years. If the lawful use remains as agricultural as shown in the 2001 application the land would not fall within the definition of "previously developed land" as the definition of such land excludes land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. The site would therefore be classified as green field.

6.11 A similar application for a dwelling on this site was refused at committee in March 2015 for the following reasons;

1. The site lies within an unsustainable rural location outside the limits of any existing settlement and with poor access to services and facilities without the use of a private motor vehicle. In addition, the proposed development does not constitute a use considered essential to such a countryside location. The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular with paragraph 55, and with policies CP1, CP5 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

2. The proposal would result in the loss of viable commercial units and therefore contrary to policy DC24 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

The current application differs from the refused application in that the materials proposed on the southern elevation of the basement have changed from stone to flint. It is not

198 ITEM A8 - 7

considered that the proposed scheme has overcome the in principle objections raised to the earlier refused application.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area

6.12 The proposal seeks permission for the construction of one detached dwelling to replace the existing structures on the site. Section 7 of the NPPF provides guidance relating to design and states that good design is a "key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people." It also notes in paragraph 64 that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

6.13 The site is in close proximity to the South Downs National Park, and the National Park Authority have raised concerns with regards to the combination of the design, appearance and use of external materials, particularly the profiled metal sheet roof in this location. It is considered that the proposed dwelling would result in a form of development that would be prominent in terms of the views into the site from the National Park and would be urban in form. It is consequently considered that the proposal does not comply with Policy 30 or 33 of the HDPF or the design requirements reflected in the NPPF, and therefore does not meet the environmental role required to be considered sustainable development.

Impacts upon the amenities of nearby residents

6.14 The site is bordered to the west by the applicant's dwelling, Oreham Manor Farm, with the nearest non-associated residential properties being approximately 90m to the north. Oreham Manor Farm would be approximately 49m from the proposed dwelling and separated by track and shrubbery. Given the distances involved, it is not considered that the proposed development would lead to detrimental impacts upon the amenities of nearby residents.

Highway safety

6.15 The Highways Authority at WSCC has reviewed the proposed access to the site and has not raised any objections to the proposed development. Similarly, no objection is raised by the Highway Authority in relation to traffic movements and highway capacity or safety. The car parking shown would provide a minimum of 2 No. spaces. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that 'development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.' It is not considered that the proposed development would lead to impacts upon the highway that could be considered severe. The Highways Authority are satisfied that the proposed site can accommodate development at the scale proposed, would not cause any significant impact in terms of an increase in traffic movements within the vicinity of the site and that car parking would accord with the WSCC Parking Calculator. It is therefore considered in this respect the proposal complies with policy 41.

Conclusions

6.16 In summary, it is considered that the current application has not overcome the previous reasons for refusal and that the proposed development of the site for residential purposes would not constitute a development which is essential to this countryside location, neither is it considered that the proposal would contribute to existing rural enterprises, activities or recreational opportunities. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would be contrary to Policy 3, 4 and 26 of the HDPF. It is also considered that the proposed dwelling would not be in keeping with the rural character of the area and the proposal would also be contrary to policy 30 and 33 of the HDPF.

199 ITEM A8 - 8

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1. The site lies within a rural location outside the limits of any existing settlement and does not constitute a use considered essential to such a countryside location. The proposal would therefore conflict with Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and with Policies 3, 4 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

2. The proposed dwelling by reason of its size, siting and design would be out of keeping with the character of the area and would represent a form of development which would be detrimental to the rural appearance of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts with paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and policies 30 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015. 3. The proposal would result in the loss of viable commercial units and therefore would be contrary to policy 10 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.

