Agenda Item 5 Report PC 68/12 Report to Planning Committee Date 11 October 2012 By Director of Planning Local Authority District Council Application Number SDNP/12/01392/FUL Application Amendments to the proposals approved by permission 11/03635/FUL, comprising:- Demolition of the front north facade to the sanatorium: demolition of the extension to the south - west wing of the sanatorium; layout of 17 apartments within the south - west wing and 8 within the north front and immediately adjoining areas of the north-east and north-west wings; erection of 26 dwelling in the bracken lane and superintendents drive area; erection of the west apartments comprising 48 units; construction of west underground carpark; construction of 3 dwellings south of engine house; construction of access roads and drives; and provision of landscaping (overall reduction of 1 dwelling) Address King Edward VII Hospital Kings Drive West Sussex GU29 0BL Applicant City and Country Group Purpose of Report The application is reported to the Committee for decision.

Recommendation: that planning permission consent is granted for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report (i) subject to a S106 agreement with obligations relating to: • the implementation of the revised construction programme; • the management of the estate and maintenance of the landscaping; • provision of a doctors surgery; • a restriction on keeping cats; • provision of fire hydrants and waste and recycling facilities; • travel plan implementation; • public access; • a contribution towards community infrastructure; and • affordable housing provision. (ii) subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2.

Executive Summary The application seeks to amend the existing planning permission for the enabling development at King Edward VII Hospital granted in November 2011. The amendments are minor and will reduce the overall number of units on site by one unit. It proposes removal of later additions to the Sanatorium and the new extension proposed on the north side of the west wing of the south block has been deleted from the scheme. This will result in a loss of 16 of the units proposed by the conversion of the Sanatorium. It is proposed to reprovide 15 of these in two locations - 11 in 2

12 understoreys to the West Courtyard new build and 4 additional houses in the woods in the eastern part of the site referred to as Bracken Lane. There are other small adjustments to the layout of the west underground car park access, the cottages to the south of the Engine House and the layout of the part of the site referred to as Bracken Lane/Superintendent's Drive. English Heritage, Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Highway Authority have no objection to the amendments. Concern has been expressed by local residents on the principle of amending the application in the context of enabling development guidance and the potential impact of increased activity in the western part of the site on their amenity. The amendments to the scheme would better reveal the significance of the Sanatorium and its setting and allow more of the Gertrude Jekyll Gardens to be restored. The additions to the West Courtyard building would not increase its height and would not be visible from outside the site. There will be no additional activity in the immediate vicinity of the residents of Hurst Park. The scheme overall results in one less unit than previously permitted

1. Site Description 1.1 The site is the former King Edward VII hospital and grounds which cover approximately 50 hectares and include designated and undesignated heritage assets . A site plan is attached at appendix 1 . It is located in undulating wooded landscape approximately 5.5 kilometres to the north of Midhurst and 6 kilometres south of the village of on a south facing slope with extensive views out over the Rother Valley. The site rises up to the north and falls away to the west and is mostly covered by pine plantation with coppices of sweet chestnut and silver birch. 120 trees are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The surrounding area is a mosaic of heath and woodland and the site is bounded from the north west to the south west by Woolbeding and Pound Common, nationally important areas of acid heath land, an important habitat for ground nesting birds, which are both SSSIs and SINC and owned and managed by the National Trust. A public foot path runs along the eastern and northern edges of the site. The site is well screened with limited public view points in the vicinity of the site although there are long distance views from the Way across the Rother Valley. 1.2 Access is via a driveway through metal gates from Kings Drive which runs in an south-east- north-west direction from the A286 where there is a simple priority junction. There is a lay-by on the south east side of this junction for buses stopping southbound. North bound buses stop at the north west side of the junction. The A286 at this point has a 50mph speed limit. Bus Service 70 runs hourly between Midhurst and Guildford on the A286 and services 91 and 92 serving South Harting, Rogate, Trotten and are scheduled to stop in the site itself but are currently very infrequent. The distance from the junction with the A286 to the site is just over a kilometre. Kings Drive is an unclassified road 5.5 metres wide with room for an HGV and cyclist to pass. There are no pedestrian foot paths (although the verge provides some refuge from on-coming traffic) and there is no street lighting . 1.3 The original hospital, completed in 1906, was built as a tuberculosis sanatorium, under the patronage of King Edward VII. It is a grade II* Listed Building. It was designed as two east- west aligned longitudinal blocks, with the southern, longer block splaying slightly out at either end, linked by a central corridor which divided the space between the buildings into 2 open courtyards. The plan divided the sexes with the west wing for male and the east wing for female patients. It is 3 storeys in height and built in banded red and grey brick (as are the other original buildings on the site) with tiled and gabled roofs and in an Arts and Craft style. 1.4 The area to the north was originally left as dense pine wood which was considered beneficial to the health of patients, but the area immediately in front of the building was subsequently cleared as it was found to be oppressive and was prone to mists. This created Kings Green, a ‘V’ shaped glade in front of the Sanatorium which is included in the designated area of the grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden referred to below. 1.5 To the west, and set apart from the Sanatorium, is the Chapel which was of an unusual ‘V’ shaped plan, with 2 naves opened up to the south with a stone colonnade, for separate use

