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

Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

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

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 AT 2.00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

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

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16th August 2011 (attached)

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

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

5. To consider the following reports and to take such action thereon as may be necessary Chief Executive Interests of Officers Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 , DC/11/0783 Land Adjoining The Orchard, Cowfold Road, and West Grinstead

A2 and DC/11/1000 Knepp Castle, West Grinstead Shipley

A3 Chantry DC/11/0751 Downsview Farm, Clay Lane,

A4 Chantry DC/11/1387 Trevellan, Kithurst Park,

A5 Chantry DC/11/1388 Trevellan, Kithurst Park, Storrington

A6 Chanctonbury DC/11/1500 The White Lodge, Sunset Lane,

A7 and DC/11/1268 Stane Street Hollow, Stane Street,

A8 Chanctonbury DC/11/1314 Former Flower Pots, Road, Ashington

A9 Chanctonbury DC/11/1491 Cambounet, Bower Lane, West Chiltington

A10 Chantry DC/11/1460 St Francis, Road, Storrington

A11 Billingshurst and DC/11/0120 Harwoods Rover, Horsham Road, , Shipley Billingshurst

A12 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/11/1308 Bowshotts Stud, Cowfold Road, West Grinstead and West Grinstead

A13 Chantry DC/10/1287 Lamorna, Old London Road, Washington

A14 Chanctonbury DC/11/1233 Plots 5 and 6, Bramblefield, Crays Lane, Thakeham

A15 Billingshurst and S106/1704 Trees, East Street, Billingshurst Shipley

A16 Cowfold,Shermanbury S106/0623 Old Barn Nurseries, Road, and West Grinstead

A17 Billingshurst and DC/11/1357 Jendens Farm, Smithers Hill Lane, Shipley Shipley & DC/11/1359

A18 Billingshurst and DC/11/1248 Pear Tree Farm, West Chiltington Lane, Shipley Billingshurst

A19 Chantry TPO/1435 St Michaels Church, Church Street, Amberley

A20 Billingshurst and DC/11/1405 Land West of 62 Arun Road, Billingshurst Shipley

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

DCS110816

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 16th AUGUST 2011

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

Apologies: Councillors: Andrew Dunlop, Brian O’Connell, Roger Paterson,

DCS/52 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19th July 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/53 INTERESTS OF OFFICERS

The Chief Executive reported that Rod Brown, Head of Planning & Environmental Services, had declared an interest in planning application DC/11/1151. The interest arose because the officer knew the applicant socially. The officer had confirmed that he would take no part in the processing or determination of the application.

DCS/54 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCS/55 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/11/0675 7 Stane Street, Mrs Sylvia Wells DC/11/0688 Lion Heart, Fryern Road, Mr Lee Gorton Storrington

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/11/0008 Sussex Farm, Church Mr Allen Allowed Road, Russell DC/10/0819 Land East of Daux Bellway Homes Dismissed Avenue, Billingshurst Limited DC/11/0148 The Crimbles, Hillstream Mr W Walsh Allowed Close, Harborough Hill, West Chiltington Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/56 DECISIONS ON LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

Ref No Site and Development Decision

DC/11/0747 The Mobile Home, Tittlesfold Farm, The Refused Haven, Billingshurst – for the retention of the mobile home - planning consent RW/37/97 DC/11/0947 Stable Barn, Wheatsheaf Road, - for Granted the construction of five windows and one external door in the western elevation of the barn and one small window and a further external door in the southerly elevation of the barn, without planning permission DC/11/1017 Grovemount Barn, Brighton Road, Refused Shermanbury - for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the use of the barn as an office and workshop.

DCS/57 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/11/1121 (PLANNING) AND DC/11/1122 (CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT) - CONVERSION OF EXISTING BUILDING TO FORM A NEW 5-BED DWELLING AND 4-BED DWELLING AND THE ERECTION OF 9 FURTHER DWELLINGS (COMPRISING 4 X 2-BED AND 5 X 3-BED) TOTAL 11, FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, INCLUDING FORMATION OF ACCESS TO HIGHWAY SITE: ARUNDALE SCHOOL, 129 LOWER STREET, PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: RESIDE DEVELOPMENTS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the conversion of an existing building on the site into two dwellings and the construction of nine further dwellings. An application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing school buildings on the site was also to be considered.

The existing building on the site was proposed to be converted into one five bedroom dwelling and one four bedroom dwelling, with a garden area for each property. The proposed new dwellings on the site would consist of 4 x 2 bedroom houses and 5 x 3 bedroom houses which would be between two and three storeys in height.

The application site was located within the built up area boundary of Pulborough with the northern part of the site within the Pulborough Conservation Area.

Government Policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPS5; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP14 and CP19 and General Development Control Policies DC9, DC12, DC18 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application. 2 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/57 Planning Applications: DC/11/1121 and DC/11/1122 (cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

DC/05/2169 Erection of two replacement prefabricated Granted classrooms and the relocation of one existing classroom and refurbishment of one classroom. DC/06/1628 Amendment to previously approved application Granted DC/05/2169. DC/08/1701 Advertisement consent for replacement signage. Granted DC/10/1421 Conversion of existing building to form new 5- Granted bed dwelling and erection of 10 further dwellings (comprising 1 x 1-bed, 6 x 2-bed and 3 x 3- bed) total 11, following demolition of existing buildings, including formation of access to highway. DC/10/1458 Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of Granted existing outbuildings and formation of new access.