Background Papers: DC/15/0088, DC/15/2389

200 DC/15/2389

Oreham Manor Farm House

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Oreham Place 14.2m

Smugglers Cottage

Pond

24.3m

Well Oreham Little Manor Oreham Farmhouse Oreham Manor Farm

k c ra T

Oreham Manor Farm

D ra in

Pond Pond

) m u ( Pond h t a P

Scale: 1:2,144

Date 07/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

201 202 ITEM A9 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th December 2015 Retention of five dwellings (3 x two-bedroom chalet bungalows and 2 x DEVELOPMENT: three-bed bungalows). SITE: Heatherdene Development Site, Shoreham Road, Henfield, West Sussex WARD: Small Dole APPLICATION: DC/15/2002 APPLICANT: Mr Alex Day

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Over 5 individual objections.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The amendments sought to the extant scheme, approved under planning permission DC/06/0633, are as follows:

1.2 Unit 1 • Re-siting of the dwelling 2.0m rearward (west); • Replacement of a single bay garage with a surface car parking space; • Installation of a bay window (with a flat roof) on the front elevation

1.3 Unit 2 • Installation of an additional single rooflight (south-facing roof slope); • Hipped roof on the rear dormer window; and • All windows on north elevation (ground floor level) to be obscure glazed.

1.4 Unit 3 • Installation of an additional single rooflight (south-facing roof slope); and • Hipped roof on the rear dormer window;

1.5 Unit 4 • Additional single roof light (north-facing roof slope)

Contact Officer: Andrew Huntley 203 Tel: 01403 215174 ITEM A9 - 2

• Hipped roof on the rear dormer window; and • All windows on north elevation (ground floor level) to be obscure glazed (except bedroom window).

1.6 Unit 5 • Installation of a bay window (with a flat roof) on the front elevation • Additional single roof light (north roof slope)

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.7 The site formerly contained ‘Heatherdene’ a large chalet bungalow, which has subsequently been demolished. The site currently contains five dwellings (three chalet bungalows and two bungalows), in the final stages of construction. To the north of the site is the Highdown Nursery. There are residential properties surrounding the majority of the application site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework: NPPF6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes NPPF7 - Requiring good design NPPF11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment NPPF14 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) HDPF1 – Sustainable Development HDPF3 – Development Hierarchy HDPF16 – Meeting Local Housing Needs HDPF33 – Development Principles HDPF40 – Sustainable Transport HDPF41 – Parking

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

DC/14/0751 Non-material amendment to previously approved DC/06/0633 (Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 3 x 2 bed chalet bungalows and 2 x 3 bed bungalows, garages and access land rear of Rose Cottage, Springfield and Windrush), to add approved plans condition. Application Permitted on 21.05.2014

DC/12/0791 Erection of 5 dwellings (3 x 2 bed chalet bungalows and 2 x 3 bed bungalows), garages and access to land at rear of Rose Cottage, Springfield and Windrush with retention of Heatherdene modified to facilitate internal access road realignment

204 ITEM A9 - 3

(Revised application further to permission granted under DC/06/0633). Application Refused on 18.09.2012

DC/06/0633 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 3 x 2 bed chalet bungalows and 2 x 3 bed bungalows, garages and access land rear of Rose Cottage, Springfield and Windrush. Application Permitted on 22.06.2007

DC/05/0540 Demolition of existing building and erection of 5 x chalet bungalows and access land rear of Rose Cottage, Springfield and Windrush. Application Refused on 21.04.2005

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 No internal consultations have been received.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 West Sussex County Council Local Highway Authority - West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. DC/06/0633 and DC/12/0791 to which no objections were raised.

The application seeks approval for retrospective minor amendments to planning permission DC/06/0633, which was for the erection of 5 dwellings. These are now in the final stages of construction.

The majority of these amendments are for the changes in permitted windows/rooflights. However for plots 1 and 5, the permitted detached garages have not been constructed and instead a provision of 2 forecourt parking spaces has been included for each plot. Therefore, the site has not seen a reduction in parking (from what was agreed in DC/06/0633) which may have led to an increased demand in on-street parking in the area.

Overall, no concerns wished to be raised to this application from a highway perspective.

3.4 Southern Water - Request that should this application receive planning permission an informative is attached in regard to the formal application for connection to the public sewerage system.

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

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

205 ITEM A9 - 4

3.5 Henfield Parish Council - The Parish Council has no objection to this application.

3.6 Eight (8) representations were received, of which 1 offered comments which neither supported nor objected to the proposal, 7 objected to the proposal.