13 by men and women, linked by an octagonal chancel and tower. It is also a grade II* Listed Building. 1.6 To the north west of the Chapel is the Laundry and Engine House, which is grade II Listed and the Motor House which is not listed in its own right but is protected as a curtilage building of the Sanatorium and Chapel. To the east on the higher ground to the north of the Sanatorium is the nurses home. It was built in the mid 20 th century in neo Georgian style which is also not listed in its own right but enjoys curtilage protection. At the entrance to the site is the Lodge, which is grade II Listed. There are a number of sheds and storage buildings adjoining these buildings. 1.7 Around the Sanatorium, but now largely surviving in the area adjoining the southern range, are the remains of the gardens which were designed and laid out by Gertrude Jekyll upon the completion of the hospital in 1906. These are a designated heritage asset as they are on the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Garden as a grade II designation. The Jekyll south garden survives in broadly recognisable form. However, her west garden has been largely lost and her east garden has been entirely lost beneath later hospital extensions. 1.8 A number of ‘measured walks’ run throughout the site and surrounding woodland. These were laid out for use by the TB patients as part of their treatment when the buildings were in use as a sanatorium. 1.9 The Sanatorium has been extended by a number of unsympathetic buildings and additions in the second half of the 20 th century to support the use of the site as a hospital specialising in cancer treatment. The remainder of the site comprises large areas of car parking, roads, drives and amenity grassland associated with the hospital use. 1.10 In the middle of the hospital grounds, to the north west of the Engine House, is Hurst Park, a modern development of 28 houses. It was built in the 1990’s to fund the hospital and does not form part of the application site. Despite this development and a series of applications for development proposed to support its continued use (detailed in section 2 of this report) the modern hospital closed in 2006. Since the buildings have been unoccupied there has been some water incursion and substantial damage to the interior of both the Sanatorium and Chapel. The Chapel is currently on the English Heritage ‘Buildings At Risk’ register.

2. Planning History 2.1 The site has been vacant since the closure of the hospital in March 2006. Roland Morgan, a Director in the Corporate Recovery team of property consultants, GVA Grimley, was appointed Law of Property Act Receiver (LPA) for the site on 19th December, 2008. 2.2 Planning application 11/03635/FUL and an associated application for listed building consent, 11/03640, for enabling development comprising demolition of late 20 th century unsympathetic buildings/additions to the listed buildings, extensions to the Sanatorium and its conversion with the other listed buildings to 178 units extension to and conversion of the Chapel to a shop and café, restoration of the Gertrude Jekyll garden and 153 new residential units and 79 assisted care units were permitted on 25.11.11 subject to a s106 Agreement relating to: ••• the implementation of the revised construction programme; ••• the management of the estate and maintenance of the landscaping; ••• provision of a doctors surgery; ••• a restriction on keeping cats; ••• provision of fire hydrants and waste and recycling facilities; ••• travel plan implementation; ••• public access; ••• a contribution towards community infrastructure; and ••• affordable housing provision. Following discharge of the pre-commencement conditions work has now commenced to implement these consents. Application SDNPA12/01805/DCOND relating to the submission of a Travel Plan is pending consideration.

14 2.3 Listed Building Consent ref SDNP/12/01391/LIS for listed building consent for the alterations proposed in this application is pending consideration. 2.4 Planning application 10/04389/FUL and an associated application for listed building consent 10/04390 for enabling development comprising demolition of late 20 th century unsympathetic buildings/additions to the listed buildings, extensions to the Sanatorium and its conversion to 143 assisted care units, extensions to and conversion of other listed buildings to residential use (26 units), extension to and conversion of the Chapel to a shop and café, restoration of the Gertrude Jekyll garden and 220 new build apartments and houses were refused on 19.0711 together with a second application, 11/01711/FULNP for an additional 22 new build residential units. Appeals against the refusals were withdrawn following the grant of planning permission 11/03635/FUL and listed building consent 11/03640/LBC 2.5 In 2008 planning permission 08/01501/FUL (dated 5 November) and listed building consent 08/01502/LBC (dated 12 August) were granted for the extension and alteration of the main hospital buildings to enable its use as an assisted care facility comprising 179 apartments. Other buildings on the site were to be converted to additional units and staff accommodation to provide a total of 228 assisted care units and 33 staff units. The proposal included the demolition of many of the more modern former hospital buildings and the restoration of the Chapel and historic gardens. These applications have expired. Applications 11/03374/EXTP and 11/03386/EXT to extend these permissions were subsequentlywithdrawn following the grant of planning permission 11/01365/FUL. 2.6 In February 2008 planning permission EB/06/03700/FUL and listed building consent 6/03702/LBC were granted for the redevelopment of the site. The scheme comprised the provision of 263 residential units (including 97 affordable) through the conversion of the former hospital buildings (224 units), the construction of new buildings (38 units), the provision of leisure facilities as well as a shop (with flat above) and small business centre. The application retained the Lodge and proposed the reinstatement of the Gertrude Jekyll gardens. Permission was granted for this proposal in February 2008 but expired in February 2011. 2.7 In May 2004 planning permission EB/03/01977/FUL and listed building consent were granted for a development that included the retention of a hospital use at the site together with a significant amount of new residential development. The proposals included the conversion of the existing hospital buildings to 222 units, a further 21 key worker flats, 108 new build units within the grounds and a new 134 bed hospital building also within the grounds. These permissions have now expired.