The comments of the Strategic and Community Planning Team, the Building Control Officer, Southern Water and the County Council were noted. The Design and Conservation Adviser raised no objection to the proposal. The Parish Council raised no objection in respect of application DC/11/1122. One letter of comment had been received.

Due to the site’s location, within the built up area, it was considered that the principle of development on the site was acceptable and had been established as part of the previous approval (DC/10/1421) subject to normal Development Management criteria.

With regards to the proposed partial demolition of the extensions to 129 Lower Street, it was considered that this was acceptable as the existing extension was bulky and appeared unattractive on the side of the traditionally proportioned and attractive host property. It was also considered that the gateway through the dairy building would add interest to the street, and the appearance of a highway entrance would not dominate this area of the Conservation Area. It was considered that the change of use of the building to form two properties would not be out of keeping with the overall character of the area and, as proposed, would not impact on its appearance.

The area to the south of the site would be laid out to accommodate houses, as well as gardens and parking areas. Although three of the properties would be three storeys in height, their bulk and scale were not considered to be out of character with the street scene in this location, as there were existing three storey town houses immediately to the east of the

3 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/57 Planning Applications: DC/11/1121 and DC/11/1122 (cont.)

site. It was considered that the provision of a two storey building on the western end of the terrace would provide a visual step between the three storey development to the east, to the single storey neighbouring property to the west. It was also considered that the architectural approach proposed in this area was acceptable as it would use traditional details of the local vernacular as well as modern building design incorporating ground floor garages.

Unit 8 on the previously approved plans had consisted of a two storey building with three garages at ground floor level and a one bedroom flat above. The one bedroom flat had been deleted from the current application with a single storey three bay garage building proposed on the site.

Plots 9 and 10 had been designed as a traditional pair of Sussex cottages, two storeys in height. The dwellings had been increased in size from that under DC/10/1421 as part of the current application, with the addition of a further bedroom achieved through a two storey projection to the rear. It was not considered that the proposed extension to the properties would result in a cramped form of development on the site not that the building would detract from the overall character of the area.

The application site sloped from north to south with a change in level of some six to seven metres. The applicant had submitted sectional drawings of the proposed development and it was considered that the changes to the land levels within the site would result in the buildings appearing less prominent in the streetscene and reduce any adverse impact on neighbouring properties. It was, however, considered that detailed sectional drawings showing precise details should be submitted prior to the implementation of the permission to ensure the proper development of the site.

Members considered that the proposed scheme would enhance the historical aspects on the site and would not harm the overall character of the area. It was also considered that the proposal would not detract from the setting of the adjoining listed building and that, due to the design of the buildings and their setting, as well as the changes to the levels within the site, the proposal would not materially harm the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. However, Members requested that consideration be given to ensuring that construction traffic used the Lower Street access.

RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure contributions of £29,690 for primary education, £31,955 for secondary education, £7,486 for sixth form education, £1,155 for fire and

4 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/57 Planning Applications: DC/11/1121 and DC/11/1122 (cont.)

rescue, £20,295 for transport infrastructure (TAD) and £25,932 for community facilities. (ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above, applications DC/11/1121 and DC/11/1122 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, with a view to ensuring that all construction traffic used the Lower Street access. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/58 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0694 - CREATION OF 3 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL FLATS AT THE EXISTING PREMISES BY DIVISION OF THE MAIN HOUSE AND CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL USE SITE: VOAKES, EAST STREET, WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MR M FENEMORE

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the conversion of the existing dwelling into four flats comprising three 2-bed units and one 3-bed unit. It was also proposed to convert a number of outbuildings to residential use to form a 2-bed unit and to extend and refurbish an existing first floor flat above the stable block resulting in a total of six residential units on the site. A total of eight car parking spaces would be provided and the existing vehicular access would be utilised to serve the development.

The application site was located on the northern side of East Street and outside any built-up area boundary as defined by the Local Development Framework.

The property was set within substantial grounds of approximately 2.42 hectares and included paddocks, orchards and a formal garden. The surrounding area was characterised by open countryside with sporadic residential development.

Government Policies PPS1 & PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3 and CP13; and General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC24, DC28 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

There was no planning history of relevance to the current application.

The comments of the Chief Building Control Officer and County Surveyor were noted. Southern Water raised no objection to the proposal. Thakeham Parish Council also had no objection but expressed concern

5 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/58 Planning Application: DC/11/0694 (cont.)

regarding space availability for car parking. West Chiltington Parish Council objected to the application. One letter of comment had been received.

The main issues in the determination of the application were considered to be whether the proposal met the relevant policy requirements and the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.

Members considered that the proposed development would not meet local needs, was inappropriate and in an unsustainable location. In particular, Members considered that the proposal would result in an over-development of the site.

Members, therefore, considered that the application was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/0694 be refused for the following reason:

01 The proposed development is considered unacceptable as it would represent an over- development of the site and thereby be detrimental to the rural character of the area in terms of the likely generated level of activity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP1 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies.