- Highway Access and Parking - Loss of garages - Loss of General Amenity - Privacy, Light and Noise concerns - Trees and Landscaping

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

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 ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The planning application seeks retrospective permission for 5 bungalows, which have been substantially completed. The main issues in the consideration of this proposal are considered to be:

· The principle of the development in this location · Design and the impact on the character of the area · Impact on residential amenity · Highway considerations

Principle

6.3 The site has previously benefitted from planning permission for 5 dwellings under application DC/06/0633. This is a material consideration of significant weight within the determination of this application. It is considered that the principle of five dwellings on the application has been established and as such, there are no objections to the principle of development.

206 ITEM A9 - 5

6.4 The scheme as currently being built is substantially the same as that approved under the original application (DC/06/0633). Therefore, the acceptability of this application will turn on whether the alterations as built or presently under construction warrant a reason for refusal.

Design and Character

6.5 Policy 33 also requires that new development is of a high standard and layout, having regard to its built surroundings in terms of scale, height, massing, siting, orientation, views, character and space between buildings.

6.6 The re-siting of Plot 1 2m to the west has only a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the site and is not considered harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

6.7 With regard to the alterations to the fenestration, the dormer windows as built are larger than originally approved and have a hipped roof rather than a gabled one. While the dormers as built are rather bulky they are not considered to be harmful to the host properties or the wider character and appearance of the area, having regard to the previously approved scheme. The bay windows with flat roofs instead of the approved ‘oriel’ windows are in keeping with the overall design of the bungalows and would therefore not warrant a refusal in this instance. The rooflights are considered acceptable in design terms and are considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the bungalows and wider area.

6.8 The parking and landscaping areas have been simplified, and it is considered that while this is not as visually appealing as the previously approved scheme, these changes really only impact on the future residents of the Close and do not significantly alter the character and appearance of the development from the public highway. The removal of the two single garages to plots 1 and 5 has a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the site and is not visually harmful to the surrounding area.

6.9 Overall, while the changes that have and are presently being constructed on site have generally simplified the design of the proposal, the resultant decline in visual quality is considered to be slight and would not warrant the refusal of planning permission.

6.10 Therefore, given the planning history of the application site, the scheme as being built is considered to be satisfactory in design terms and would not have a greater or worse impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal is in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

Residential Amenity

6.11 No objections were raised within the previous application in regard to the proposal’s impact on neighbouring residential amenity. The scheme is largely the same as that approved within application DC/06/0633 and it is considered that the re-siting of Plot 1, the insertion of additional rooflights and the design change to the dormer windows would not have a materially greater impact on neighbouring residential amenity than the previously approved scheme. The removal of the single garages to plots 1 and 5 would have a neutral impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

6.12 Therefore, the proposal would not result in a detrimental loss of privacy, unduly harm daylight/sunlight or result in noise and disturbance, which would warrant the refusal of planning permission. As such, the development is in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

207 ITEM A9 - 6

Highways

6.13 As with the previous application DC/06/0633, WSCC Highway Authority has raised no objections in terms of highway or pedestrian safety. The Highway Authority has stated that the majority of these amendments are for the changes in permitted windows/rooflights. However for plots 1 and 5, the permitted detached garages have not been constructed and instead a provision of 2 forecourt parking spaces has been included for each plot. Therefore, the site has not seen a reduction in parking (from what was agreed in DC/06/0633) which may have led to an increased demand in on-street parking in the area.

6.14 As there is no decrease in the proposed parking, the Highway Authority has no concerns they wish to raise from a highway perspective. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with policies 40 and 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

Other Considerations

6.15 Within application DC/06/0633 a legal agreement was completed to secure the provision of financial contributions towards community facilities, transport infrastructure and the provision of a unit of affordable housing within the Parish of Henfield.

6.16 Since that permission, the new Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) has been adopted. Policy 16 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) states that on sites providing between 5 and 14 dwellings, the Council will require 20% of dwellings to be affordable. Policy 16 states that the affordable housing thresholds and targets will apply to all new homes that are being proposed. However, it is the intention of this policy that this relates to the net number of dwellings being provided. In this case, the property formerly known as Heatherdene has been demolished to make way for the development and as such the net increase in dwellings is 4. Therefore, while there were s.106 contributions for the previously approved application, there are no s.106 requirements under the new policy regime.