3. Proposal Summary of differences between this proposal and that previously permitted 3.1 The application proposes the following amendments to the permitted proposals: • Remove the later north front façade to the Sanatorium (which previously accommodated 2 apartments); • Remove the existing extension on the north side of the south-west wing of the sanatorium and instead of adding a new extension (14 apartments) restore the north elevation to its original form; • Reconfigure the sanatorium internally to address the lost units; • Reprovide 11 of the 16 apartments lost from the Sanatorium in 2 storeys added below the West Courtyard apartment; • Extend the car park below the West Courtyard to provide an additional 21 spaces including 2 disabled; • Alter the access to the west underground car park which would be nearer the Chapel; • Re orientate the 3 cottages south of the Engine House so they would be on a north- south instead of an east-west axis;

15 • Reprovide 4 of the remaining 16 units lost by altering the layout of Bracken Lane, the area of houses in the woodland, and reducing the size of the larger units to use different house types approved elsewhere on the scheme; and • Total number of units would be 409 instead of 410. Details and Layout 3.2 The restoration and conversion works to the heritage assets would now comprise: • demolition of additions to and in the immediate vicinity of, the sanatorium namely the Geoffrey Marshall Wing, the West Theatre Wing, the flat roof extensions on the north side of both wings of the south block, the flat roofed extensions in the east and west courtyards, the flat roofed extensions to the central link, the X-ray Range and Consultants Wing, the Alexandra Wing, the unfinished linear accelerator building and removal of the 1960s façade and mansard roof either side of the entrance to the Sanatorium to reveal the original elements of the entrance on the northern elevation; • restoration and recreation of the Gertrude Jekyll garden and biodiversity improvements to the woodland and restoration of the original Sanatorium measured walks with some as cycle trails and some as trim trails/outdoor gyms; • additions to the north sides of the north wing of the south range of the sanatorium and the southern side of the north-west wing, and addition of dormers into the south roof slope to convert the building to 132 residential units (2 no studios, 72 no. 1 bed and 56 no. 2 bed and 2 no. 3 bed) with community rooms, part time doctors surgery swimming pool and gym; • the demolition of the later mortuary block, addition of an extension on approximately the same footprint containing a kitchen and store and conversion of the Chapel to a shop and café; • conversion of the lodge to a single 2 bed dwelling with the removal of a later extension, conversion of the engine house to 8 apartments, conversion of the motor house to 2 dwellings, and conversion of the nurses accommodation block to 19 units (2 no. 4 bed, 8 no. 3 bed, 3 no. 2 bed and 6 no. 1 bed units). 3.3 In addition new build dwelling units and assisted care units are proposed to fund the restoration and conversion works listed above. This would comprise: • 3 x 2.5 storey apartment blocks, two of which would be immediately adjacent to the eastern end of the Sanatorium, in an L shaped arrangement (57 no. 2 bed, 1 no. 3 bed assisted care totalling 58) and one ‘v’ shaped block to the south west of the chapel following the line of the nave on that side (1 no. 1 bed, 33 no. 2 bed, 3 no. 4 bed residential units); • a facilities block 1.5 storeys in height at the east end of the East Courtyard Block and separated from it by a path; • a mixture of apartments (6 no 1 bed and 8 no. 2 bed) and terraced (10 no. 2 bed and 21 no. 3 bed) and detached (18 no. 4 bed) houses to the area to the north of the sanatorium (referred to as Kings Green and total 63); • a mixture of 21 no. 2 bed assisted care units and 14 no. 3 bed houses in 2 terraces and detached (2 no. 4 bed) houses to the south of the access drive which was cleared of pine woodland in the late 20 th century to provided a large car park for the hospital (referred to as Superintendent’s Drive and total 12); • following discussions with the applicants a reduction of in the number of 2 bed cottages between the Engine House and Hurst Park so now 10 are proposed instead of 16; • 122 no. 4 and 4 no. 4+ bed houses in the area to the south of the drive leading to the Sanatorium from Kings Drive which is currently naturally regenerated birch woodland (since the pines were destroyed in the 1987 storm) referred to as Bracken Lane and now including part of Superintendent’s Drive; • 5 no. 4 and 4+ bed houses in the area to the north of Kings Green (referred to as Pine Walk Wood);