DCS/59 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/10/1716 (PLANNING) & DC/10/1668 (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) - DEMOLITION OF VICTORIAN ADDITIONS, RENOVATION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND NEW SINGLE STOREY LINK & 1 ½ STOREY EXTENSION SITE: HARWOODS, WEST END LANE, HENFIELD APPLICANT: MR & MRS JONATHAN HAZEL

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reminded the Committee that this application had been deferred at the November 2010 meeting of the Committee in order to seek a solution in consultation with the applicant, officers, local Members & English Heritage (Minute No DCS/100 (16.11.10) refers).

Members were referred to the previous report for details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal. 6 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/59 Planning Applications: DC/10/1716 and DC/10/1668 (cont.)

Following a meeting between the applicant, Members, English Heritage and officers, amended plans had been received addressing the concerns that had been raised regarding the overall size and design of the extensions.

The comments of the Listed Building Officer and Parish Council in respect of the amended plans were noted.

The main issues in the determination of this application were considered to be the principle of the development, the scale and size of the extensions and the effect of the development on the existing grade II Listed Building.

The design and size of the proposed extension had now been reduced and simplified that previously proposed and the massing and bulk was now of a similar size and appearance as the existing building.

Members, therefore, considered that, on balance, the proposed extension would preserve the character of the listed building and would not have an adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character and appearance of the building or its setting.

RESOLVED

(i) That application DC/10/1716 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M1 Approval of Materials 03 M2 Sample Panel “Any walling for the stone work to the ground floor of the extension and any replacement infill panels on the existing building shall conform with a sample panel ………” 04 Before development commences precise details of the design, the materials and method of glazing for the windows & doors at 1:20 elevations and 1:1 sections shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The windows & doors thereafter shall conform to the approved details. 05 V2 Hours of Working 06 O2 Burning of Materials 07 A recording exercise of the existing building, to a level 3 English Heritage standard, as described in the guidance document “Understanding Historic Buildings; A guide to good recording practice” shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified and

7 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/59 Planning Applications: DC/10/1716 and DC/10/1668 (cont.)

experienced person/s, on property. The report of the exercise shall be submitted to the LPA, agreed in writing, and a copy deposited with the Heritage Environment Record at County Council prior to commencement of development. 08 A Method statement for the refurbishment of the remaining elements of the property shall be submitted to the LPA and agreed in writing, prior to commencement of development. 09 Before development commences 1: 5 cross sections of the proposed methods of repairing, consolidating and where necessary, insulating the existing walls and roofs shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA, prior to the commencement of development. 10 L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping

(ii) That application DC/11/1668 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 LB1 Listed Building 3 Year Time Limit 02 LB4 Protection from Damage 03 LB5 Remedial Works 04 LB11 Feature Protection 05 LB13 Making Good 06 M1 Approval of Materials 07 M2 Sample Panel “Any walling for the stone work to the ground floor of the extension and any replacement infill panels on the existing building shall conform with a sample panel ………” 08 Before development commences precise details of the design, the materials and method of glazing for the windows & doors at 1:20 elevations and 1:1 sections shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The windows & doors thereafter shall conform to the approved details. 09 A recording exercise of the existing building, to a level 3 English Heritage standard, as described in the guidance document “Understanding Historic Buildings; A guide to good recording practice” shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced person/s, on property. The report of the exercise shall be submitted to the LPA, agreed in writing, and a copy deposited with the Heritage 8 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/59 Planning Applications: DC/10/1716 and DC/10/1668 (cont.)

Environment Record at West Sussex County Council prior to commencement of development. 10 A Method statement for the refurbishment of the remaining elements of the property shall be submitted to the LPA and agreed in writing, prior to commencement of development. 11 Before development commences 1: 5 cross sections of the proposed methods of repairing, consolidating and where necessary, insulating the existing walls and roofs shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA, prior to the commencement of development.

DCS/60 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1182 - REPLACEMENT DOUBLE GARAGE WITH SINGLE STOREY LINK LOBBY AND HOME OFFICE OVER GARAGE AND MINOR ALTERATIONS TO FRONT ELEVATION SITE: LITTLE BROOK COTTAGE, THAKEHAM ROAD, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR & MRS J SHERGOLD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for an extension to the front of the building, which would replace an existing detached flat roofed garage to the north of the main dwelling. The proposed extension would measure 9.6 metres by 5.6 metres and 5.9 metres in height and be constructed of brick, painted to match the main dwelling house; matching plain tiles would also be incorporated on the pitched roof of the extension.

The application site was located on the southern side of Thakeham Road, within the built up area of Storrington. The main dwelling comprised a two storey detached dwelling house which was set back into the plot and approximately 10 metres from the road to the north.

Government Policy PPS1; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1; CP3 and CP5; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC3 and DC9 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/09/2288 Alteration of existing shared access to provide Granted individual accesses to Little Brook Cottage and Barford House.

The Parish Council had withdrawn their initial objection following the submission of amended plans. Three letters of objection had been received. A member of the public spoke in objection to the application.

9 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/60 Planning Application: DC/11/1182 (cont.)