6.17 Southern Water has raised no objection to the application but has requested that an informative stating that a formal application to connect to the public sewer is attached if planning permission is granted.

Conclusion

6.18 Given the planning history of the application site, the scheme as being built is considered to be satisfactory in design terms and would not have a greater impact on the character and appearance of the area or on neighbouring residential amenity than the already approved scheme DC/06/0633. As such, the proposal is in accordance with development plan policies.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

1 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B C D E F and G of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the

208 ITEM A9 - 7

dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

2 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

3 Within 3 months from the date of this permission, full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season, following the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

4 The building(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development].

Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policies 40 and 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

5 No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until cycle storage facilities have been provided for the dwelling in accordance with a plan and details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These cycle storage facilities shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.

Reason: To provide cycle storage facilities for the dwellings and promote cycling as a sustainable mode of travel in accordance with policies 40 and 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

Background Papers: DC/15/2002

209 210

ADDENDUM

ITEM A9 – DC/15/2002

OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS:

HDC Community and Culture (summarised): No objection · The Community and Culture view is that every additional household adds an additional burden onto existing community infrastructure so it is essential to collect contributions from all development in order to extend or enhance existing facilities or create additional facilities. Collectively these small developments add up and without contributions the infrastructure will not keep pace. · Occupants of this development would gravitate to Steyning or Henfield for significant community services so I would expect any s106 contributions for community facilities to be payable for facilities anywhere within that overall catchment.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

Introduction This report is an addendum to the Committee Report for application DC/15/2002, which was presented at the Development Control Committee (South) on the 15.12.2015. The purpose of this addendum is to provide Members of the Development Control Committee (South) with additional information relating to the imposition of s.106 Legal Agreements in relation to Minor applications such as this one.

At the Development Control Committee (South) on the 15.12.2015 meeting, Members were unable to form a decision due to the number of abstentions, no reasons for refusal were put forward and thus no seconder for an alternative recommendation was found, and thus the item was deferred. A main area of concern was the absence of an s.106 legal agreement. The previous planning approval DC/06/0633, which was also for 5 dwellings on the same application site included a s.106 legal agreement securing the following:

Affordable Housing: £81,400 (Commuted Sum) Highways Infrastructure: £7,507 Community Facilities: £2,550

Application DC/06/0633 was never implemented and therefore no monies could be collected as this specifically related to permission DC/06/0633.

The policy framework has significantly altered since the 2006 application was determined, with the now current HDPF 2015 and the publishing of the NPPF in 2012.

211

S.106 and CIL Background Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable. They are focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development.

The 2006 application was determined when Circular 05/2005 was in force which gave more autonomy for Local Planning Authority’s to require s106 contributions. This was prior to the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the NPPF.

The current legal tests for when you can use a s106 agreement are set out in regulation 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says that Local Planning Authority’s should consider whether “otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable” be using planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: i) The obligation is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms ii) The obligation must be directly related to the development iii) The obligation must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Planning obligations should only be used where unacceptable impacts cannot be dealt with by a planning condition.

The NPPF also states that when seeking obligations or considering revisions to existing obligations, Local Planning Authority’s should take account of changes in market conditions over time and that the Local Planning Authority must be sufficiently flexible to prevent development being stalled.

As such, s106 requirements and contributions can only be requested where it serves to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Any s106 obligations which go further than specifically required will therefore be vulnerable to criticism and legal challenge.

Section 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) reiterates the requirements set out in the NPPF (as set out above).

These tests are therefore unambiguously part of the statutory framework, as well as being ministerial guidance.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has stated that in order to provide greater certainty and speed up negotiations about financial contributions arising from planning obligations, some local planning authorities have adopted formulae and standard charges. However, such formulae should not be applied in a blanket form to all developments. They must reflect the actual impact of the development and comply with the tests in the CIL Regulations and the NPPF.

In December of 2015 the DCLG published further guidance in relation to the collection of s.106 contributions in relation to Minor development proposals. This stated that while some planning obligations may still be required to make a development acceptable in planning terms. For sites where a threshold applies, planning obligations should not be sought to contribute to affordable housing or to pooled funding ‘pots’ intended to fund the provision of general infrastructure in the wider area. Authorities can still seek obligations for site specific infrastructure - such as improving road access and the provision of adequate street lighting - where this is appropriate, to make a site acceptable in planning terms.