16 • 4 no, 4 and 4+ bed houses and a maintenance compound with stores, workshops, staff changing facilities and an office (517 sq m) in an existing clearing to the north of Pine Walk Wood (referred to as The Loop). Conversion works 3.4 The conversion works are discussed in detail in the report to item 6 on this agenda relating to the application for listed building consent. Design of New Build 3.5 The design concept expressed by the applicant is to be complementary but subservient to the existing buildings, addressing the historic context in a modern idiom. A hierarchy of building types has been proposed with the most formal and decorative nearest to the listed buildings and a more dispersed and informal character within the woodland. The palette of materials has been drawn principally from the Sanatorium and Chapel, using timber, stone and brick with an emphasis on eave and chimney details and floor to ceiling glazing. In more detail the new build is treated as follows: • East Courtyard apartment block 1 would be 2.5 storeys resting on a stone plinth providing terrace and amenity space stepping down to apartment block 2 of 3.5 storeys with the ground floor clad in stone; both blocks would have a double pitched tile roof, tile hung gables and be constructed in handmade brick with natural stone bands; full height timber glazed openings are proposed with metal guard rails and balconies to each apartment for amenity space; building 2 windows openings would be dressed with flush natural stone reveals; • Facilities block 1.5 storeys high would have a double pitch roof with integral full height dormers with balconies and cladding in natural stone’; • West Courtyard block would now be 4 stories deep on the western side by the addition of 2 stories below the building as permitted utilising the made ground that previously formed the western hospital car park. These lower elevations would be faced with Kentish ragstone as were the Jekyll walls in the southern garden. On the eastern elevation it would be two stories above ground level with regularly spaced stone columns as a colonnade at ground level and set back upper storeys to provide a terrace with full height opening windows on to it framed by wooden shutters; within the central ridge of the double pitched roof photovoltaics are proposed; • Kings Green cottages would be two storey 2 and 3 bed terraces constructed in hand made brick with a line of clay tiles above the windows, ppc coated metal windows with stone surrounds, tiled roofs, lead clad dormers and regularly spaced down pipes and chimneys; they would have garages at the rear with studio space above (with dormers and chimneys) within private rear gardens; solar thermal panels are proposed on the rear roof slopes; • Kings Green apartment block would be two storey and have the same design details as the cottages except the windows would be full height with metal guard-work and balconies like those on the East Courtyard block and natural stone banding instead of the tiles; • Kings Lane houses would be two storey with a single pitched roof incorporating dormers and chimneys, stone banding separating the storeys, vertical stone bands to suggest a colonnade effect and full height windows at the rear with metal guard-work and timber shutters; • Superintendent’s Drive cottages and houses would be two storey 2 and 3 bed like those on Kings Green, stepped to reflect the topography, and some would have garages with studios above; • Engine House cottages and houses would be similar to those described above but with the palette of materials reduced so they remain subservient to the listed Engine House; the dormers in the roof of the cottages would have full height timber doors accessing recessed balconies and the windows of the houses would have stone cills rather than full surrounds;

17 • The design of the Woodland and Pine Walk houses is based on a modular pine system which can be varied to provide alternative layout options and sizes with a standard layout of two 2 storey wings with gable ends fully glazed and recessed below the clay tile pitched roof to provide Juliet balconies at the front and full balconies at the rear with a two storey link with single pitched roof between the two wings; the wings would be extended at the rear for the larger properties; the walls would be timber clad in Pine Walk with tile cladding in the Woodland zone. larger variants having stone cladding; each property would have chimney and solar thermal panels on the roof; • The properties in Bracken Lane and at the end of Superintendant’s Drive would include a variety of house designs found elewhere on the site. Infrastructure Provision 3.6 Car parking and cycle parking and storage would be provided in accordance with Chichester District Council (CDC) standards (car parking assisted care 1 space per 2 units, 1 bed residential 1 space, 2 and 3 bed residential 2 spaces, 4+ bed residential 3 spaces; cycle parking 1 space per I bed and 2 spaces per 2+ beds) in 2 underground communal car parks either end of the Sanatorium (428 spaces for cars and 407 for cycles), and a further 124 car spaces and 60 cycle spaces in surface car parks next to the Engine House and Nursing Home and to the rear of Kings Green houses and 166 garage and parking spaces and 198 cycle spaces on the individual residential plots . 3.7 Purpose built refuse stores would be dispersed throughout the development but those serving the West Courtyard, assisted living and Chapel would be in the underground car park below the West Courtyard block. 3.8 Foul drainage would be through an existing sewer and surface water drainage (which currently drains through the foul sewer) will be through soakaways, a swale, balancing ponds and a herringbone diffusion system. 3.9 Improvements at the A286 and Kings Drive junction are proposed – to be contained within the existing highway - and passing places are proposed along Kings Drive. 3.10 There would be a communal biomass system to heat the Eastern Courtyard Blocks but the houses would have wood burning stoves and in order to meet Sustainable Homes code level 3 the Energy Report submitted with the application recommends that each dwelling has solar thermal heating and the Western Courtyard Block would have a solar photovoltaic array on the roof. 3.11 A contribution of £100,000 is to be paid towards community infrastructure and a commuted sum of £800,000 is to be paid towards the off site provision of affordable housing. Building programme 3.12 All the demolition works, all the works to the Chapel except the final completion of the internal refit to the end user specification, and the restoration and conversion of the core part of the Sanatorium for market housing are to be completed ready for occupation before any new build is commenced. The first new build would be the houses in Bracken Lane. Work on the Western Courtyard Block, which has the greatest impact on the setting of the Chapel, would not commence until the work on the Sanatorium was substantially completed. Public Access 3.13 It is proposed to increase public access to the site by provision of footpaths on the southern boundary of the site and a north-south foot path in parallel with the existing. In addition there would be unrestricted use of the café and shop and a public open day once a year. Submitted Documents 3.14 An EIA screening opinion was adopted on 14.8.12 to confirm that no EIA is required because there will be no significant change and the impact has been fully assessed in the EIA submitted for the existing planning permission 11/03635/FUL so the environmental

18 information already submitted is adequate to assess the environmental effects of the development and that information has been taken into consideration in assessing the amending application. 3.15 However, to address the alterations to the listed building, the revised layout and the landscape the following documents have been re-submitted with appropriate amendments: • Historic Building Appraisal • Design and Access Statement • Conservation Statement • Appendix 7 amended of the EIA: Landscape and Visual Amenity • Water Resources