The main issues in the determination of the application were considered to be the effect of the development on the character of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The proposed extension would replace an existing flat roofed double garage to the north of the dwelling and would have a floor area of 54.32 square metres and a total ridge height of 5.9 metres. It would be set approximately 0.5 metre into the ground to ensure that the eaves of the extension did not exceed the eaves height of the existing flat roofed garages. Amended plans had been received replacing a dormer in the westerly roof slope of the extension with two roof lights.

In the light of concerns raised, Members considered that further investigations were required in order to clarify the issue of ownership of the site before a decision could be made.

RESOLVED

That consideration of application DC/11/1182 be deferred pending clarification of the ownership of the site.

DCS/61 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1137- NEW FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION ABOVE KITCHEN AND GARAGE WITH LINK TO MAIN ROOF SITE: ASHLEYS, COLEBROOK LANE, , PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: MR & MRS THORNTON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission to raise the ridge of the roof of the existing single storey garage and garage link to seven metres, which would maintain a step down from the ridge line of the main dwelling of 800 millimetres. This represented an increase of 1.5 metres on the agreed 5.5 metres ridge height previously approved (DC/10/1521). A window was proposed on the east elevation, together with four skylights in the roof slope. No windows were proposed on the northern elevation.

The property was located, within the designated National Park and was set back and on a lower gradient to Colebrook Lane, Watersfield.

Government Policy PPS1; Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; and Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies DC4; DC9 and DC28 were relevant to the determination of this application.

10 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/61 Planning Application: DC/11/1137 (cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

CW/15/56 Bungalow and garage Granted DC/07/2212 First floor extension to include 6 dormer Granted windows and formation of living accommodation within existing roof space of garage. DC/10/1521 Proposed rooms in existing roof space over Granted garage, hipped roof construction changed to gable end over existing garage and new pitched roof with rooms in roof space replacing flat roof between house and garage.

The concerns of the Parish Council were noted and a letter of objection had been received. The two applicants spoke in support of the application.

The main issues in the determination of this application were considered to be the impact of the development on the character and setting of the surrounding area and the amenity of neighbouring properties.

It was considered that, although the roofline through to the main roof would be increased to seven metres, in light of the size and prominence of neighbouring properties along Colebrook Lane, and the step down from the main dwelling ridge, the appearance of the proposed dwelling would be in proportion and would not significantly detract from the character of the surrounding dwellings.

Members considered that the proposed extension above the garage would not be overbearing or result in overlooking so as to warrant refusal and that, on balance, the proposal was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1137 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members and the Chairman, to allow the framing of appropriate conditions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/62 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1319 - SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION SITE: THE WYNDHAMS, NEWBRIDGE ROAD EAST, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MRS E HAWKES

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a single storey extension abutting the shared east boundary with Ashdown Cottage and

11 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/62 Planning Application: DC/11/1319 (cont.)

the removal of the existing gates and insertion of a garage door. The proposed extension would extend 3.5 metres to the rear of the property and a total of 4.8 metres along the shared boundary to the east. The extension had been designed with a flat roof to a height of 2.7 metres.

The property was located in the built up area of Billingshurst, designed to a similar layout to the properties to the north. The site was occupied by a semi detached two storey dwelling with an existing under pass for the parking of vehicles.

Government Policy PPS1; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP5 and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC9 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

BL/47/01 Erection of 18 houses & associated garages Granted (approval of reserved matters). BL/132/02 Erection of 24 house & garages. Granted

The Parish Council raised no objection. One letter of objection had been received.

The main issues in the determination of this application were considered to be the impact of the development on the character and setting of the surrounding area and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

It was considered that, by virtue of its design, the proposed extension would not significantly detract from the character of the existing dwelling. It was also considered that the proposal would not significantly detract from the amenity of the neighbouring occupier.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1319 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M6 Prescribed Materials

REASONS

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

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of the amenities of the neighbouring 12 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/62 Planning Application: DC/11/1319 (cont.)

occupiers or character and visual amenities of the locality.

DCS/63 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1163 - CHANGE OF USE FROM RECREATION GROUND TO GARDEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING PRE-SCHOOL, REPLACE POST AND RAIL FENCING WITH WOODEN PICKET FENCING SITE: DAUXWOOD PRE-SCHOOL ABUTTING BILLINGSHURST RECREATION GROUND, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MRS CHRISTINE SERNA

Deleted from the agenda.

DCS/64 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1128 - SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION WITH RAISED ROOF TO GIVE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION SITE: WOODCREST, CROSSWAYS PARK, WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MR AND MRS N COUGHTREY

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for a single storey side extension and an increase in the height of the existing ridgeline to provide accommodation within the roof space.

The application site was located at the eastern end of a private cul-de sac, consisting of 17 dwellings, varying in size and design with Woodcrest itself being a single storey dwelling with an attached garage, located towards the north east corner of the plot. The area, whilst within the built up area of West Chiltington, gave the appearance of being semi rural in character with its vast array of trees providing a high level of screening between each property.

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

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/0477 Single storey front extension, roof raised to Withdrawn give first floor accommodation DC/11/0478 Proposed garage with storage over. Withdrawn DC/11/1123 Single storey extension and raised roof to Refused provide first floor accommodation. DC/11/1124 Proposed garage with storage over. Refused DC/11/1129 Proposed garage. Pending

13 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/64 Planning Application: DC/11/1128 (cont.)