212 Policy Context Since the original grant of planning permission for 5 dwellings on the application site (DC/06/0633), the Council has on the 27th November 2015 adopted the Horsham District Planning Framework. This document coupled with the NPPF provides the policy basis for the determination of this present application and has replaced the previous Core Strategy and the Horsham District General Development Control Policies.

Under the previous policy regime, there were specific affordable housing policies, which provided the trigger points and levels for affordable housing provision within the district. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2007) was the document to consider when looking at infrastructure contributions for development proposals.

The Planning Obligations SPD was intended to provide details on services and facilities and the priorities of provision that will be required when land is proposed for a development and where a planning obligation is sought

As this SPD states, it is based particularly on the policies contained within the Core Strategy (2007) document, which no longer exists and was produced before the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the NPPF.

Therefore, since the adoption of the Planning Obligations SPD, the regulatory framework around s.106 has changed considerably.

In regard to the present policy regime, any s.106 planning obligations must have regard to the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015), the NPPF and Ministerial guidance. Policies 16 and 39 of the Planning Framework deal with affordable housing, infrastructure provision and community facilities respectively. Potential financial contributions relating to affordable housing, highway infrastructure and community facilities will now be addressed in turn having regard to the present regulatory and policy regime.

s.106 Considerations Affordable Housing Policy 16 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) states that:

1. Development should provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of the district’s communities as evidenced in the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment in order to create sustainable and balanced communities.

2. The appropriate mix of different housing types and sizes for each site will depend upon the established character and density of the neighbourhood and the viability of the scheme.

3. In order to meet the proven needs of people who are not able to compete in the general housing market, all residential developments of 5 dwellings or more will be expected to include an appropriate proportion of affordable homes in accordance with the following thresholds and targets:

a. On sites providing 15 or more dwellings, or on sites over 0.5 hectares, the Council will require 35% of dwellings to be affordable. b. On sites providing between 5 and 14 dwellings, the Council will require 20% of dwellings to be affordable or where on-site provision is not achievable a financial contribution equivalent to the cost of the developer of providing the units on site.

213

4. If a development site is sub-divided so as to create two or more separate development schemes one or more of which falls below the relevant threshold, the Council will seek an appropriate level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the site.

5. The Council will support schemes being brought forward through Neighbourhood Plans.

Implementation The mechanisms for calculating financial contributions in lieu of on site provision will be set out in separate guidance.

The affordable housing thresholds and targets will apply to all new homes that are being proposed.

In seeking affordable housing provision the Council will assess each schemes viability, including assessing the overall mix of affordable unit size and tenure, to ensure they meet local need as evidenced by the latest SHMA.

Policy 16 states that the affordable housing thresholds and targets will apply to all new homes that are being proposed. However, clarification was sort from the Local Planning Authority’s Strategic Planning Team whether this related to the total number of dwellings or the total net increase in dwellings proposed.

The Strategic Planning Team responded by stating that it is the intention of this policy that this total number relates to the net number of dwellings being provided. In this case, the property formerly known as Heatherdene has been demolished to make way for the development and as such the net increase in dwellings is four (4). Therefore, while there were s.106 contributions for the previously approved application, there are no s.106 requirements under policy 16 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

It is considered that it would be unreasonable of the Local Planning Authority to seek to secure affordable housing on the application site, as it is not supported by Policy 16 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015), and would therefore fail the tests set out Section 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

Highway and Community Facilities Contributions Policy 39 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) states that:

1. The release of land for development will be dependent on there being sufficient capacity in the existing local infrastructure to meet the additional requirements arising from new development, or suitable necessary mitigation arrangements for the improvement of the infrastructure, services and community facilities caused by the development being provided.

2. Where there is a need for extra capacity, this will need to be provided in time to serve the development or the relevant phase of the development, in order to ensure that the environment and amenities of existing or new local residents is not adversely affected.

3. To ensure required standards are met, arrangements for new or improved infrastructure provision, will be secured by planning obligation / Community Infrastructure Levy, or in some cases conditions attached to a planning permission, so that the appropriate improvement can be completed prior to occupation of the development, or the relevant phase of the development.