4. Consultations 4.1 English Heritage : increases amount of accurate restoration of Sanatorium and Jekyll gardens; increase in depth of West Courtyard building would not impact on setting other than by improvement through clearance of vegetation; if SDNPA is satisfied other alterations have no impact on conservation deficit no comment on this aspect but the improvements to the listed building would not justify an increase in accommodation. 4.2 Natural England: No response received 4.3 Environment Agency: No objection subject to previously requested conditions 4.4 Highway Authority: The revised layout, as shown on Drawing No. 09045_Z5_P_00_C645_001 Rev. ‘E' (larger detail shown on Drawing's 4171-001 Rev. ‘A' and 4171-002), is acceptable to the Highway Authority. The turning head has been assessed for suitability for refuse and emergency vehicles and is found to be acceptable.All recommendations and conditions as made previously by the Highway Authority in its response dated 11th November 2011 to remain . 4.5 West Sussex County Council: no response received 4.6 Chichester District Council Archaeologist: In the absence of any known archaeological deposits and previous desk-based assessment and field investigation having proved negative further archaeological intervention not justified. 4.7 Easebourne Parish Council: object - whilst overall number of homes is reduced by one, the number of new-build properties on the site has increased and the number to be renovated in the listed building is reduced which means more family homes (the new-build) and less occupancy by single, retired or non-family units (in the Sanatorium). The consequences of this will be more vehicle movements along Kings Drive and at the junction with the A286, more noise and pollution. This is apparent by the increased number of car parking spaces proposed. This also sets a worrying precedent, in that it is acceptable to add more new-build homes, under the guise of “enabling development”, even after initial approval has been received. Why, with the developer’s expertise in renovating listed buildings, was the removal of the Sanatorium 1960s extension not planned for in the original application? 4.8 Chichester Access Group : no response received to date

5. Representations 5.1 3 letters of representation have been received raising the following issues:- • shift in residential siting closer to Hurst Park; • impact of underground car park extension- additional noise and traffic during construction and in operation; • impact on Hurst Park residents exacerbated by removal of trees; • modifications should not be allowed for financial reasons; • if this is allowed the developer is likely to come back for further modifications; • proposals premature in context of developer selling off part of the site; 19 • sale of part of the site indicates a lack of resources; • demolition of front facade of entrance beneficial • time for response too short 6. Planning Policy Context National Park Purposes 6.1 The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are: • To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; • To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 2010 6.2 Government policy relating to national parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that national parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the national parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. paragraph 116 states that planning permission for major developments within national parks should be refused except in exceptional circumstances 6.3 The policies listed below have been assessed and found to be compliant with the NPPF.

7. Planning Policy 7.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the SE Plan and Chichester Local Plan First Review(1999). 7.2 The South East Plan was adopted by the Secretary of State on 6th May 2009. The Coalition Government’s revocation of the Plan in July 2010 has been found to be unlawful so the Plan remains part of the development plan at this time but the intention to revoke could be a material consideration. The following policies are of key relevance to this application: C2: The South Downs states that the purposes of designation should be a material consideration in the making of any planning decision that would affect it. CC1: Sustainable development states that the physical and natural environment of the south east is conserved and enhanced CC2: Climate change states how adaptation and mitigation will be achieved CC4: Sustainable design and construction states that all new development will be expected to incorporate such measures CC5: Supporting an ageing population requires policies and programmes to address social needs arising from this CC6: Sustainable communities and character of the environment requires new development to respect the character and distinctiveness of landscapes and use innovative design to create a sense of place. CC7: Infrastructure and implementation in respect of development applications relates to securing contributions SP3: Urban focus and urban renaissance states that the prime focus for development in the South East should be in urban areas NRM1: Sustainable water resources requires a twin track approach to demand management and water resource development

20 NRM2: Water quality NRM5: Conservation and improvement of biodiversity requires local authorities to avoid a net loss of biodiversity NRM7: Woodlands requires local authorities to ensure the value and character of woodland is protected and enhanced NMR10: Noise sets out measures to reduce noise pollution NRM11: Energy efficiency and renewable energy requires local authorities to promote energy efficiency and use of renewables NRM12: Combined Heat and Power states that local authorities should encourage such schemes in large residential and mixed use schemes H1: Regional Housing Provision 2006-2026 sets out the district and sub district level housing targets H2: Managing the delivery of regional housing provision relates to housing land supply H3: Affordable housing sets out a target of 25 socially rented and 10 % other forms of affordable housing of all new housing development across the region H4: Type and size of new housing requires local authorities to identify housing needs H5: Housing design and density asks local authorities to set targets in the light of an overall regional target of 40 dwellings per hectare T2: Mobility management relates to policy rebalancing the transport system in favour of sustainable modes T4: Parking requires local authorities to apply PPS3 standards for residential development W2: Sustainable design, construction and demolition requires construction waste to be minimised BE6: Management of the historic environment supports conservation and enhancement of the historic environment M1: Sustainable construction promotion of good practice TSR2: Rural tourism requires local authorities to support tourism in rural areas where they provide jobs for local residents in appropriate locations AOSR5: Scale and location of housing development 2006-26 7.3 Chichester District Local Plan 1999 saved policies relevant to this application are: RE1 Development in rural areas provides for a presumption against new housing in rural areas RE7 Nature conservation – designated sites requires the local planning authority to refuse planning permission for development which would be likely to damage, destroy or adversely affect sites of special scientific interest RE8 Nature conservation – non designated sites requires the local planning authority to refuse planning permission for development which would be likely to damage, destroy or adversely affect sites of nature conservation importance. RE14 Conversions in the rural area allows for the conversion and change of use of buildings in the rural area subject to certain criteria including protection of the historic character and integrity of the building. RE15 Major institutions requires proposals not to have an unacceptable effect upon the site, its surroundings or adjacent settlements RE17 Community facilities in rural areas sets out criteria for such provision RE28 Historic Parks and Gardens states proposals which will have a detrimental impact on character or setting will be refused BE2 Loss of community facilities states that such loss will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is no longer a demand for the facility BE4 Buildings of architectural or historic merit requires the local planning authority to place a high priority on protecting the character and appearance of listed buildings