The comments of the Parish Council were noted. Seven letters of objection and one of representation had been received. Three members of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

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

The current proposal would increase the ridge height of the dwelling from 5.1 metres to 7 metres (the previously refused scheme being 7.8 metres), an increase of approx 1.9 metres. The proposal would also include four dormer windows on each of the northern and southern elevations. The southern elevation dormers had been reduced in size, by way of amended plans, to match those on the northern elevation.

The existing garage on the western elevation would be removed and replaced by a single storey extension 5.5 metres wide, 9 metres deep and 5.3 metres high with a hipped pitched roof. The proposed single storey extension would sit to the front of the existing garage and would come forward of the southern elevation by 1.6 metres.

Whilst the proposed ridge height had been reduced slightly from that previously proposed, Members considered that a further reduction should be sought. Members also considered that additional landscaping should be provided.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1128 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with local Members and the Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities, subject to a further reduction in the ridge height of the dwelling and the submission of a landscaping scheme. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/65 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1129 - PROPOSED GARAGE SITE: WOODCREST, CROSSWAYS PARK, WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MR AND MRS N COUGHTREY

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a garage.

The site was located at the eastern end of a private cul-de sac, consisting of 17 dwellings, varying in size and design, with Woodcrest itself being a 14 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/65 Planning Application: DC/11/1129 (cont.)

single storey dwelling with an attached garage, located towards the north east corner of the plot. The area, whilst within the built up area of West Chiltington, gave the appearance of being semi rural in character with its vast array of trees, providing a high level of screening between each property.

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

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/0477 Single storey front extension, roof raised to Withdrawn give first floor accommodation DC/11/0478 Proposed garage with storage over. Withdrawn DC/11/1123 Single storey extension and raised roof to Refused provide first floor accommodation. DC/11/1124 Proposed garage with storage over. Refused DC/11/1129 Proposed garage. Pending

The comments of the Parish Council were noted. Five letters of objection and two of representation had been received. One letter of support had been received in support of the proposal. Three members of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

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

The proposed garage would be located forward of the main dwelling, set on a lower ground level, and would measure 4.6 metres high with a hipped pitched roof, incorporating a flat roof to help to reduce the height and bulk of the roof. The proposal would be six metres deep and seven metres wide.

The southern boundary comprised a large amount of vegetation, enabling the building to be less prominent within the site and the street scene. It was considered that the proposal would have no detrimental effect on the nearest neighbouring dwelling.

The proposal would be of a similar size and design to other garages in the West Chiltington area and it was therefore considered that the current proposal was acceptable in principle.

15 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/65 Planning Application: DC/11/1129 (cont.)

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1129 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members and the Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities, to allow the framing of additional conditions in respect of construction details of the access drive, surface water drainage and the use of the garage. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted

DCS/65 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED

That, under Section 100A(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act, by virtue of the paragraph specified against the item, and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

DCS/66 APPEAL AGAINST THE COUNCIL’S DECISION TO REFUSE APPLICATION REFERENCE DC/10/0939 – LAND SOUTH OF GROOMSLAND DRIVE AND GILLMANS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MARRINGDEAN ROAD, BILLINGSHURST (PARAGRAPH 5)

The Council Solicitor reported that on 15th February 2011, the Committee had resolved to refuse planning application reference DC/10/0939 for 150 dwellings with associated works and landscaping at Land South of Groomsland Drive and Gillmans Industrial Estate, Marringdean Road, Billingshurst (Minute No DCS/136 (15.2.11) refers). The applicant had subsequently appealed against this decision and a Public Inquiry had been set for the 6th - 8th of September 2011.

The four reasons for refusal were:

1 the proposed development was considered premature in light of the Council’s intention to pursue a planned approach to development in the District through an Interim Statement, the intention of the Government to abolish the South East Plan and its housing targets, and the requirements for local consultation and neighbourhood input as set out in the Localism Bill;

16 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/66 Appeal Against The Council’s Decision To Refuse Application Reference DC/10/0939 (cont.)

2 the site was in the countryside, where there was a strong presumption against additional residential development and, by virtue of the scale, the development was considered to adversely affect the visual character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties;

3 the proposed development which adjoined the category 1 settlement of Billingshurst failed to comply with criterion 3 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD as the cumulative scale of development attached to Billingshurst would have exceeded 150 dwellings;

4 an appropriate Section 106 agreement had not been signed.

Subsequent to the decision to refuse the application, Cabinet, on 21st July 2011, had resolved not to proceed with an Interim Statement approach and Counsel’s advice on the impact of this decision in respect of this application was reported.

A draft s106 agreement had been submitted by the applicant and discussions had been taking place on its contents. It was anticipated that an agreed signed copy would be available for the Inspector.

Overall, it was Counsel’s opinion that the Council would now be unable to sustain a credible argument backed up by evidence for the refusal of this application. This view was supported by officers and the recommendation, therefore, was not to pursue reasons for refusal 1 – 3, and to advise the appellant accordingly as soon as possible to avoid any further costs being incurred.

A member of the Committee asked for a recorded vote in respect of this item. The votes in respect of the resolution were as follows:

For Councillors: Roger Arthur, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Jim Goddard, Ian Howard, David Jenkins, Liz Kitchen, Sheila Matthews, Sue Rogers, Jim Sanson.