214

Highways Within application DC/06/0633, West Sussex County Council Highway Authority requested a transport contribution of £7,507 for a general contribution towards improving highway infrastructure. Within this present application West Sussex County Council Highway Authority has sought no such financial contribution. Without such a request for a contribution from the competent authority, and one which has been fully justified under Section 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010), the LPA are not in a position to seek a contribution for Highway Infrastructure.

In addition, following the Ministerial Statement in December 2015 which stated that planning obligations should not be sought to contribute to pooled funding ‘pots’ intended to fund the provision of general infrastructure in the wider area. Authorities can still seek obligations for site specific infrastructure - such as improving road access and the provision of adequate street lighting - where this is appropriate, to make a site acceptable in planning terms. In this instance the Highway works required to make this application acceptable in planning terms can be secured by suitably worded conditions as they fall within the application site area. These conditions are included within the Committee Report for the Development Control Committee (South) meeting on the 15th December 2015.

As such, there are no requirements to seek financial contributions for Highway Infrastructure improvements for this development.

Community Facilities Since the Committee meeting on the 15.12.2015, the Council’s Head of Community and Culture has been consulted on the requirements for a community facilities contribution for this application. Their response is summarised below:

‘The Community and Culture view is that every additional household adds an additional burden onto existing community infrastructure so it is essential to collect contributions from all development in order to extend or enhance existing facilities or create additional facilities. Collectively these small developments add up and without contributions the infrastructure will not keep pace.

Occupants of this development would gravitate to Steyning or Henfield for significant community services so I would expect any s106 contributions for community facilities to be payable for facilities anywhere within that overall catchment’.

Therefore, the Council’s Community and Culture Department are seeking a financial contribution for community facilities for this development. Having assessed the development proposal against the Council’s s106 contributions calculator for Community Facilities, the developer contribution for the development would be £8,246.

However, the requirement for such Community Facilities contribution needs to be assessed against the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015), the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010), the NPPF and the recent Ministerial guidance.

Unlike Policy 16, Policy 39 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) does not contain any thresholds or trigger points to identify when contributions would be sought or the level of contribution required. In relation to Community Facilities, this information is contained within the Local Planning Authority’s Planning Obligations SPD (2007).

As considered earlier in the report, the SPD flows from and has regard to the policies set out within the Core Strategy (2007) document. Since the adoption of the Planning Obligations SPD, the regulatory framework around s.106 has changed considerably and it relies on policies that no longer exist.

215

The Ministerial guidance in relation to the collection of s.106 contributions in relation to Minor development proposals such as this proposal, stated that planning obligations should not be sought to contribute to pooled funding ‘pots’ intended to fund the provision of general infrastructure in the wider area. In this instance, the Council’s Community and Culture Department has not identified any site specific infrastructure requirements to make this application proposal acceptable in planning terms.

Therefore, it is considered that the Local Planning Authority is not in a position to seek a Community Facilities contribution for this application as it would fail the tests set out Section 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Ministerial guidance issued in December 2015.

Conclusion Since application DC/06/0633 was approved, the regulatory framework around s.106 Planning Obligations has changed considerably, as has the Local Planning Authority’s Planning Policy Framework. Due to these changes and the reasons set out above, the Local Planning Authority are not in a position to secure financial contributions for affordable housing, highway infrastructure and community facilities for the development of 5 dwellings detailed within application DC/15/2002.

Contact Officer: Andrew Huntley Tel: 01403 215174

216 DC/15/2002

Heatherdene Development Site

For Business use only - not for distributionLattenbury to the general public

The Plyms 1 Nursery Flints

Little Ponderosa

The Wickets

Hig hdown Rose Cottage

Downley 1 Springfield

a Heatherdene

e t

G n s i r t e 2 u S h h Windrush T c

B y s r u e

h m n o T s e

D e Brambles r ae r The G B Cobwebs Jaks

North Cottage South Cottage

n o e i r d n u a t a 14.3m e v n e e m r v d n T e n r i ly T L e

T Scale: 1:1,072

Date 08/01/2016 MSA Number 100023865

217