21 BE5 Alterations to listed buildings advises that where listed buildings are to be altered or extended the design, detailing and materials must be appropriate to the character of the listed building BE11 New development requires that new development will not detract from its surroundings BE12 Alterations, extensions and conversions requires that additions, alterations or conversions will be required to meet appropriate standards of design, construction and layout BE14 Wildlife, habitat trees hedges and other landscape features advises that development that would have an adverse effect on wildlife species protected by law will not be granted permission BE16 Energy conservation encourages energy conservation and energy efficiency TR6 Highway safety states that planning permission will be refused for proposals which would adversely affect highway safety or overload the highway network H1 Dwelling requirement identifies housing sites H4 Size and Density of Dwellings advises on the size and density of dwellings H5 Open Space requirements sets out the open space requirements for new housing development H9 Social housing in the rural area advises on the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. 7.4 CDC’s Interim Statement on planning for Affordable Housing (effective 28 September 2007) and Interim Statement on Planning and Climate Change are both relevant to this application. 8. Planning Assessment Major development 8.1 Whilst government policy is that major development should not take place in National Parks except in exceptional circumstances the principle of this proposal has been established through the grant of planning permission 11/03635/FUL. This application is for one unit less therefore the key issues are the impact of the amendments on: • the viability of the scheme and the ‘conservation deficit; • the significance of the listed buildings and their settings including the registered park and gardens; • the landscape • the wildlife; and • the amenity of adjacent residents. The reduction in one unit has not affected the transport implications and the other considerations relating to the building programme, developer contributions, the public benefits of public access , a doctors surgery and can be addressed through a Deed of Variance to the existing S106. Enabling Development 8.2 Guidance on assessing enabling development proposals is set out in Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places (English Heritage 2008). It sets out two important principles. The first is that taking an incremental approach to enabling development, in which additional enabling development is sought once the scheme is under way or completed, as a means of recovering unforeseen or underestimated costs is not an acceptable practice. Such an approach distorts the process, because it is necessary to consider the effects of the enabling development proposals in their entirety before deciding whether the benefits outweigh the harm. The developer bears the risk - there can be no `second bite’ of the same cherry. In this case the proposal has been amended in a way which will reduce the impact on the listed building and overall there will be less development as a result but the broad parameters of the conservation deficit established in the approved scheme will remain unchanged viability!). 22 8.3 The second principle is that the conservation deficit should be calculated using present day costs and values. The applicant has shown, using previously agreed measurement criteria and reasonable assumptions, that the cost of construction of the consented scheme has risen since consent was granted by nearly £1.9 million whilst house prices have remained almost unchanged. The reduction in floor area now proposed reduces the cost of construction at todays prices by almost £0.5 million to about £1.4 million. (. The sales value of the properties in the Sanatorium is assumed to reach the higher end of the range of values which put the conservation deficit of the previous scheme between £5.45 and £9.49 million. The increase in value of the additional properties in Bracken lane is anticipated to be c£900,000 whereas the loss of the value from the overall reduction in floor space is estimated to be roughly equivalent. Other costs are likely to have risen but are not specified. The change in VAT relating to works to Listed Buildings is not factored into the viability assessment because the length of time the building has been vacant is likely to make the works exempt. In summary the amendments do not take the conservation deficit out of the range under which the original planning permission was granted. Whilst even at the lowest estimate the conservation deficit will still be over £5 million, the building programme, which ensures the conservation of the Sanatorium and Chapel at a very early stage of the project , will be secured through the S106 agreement. This will be essentially the same as the S106 related to the previous permission but updated to reflect the amendments to the proposal. Impact on the Cultural Heritage 8.4 The removal from the scheme of both the later extension and the proposed addition of the extension to the north side of the south-west wing of the Sanatorium will better reveal the original Holden design and offers an opportunity to reinstate the Jekyll courtyards and west garden. The re-orientation of the cottages would open up views of the south elevation of the Engine House. . Whilst the access to the underground car park below the west Courtyard building would be closer to the Chapel it would not have an adverse impact because the narrow approach road will run behind the approved Chapel extension and, descending, will enter the car park through a portal beneath the West Courtyard block. Details of this portal and any balustrades made necessary by abrupt changes of level can be conditioned. The additional flats below the West Courtyard block would have no impact on the Chapel or Sanatorium as the only elevation affected faces away from both Listed Buildings and cannot be viewed from or beside either.. Impact on Landscape 8.5 The amendments to the alterations to the Sanatorium will improve its setting and allow a more extensive restoration of the Jekyll Gardens. The alterations to the West Courtyard and the re-orientation of the cottages to the south of the Engine House will not be visible from mid- to long-range views, or indeed outside the site at all because of the topography and existing tree cover. The minor alteration to the layout of Bracken Drive and Superintendant’s Drive will also be screened by existing tree cover. As such there will be no impact on the wider landscape and an improvement in views within the site. Biodiversity and nature conservation 8.6 15 of the 16 units which would be removed from the Sanatorium were within the 400 metre buffer and only 11 are to be re-provided in this zone within the new additional build under the West Courtyard apartments. Therefore whilst there are still a significant number of dwellings within this zone there will be a slight improvement overall. None of the alterations affect the roof spaces in the Sanatorium occupied by bats. Residential Amenity 8.7 The nearest part of the development to the residents of Hurst Park will still be the row of cottages proposed north of the Engine House adjacent to the emergency exit/entrance which is unchanged from the previous permisson. There will be no alteration in height to the West Courtyard apartments and the new build proposed below this building is not in a direct line of sight to the properties in Hurst Park and due to the topography and the intervening tree cover will not be visible from that development. There will be an increase of 11 properties using the access to the underground car park but the access is marginally 23 further away than originally proposed. The car park has been increased in size to accommodate a further 21 spaces which will reduce surface level parking. . It is not therefore considered that there would be any additional impact to the amenities of adjoining occupiers as a result of the proposed amendments due to the distance, the topography and the intervening tree cover. Other issues 8.8 The contributions remain unchanged from the previous scheme as the amendments are minor. 8.9 As this is an amendment to a previous permission all conditions are usually reapplied. However the pre-commencement conditions have been discharged and therefore the conditions relating to these elements have either been amended or removed as appropriate. 9. Conclusion 9.1 The amendments proposed will better reveal the significance of the heritage assets and have a broadly neutral effect on the conservation deficit which remains high but the issues arising from this can be addressed by a robust S106 agreement which controls the building programme to ensure that the majority of the works to restore the Sanatorium and Chapel are carried out in advance of the new build. The S106 agreement will be substantially the same as that for the previous planning permission and the same conditions will apply where relevant. There will be no additional impact on natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, highway safety or residential amenity or the other issues raised by application 11/03635 than which was previously permitted 10. Recommendation 10.1 It is recommended that the proposed amendment to planning permission 11/03635/FUL be granted for the following reason: The proposed amendments will better reveal the significance of the heritage assets on the site and reduce the impact of the development as a whole on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the SDNP without an adverse impact on highway safety or the amenity of existing residents or compromising the enabling development role of the proposal. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of and the NPPF, policies CC4, CC5, BE6, NRM5, NRM11, NRM12, W2, M1 and T4 of the South East Plan, and policies BE4, BE5, BE16, RE14, RE28, BE12 and TR6 of the Chichester District Plan Subject to a S106 agreement relating to: • the implementation of the revised construction programme; • the management of the estate and maintenance of the landscaping; • provision of a doctors surgery; • a restriction on keeping cats; • provision of fire hydrants and waste and recycling facilities; • travel plan implementation; • public access; and • affordable housing provision. and subject to the conditions set out in appendix 2.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not raise any crime and disorder implications. 12. Human Rights Implications 12.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual’s human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