Against Councillor: Brian Donnelly.

Abstained Councillors: Adam Breacher, Gordon Lindsay, Chris Mason, Kate Rowbottom.

Absent Councillors: Andrew Dunlop, Brian O’Connell, Roger Paterson.

17 Development Control (South) Committee 16th August 2011

DCS/66 Appeal Against The Council’s Decision To Refuse Application Reference DC/10/0939 (cont.)

RESOLVED

i) That reasons for refusal 1, 2 and 3 of planning decision DC/10/0939 be not pursued through the public inquiry process and that the appellants be advised of this as soon as possible in order to avoid any increase in costs that may be awarded against the Council. ii) That an appropriate planning agreement under section 106 continue to be sought, to ensure that on the granting of permission the necessary infrastructure requirements, including 40% affordable housing, were forthcoming; iii) That the Parish Council and members of the public be advised of this decision.

REASONS

i) It is considered in light of your Officers recommendation, the decision not to pursue an Interim Statement, and subsequent Counsel’s advice, that the Council would be unable to substantiate its reasons for refusal with credible evidence and will therefore be subject to substantial costs against it.

ii) To accord with adopted Council policy.

iii) To ensure transparency in the decision making process.

The meeting closed at 4.30pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

18

Report to Development Control (South) Committee

th 20 September 2011 By the Chief Executive INFORMATION REPORT Not exempt

Interests of Officers

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Elizabeth Francis, Committee Support Officer, has declared an interest in planning application DC/11/1300 for the demolition of existing industrial buildings, removal of hardstanding areas, erection of eight no. dwellings with associated garages and car barns, landscaping, restoration of pond, new tree planting and refuse and cycle store (South Downs National Park) at Gerston Farm, Greyfriars Lane, Storrington. The interest arises because the officer is a neighbour and knows both the applicant and neighbours who are objecting to the application. The officer has confirmed that she will take no part in the processing or determination of the application.

The declaration has been made in accordance with Paragraph 18 of the Officers’ Code of Conduct, which requires officers’ interests in planning applications to be declared.

The declaration of interests by officers, and their non-participation in the processing and determination of planning applications ensures the protection of the public's rights

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee is recommended to note the report

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

To ensure the requirements of the Council's constitution are met

Background papers Consultation Ward affected Contact

Email dated 09/08/11 Lesley Morgan Ext. No. 5123

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS

1. Appeals Lodged

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

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/11/0862 Single storey front extension and rear extension and loft conversion (South Downs National Park). Views, 38 Arun Vale, Coldwaltham, Pulborough, RH20 1LP. For: Mr Richard Lawton

EN/10/0357 Unauthorised development. The Green, Goose Green Lane, Goose Green, RH20 2LW. For: Mr D Feeney

DC/11/0683 Proposed rear ground floor extension (Full Planning). Miljaz Barn, Pulborough Road, Cootham, Pulborough, RH20 4HP. For: Mrs Julie Short

DC/11/0685 Proposed rear ground floor extension (Listed Building Consent). Miljaz Barn, Pulborough Road, Cootham, Pulborough, RH20 4HP. For: Mrs Julie Short

3. Appeal Decisions

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

DC/11/0103 Retrospective permission for a patio to rear of property. 7 Plantation Way, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4JF. For: Mr John Gilbert Appeal: ALLOWED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

DC/10/2427 Retrospective permission for the installation of 16 No. solar panels 1 No. wind turbine and battery store. Pear Tree Farm, West Chiltington Lane, Billingshurst, RH14 9DP. For: Miss Tracey Poulton Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/11/0018 Alterations to porch and first floor landing area, new wall and gates to South boundary. Bainbridge Court, Washington Road, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4DE. For: Pathway Healthcare Ltd Appeal: ALLOWED (Committee)

DC/11/0675 Retrospective permission sought for a fence with trellis bordering existing garden. 7 Stane Street, Adversane, Billingshurst, RH14 9JJ. For: Mrs Sylvia Wells Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

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

DC/11/1482 – Alders, Horsham Road, - Granted

An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the occupation of Alders in non- compliance with an Agricultural Occupancy Condition attached to the property. The applicant had to prove that no one living at Alders has ever worked in agriculture. The applicant proved that none of the occupants had or was employed in Agriculture and this had been so for the last ten years prior to this application.

DC/11/1462 – Brookdale Farm, West Chiltington Lane , Billingshurst - Granted

An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the occupation of Brookdale Farm in non-compliance with an Agricultural Occupancy Condition attached to the property. The applicant had to prove that no one living at Brookdale Farm has ever worked in agriculture. The applicant proved that none of the occupants had or was employed in Agriculture and this had been so for the last ten years prior to this application.

DC/11/1231 - Oakdene , Blackgate Lane, Pulborough – refused

This application was made as the applicant wanted the mobile home to be designated as a permanent structure. The existing mobile home has consent under PL/115/99. There have been no further development works attaching the mobile home to its base since then therefore there was no new development to be declared lawful. The application was refused.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20th September 2011 Erection of crematorium building with associated infrastructure including new internal access road, manager's lodge house, grounds maintenance and secure equipment store and a total of 63 DEVELOPMENT: No. parking spaces. The proposals include an upgraded access onto the A272 to be shared with the existing restaurant adjoining the site Land Adjoining The Orchard, Cowfold Road West Grinstead West SITE: Sussex WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/11/0783 APPLICANT: Peacebound Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to consideration of alternative measures for site security and the completion of a section 106 agreement securing a financial contribution towards air quality mitigation measures.