24 TIM SLANEY Director of Planning

Contact Officer: Pat Aird Tel: 01730 811759 email: [email protected] Appendices 1. location map 2. conditions SDNPA Consultees Planning Policy Lead; Cultural Heritage Strategy Lead; Monitoring Officer & Legal Services.

Background Documents Letters of representation from members of the public, Observations of English Heritage, Natural England, Environment Agency, Highways Agency and Southern Water Observations of Chichester District Council, and Easebourne, Parish Council and Chichester Access Group NPPF Circular 20/10 Chichester District Local Plan 1999 South East Plan 2009

25 Report PC68/12 Appendix 1 Location Map

26 SDNP12/031392/FUL Report PC68/12 Appendix 2 Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the submitted plans, specifications and written particulars identified within the decision notice. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in accordance National and Development Plan policies 2. Details including samples of materials and cross sections and drawings at 1:10 of any balustrades and steps leading down to the underground courtyard below the West Courtyard Building shall be submitted to and approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in writing before work commences on that element of the proposal. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and enhances and conserves the listed buildings and their settings to comply with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 3. No walls shall be constructed, repaired or re-faced within each zone identified within the submitted plans and documents other than in accordance with a sample panel of brick/stone showing the proposed mortar and pointing finish which shall be erected on site and approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in writing before any such works are commenced and shall be maintained as approved until all such works are completed. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and enhances and conserves the listed buildings and their settings to comply with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 4. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the sustainable urban drainage scheme for the site has been completed in accordance with the details approved for planning permission 11/03635/FUL. The sustainable urban drainage scheme shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan. Reason: In the interests of sustainable development and to prevent the increased risk of flooding and to ensure the future maintenance of the surface water drainage system to comply with paragraphs 99 and 100 of the NPPF. 5. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, written verification produced by the suitably qualified person approved under the provision of condition 9 of planning permission 11/03635/FUL relating to contamination remediation shall be have been submitted to and approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in writing. The report must demonstrate that the remedial strategy approved under the provisions of condition 9 of planning permission 11/03635/FUL has been implemented fully. Reason: To prevent contamination of protected watercourses and in the interests of the safety and amenity of the future occupants to comply with paragraph 17 of the NPPF. 6. Development shall cease on site if, during any stage of the works, potential contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified. Works shall not recommence before an assessment of the potential contamination has been undertaken and details of the findings along with details of any remedial action required (including timing provision for implementation), have been submitted to and approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in writing. The development shall not be completed other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent contamination of protected watercourses and in the interests of the safety and amenity of the future occupants to comply with paragraph 17 of the NPPF. 7. Before any dwelling within each phase of the development hereby permitted is brought into use the cycle parking facilities shown on the approved plan shall be provided. Reason: To improve provision for cyclists reduce reliance on the private car to comply with Policy TR8 of the Chichester District Local Plan.

27 8. Before occupation of any house within each zone identified within the submitted plans and documents arrangements shall have been made for the implementation of a scheme for the collection and disposal of waste and recycling materials from the dwellings in that zone which has been submitted to and approved by SDNPA in writing Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made for waste collection and disposal in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 9. The Landscape Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable approved under condition 15 of planning permission 11/03635/FUL and any trees or plants which die or are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced in the next planting season by plants of a size and of a native species to be agreed in writing with the South Downs National Park Authority. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and enhances and conserves the listed buildings and their settings to comply with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan and the landscape character of this area of the South Downs National Park to comply with Policy C2 of the South East Plan. 10. The Ecological Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable approved under condition 16 of planning permission 11/03635/FUL. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity enhancement and protection and to ensure the natural beauty and wildlife is conserved and enhanced in this area of the South Downs National Park to comply with Policies CC1, C2, NRM5 and NRM7 of the South East Plan and Policies RE7 and RE8 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 11. Before any development where piling is proposed is begun, the method of piling shall be have been submitted to and approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in writing but such piling method shall exclude the use of top driven piling. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to maintain the tranquillity of the area to conserve the character of this part of the South Downs National Park to comply with Policies CC1 and C2 of the South east Plan and Policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 12. The construction of the development and associated works shall not take place on Sundays or Public Holidays or any time otherwise than between the hours of 0700 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays. In the interests of the amenity of the area and to maintain the tranquillity of the area to conserve the character of this part of the South Downs National Park to comply with Policies CC1 and C2 of the South east Plan and Policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no additions to, or extensions or enlargements of, or installation of microgeneration equipment and alterations affecting the external appearance of, the dwellings hereby permitted shall be made or erected. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and enhances and conserves the listed buildings and their settings to comply with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 14. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no building, or shed, greenhouse or other structure, shall be erected anywhere on the application site other than as shown on the plans hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and enhances and conserves the listed buildings and their settings to comply with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan.

28 15. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure shall be erected anywhere on the application site other than as shown on the plans hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and enhances and conserves the listed buildings and their settings to comply with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 16. No works to trees shall be carried out other than in accordance with British Standard 3998 ‘Recommendations for Tree Work’ or any revision or replacement thereof. Reason: To ensure the work carried out is to the long term well being of the tree(s) to protect the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy BE14 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 17. No part of the development shall be occupied until provision has been made to secure the implementation of a Travel Plan which has been submitted to and approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in writing. The Travel Plan should include the following measures to reduce reliance on the private car: • Provision of a bus service between the site, Midhurst and • Travel vouchers for new residents for one month of bus travel • Promotion of bus services • Bikeability training • Travel cards for young people for their first applicable year • Appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator • Targets for trip rate reduction with appropriate penalties • 5 years of TRICs surveys • Personal journey planners for residents • A car club Reason: To ensure there is reduced reliance on the private car in the interests of sustainable development and to comply with Policy T2 of the South East Plan and paragraph 17 of the NPPF. 18. No part of the development shall be occupied until provision has been made to secure the implementation of improvements to the King’s Drive/A286 road junction within the limits of the highway in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in writing. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR6 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 19. No part of the development shall be occupied until visibility splays to the access points, a means of access to the café and shop during their opening hours and turning areas on site have been provided in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that the café and shop are accessible and in the interests of highway safety to comply with Policies CC2 of the South east Plan and TR6 of the Chichester District Local Plan 20. The measures to be taken to design and construct all new build dwellings to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3, and the 15 number detached dwellings on Bracken Lane to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, shall be implemented in full before the development is first brought into use. Reason: To ensure that the development complies with government guidance in the Supplement to PPS1, Planning and Climate Change, in respect of delivering sustainable

29 development and to comply with policies CC2, CC4, NRM11 and NRM12 of the South East plan and policy BE16 of the Chichester District Local Plan. 21. No external lighting shall be provided on any part of the site other than in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the South Downs National Park Authority. The details shall include measures to ensure such lighting is only switched on when needed using methods such as motion sensors. The lighting shall be installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty and wildlife of the South Downs National Park to comply with policies CC1 of the South East Plan and BE11 of the Chichester District Plan Local Plan: Second Review. 22. Detailed plans showing the internal layout to meet the lifetimes homes criteria shall be submitted to the SDNPA. No part of the new build development shall be commenced above ground level until the internal layout detailed plans have been approved in writing by the SDNPA. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved internal layout plans. Reason: To ensure that the new build units achive ‘lifetime homes’ criteria to comply with policies CC1 of the South East Plan and BE11 of the Chichester District Plan Local Plan: Second Review. 23. Any historic or archaeological features not previously identified which are revealed when carrying out the development hereby permitted shall be retained in-situ and reported to the South Downs National Park Authority in writing within 5 working days. Works shall be halted in the area/part of the building affected until provision has been made for the retention and/or recording in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the archaeological and historical interest of structures on the site is safeguarded and recorded to comply with Policy BE3 of the Chichester District Local Plan.

30