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 erection of a crematorium building with associated infrastructure including new internal access road, manager's lodge house, grounds maintenance and secure equipment store and a total of 63 No. parking spaces. The proposals include an upgraded access onto the A272 to be shared with the existing restaurant adjoining the site.

1.2 The proposed crematorium building would contain a staff room, office, crematory area with all required mechanical plant, a chapel, vestry and waiting area, toilets, a hall of remembrance, two suites for families after the service and a kitchen area. An office and meeting room would be provided to the east of the main building. The building would be some 68.5 m long, and some 23.5 metres wide at its widest

Contact: Nicola Mason Extension: 5289 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.

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

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is situated on the northern side of the A272 and to the west of the former railway line that now forms part of the . The site is situated close to a small informal group of properties that form the small hamlet of West Grinstead. The site is classified within the Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposals Map as being within a countryside location. To the west and south of the site are residential properties.

1.5 In the south eastern corner of the site is a detached building currently being used as a restaurant with a car parking area to the west. To the rear of the restaurant is an orchard area which is also used for al fresco dining. The main part of the site has been vacant for a period of time and therefore become overgrown with a large number of trees and shrubs. Part of the site has been cleared prior to the submission of an earlier application and the location of former buildings on the site can be viewed from the A272. The site currently has access onto the A272.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.6 In October 2009 an application for the construction of a sustainable low impact eco holiday and ranger centre, comprising 8 holiday lodges and campsite, WSCC Rangers office, associated parking blocks, parking and access (DC/08/0593) was approved on the site.

1.7 In August 1991 an application for the construction of a 40 bedroom trusthouse forte travel lodge and car park extension was refused (WG/42/91).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.

2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality) CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements), CP15 (Rural Strategy) and CP19 (Managing travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport) are considered relevant to this application.

2.4 General Development Control Policies DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC5 (Biodiversity and Geology), DC6 (Woodland and Trees), DC8 (Renewable Energy and Climate Change), DC9 (Development Principles), and DC40 (Transport and Access) are also considered relevant to this application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Councils Equalities Officer has noted that investigations should take place to recycle any waste heat.

3.2 The Councils Conservation and Design Officer has noted that the architectural quality of the building is of a high and contemporary standard, incorporating interesting design features and that the success of the building will be in the quality of its finishes.

3.3 The Councils Landscape Officer has raised no objection in principle to development subject to conditions.

3.4 The Councils Arboricultural Officers comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to the committee.

3.5 The Councils Strategic and Community Planning Team have made the following comments on the application; “Policy CP15 allows for the provision of new facilities, providing that it contributes to the diverse and sustainable farming enterprises or of other countryside-based enterprises and activities, contribute to the wider rural economy and/or promote recreation in, and enjoyment of, the countryside. Policy DC 1 and DC2 also set out requirements as to development in the countryside, its protection, enhancement and impact on landscape character. The proposed scheme, in order to meet these policies, would need to result in substantial environmental improvement, reduce the impact on the countryside, be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and not lead to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside. There would be no objection in principle to the proposal, providing the criteria of the policies were met; however there is concern with this application as to the need for the rural location and the impact the development will have in landscape and environmental terms, the scale and location of the buildings on the site. It therefore considered that this proposal does not meet these policies.

It is considered that due to the sites proximity to the A272 and A24 it is well located in relation to the existing highway infrastructure. Comments will need to be sort APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4.

from West Sussex County Council as to the expected movement of vehicles onto the A272. Due to its location in the countryside it is considered that traffic impacts will be significant from such a development, the need for this rural location should be considered necessary in order to meet policies CP15 and DC40.

You will need to be satisfied that the proposal would provide for enhancement by minimising the emission of pollutants, including noise, odour and light pollution into the wider environment as set out in Policy CP2, Environmental Quality, and that suitable sustainability and renewable energy usage are proposed and meet policy DC8, Renewable Energy and Climate Change. You will also need to be satisfied that the scheme meets policy DC2 and DC 9 including landscape and amenity considerations and design, there are particular concerns as to some of the criteria in this policy; the suitability of the proposed scheme in relation to the scale, massing and appearance of development, development relating sympathetically to the local landscape, justify and mitigate against any losses that may occur through development; and locally distinctive in character.

There are concerns as to the application, in its location overall as well as location of development on the site, the building of a larger scale and encroaching further into the countryside than the previous proposal, as we understand because of nearby properties, the scale of development proposed in this countryside location as well as the proposal for a dwelling on the site, the need for the dwelling is questioned. We therefore object in principle from a policy perspective to this proposal, as we do not consider the proposal meets the criteria of the relevant policies in adopted Development Plan Documents.

If however, when considering these concerns you are satisfied that the location of the development proposed is suitable and justified for the proposed use following your appraisal of the submitted documents, the scale and siting of all the buildings proposed is appropriate in this setting, the dwelling is appropriate and can be linked suitably by conditions to the day to day running of the facility and used for no other purpose, you are satisfied there are no environmental concerns and the visual impact of the proposals is acceptable our concerns would be satisfied.”

3.6 The Councils Public Health and Licensing Team have raised no objection to the application but have requested that regard is given to the Air Quality Management Area proposed in Cowfold and possible mitigation (a sum of £6000 has been suggested as an appropriate sum to support air quality monitoring through Cowfold village for 3 years), that an Environmental Permit would be required, there would be a need for a site management plan, and a condition would be required to assess contamination on the site.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.7 Southern Water has noted that the exact position of the trunk main which crosses the site should be determined on site, and conditions and informatives have been suggested if the application is to be approved. Southern Water has noted that if a SUDS scheme is proposed the Environment Agency should be consulted.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5.

3.8 The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions.

3.9 West Sussex County Council Highways have made the following comments; “This current application to develop a crematorium building with associated infrastructure including a new internal access road, a manager’s lodge, maintenance and storage facilities, parking etc., also includes the previously accepted access upgrade on to A272. The extended right turn lane will be capable of accommodate up to 11 vehicles waiting to turn into the site from A272 when approaching form the east.

The Applicants have submitted a Transport Statement that demonstrates that the proposed crematorium will generate an increase in vehicular movements to and from the A272 during the hours of opening of the crematorium, when compared against the previously expected movements associated with the eco holiday village. However the opening hours of the crematorium fall outside the normal morning and afternoon peak periods for traffic movements on A272. Furthermore, the percentage increase in traffic on A272 as a result of the proposal is expected to be no more than 0.9%. There will be some arrivals and departures during peak periods by staff based at the application site, but these are only likely to have an increase in impact in the order of 0.3% on A272 traffic flows. Any highway objections based on these small increases in vehicular impact on A272 would not be sustained at Appeal.

There is often concern that the free flow of traffic on the highway network is reduced by slow moving vehicles that make up a funeral cortege, but A272 is already the subject of a reduced speed limit in the vicinity of the site access, and with the newly designed site access and the extended right turn lane to accommodate those approaching the site from the east, it is not consider that the introduction of a crematorium at this location will unduly interrupt the free flow of traffic on Cowfold Road.

As a result of the above considerations, there are no highway related grounds on which to base a reason of refusal of this application.”

3.10 West Sussex County Council Ecology has raised no objection to the application subject to an informative and conditions.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.11 West Grinstead Parish Council has strongly objected to the application and question the need and viability of the scheme. The Parish Council consider that there are serious question marks about the need for the facility and the applicants should establish clearly the need by reference to independent research. The Parish Council consider that the site is inappropriate due to the proximity of residential properties and the Downs Link, that Parking provision is inadequate for the use, and there is concern relating to the purposed access and sight lines. The Parish Council also question the need for a residential dwelling.

3.12 32 letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds; APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6.

 traffic disruption along a major A road  not maintaining the ethos of the area alongside a public recreation area and leisure route  ecological considerations (what happens to furnace fumes and waste products?)  economic penalties paid by local residents living adjacent to undesirable development  inappropriate in wooded area  increase in traffic  car park an eyesore for small village environment  proposed house is inappropriate  smells would emanate from the crematorium  there is no established need  not enough parking for the proposed use  not in keeping with the group of existing listed buildings in the area  dramatic reduction in the volume of trees in the area  increase in carbon footprint  sight lines do not meet 100 m sight lines required by WSCC  extreme infringement of Human Rights to enjoy own property  harvesting on land adjoining site would mean dust, noise and disturbance to those involved in services on the site  shooting in adjoining woods would disturb services as well as the sound of the hounds  no benefit to local community  disturbance of wildlife  intrusive signage and lighting would be required  little privacy for mourners  application very different to previous holiday lodge scheme  cortege speed shown theoretical not a true representation  crematorium should be in an area close to centres of population  under the forestry commission felling license trees should be replanted on the site  site previously used as a rubbish tip – no survey has been undertaken to establish what toxic waste is buried on site  no public access other than by private car  no facility for accommodating coaches  travel times have been exaggerated to existing facilities  existing capacity at surrounding crematoria will increase in short term due to ONS forecast showing a decrease in deaths up to 2014  location next to restaurant inappropriate  members of public have existing legacy requirements and are unlikely to switch locations unless a clear drive time benefit exists  no proved clear need for new crematorium  site well within existing catchment area  20 mph calculation used for Competition Commission Tribunal should not be used as a ’one case fits all’ assessment  Impact on new housing speculative- generally new development populated by younger people so little impact on funeral numbers APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7.

 Analysis of opertian capacity flawed – 30% of funerals booked outside 11-3 period usually from client choice  Customers often choose to defer funerals so delay not necessarily due to lack of capacity  Expect proposal to handle less that 500 cremations per annum  Direction of prevailing wind should be taken into account when choosing a site  Should mortality predictions rise other solutions could be put forward which would be less damaging  No space for disposal of ashes due to 200ft restriction  No financial statement submitted

3.13 10 letters have been received supporting the application on the following grounds;  Development would provide healthy competition  Population are increasing  Number of cremations increasing over burials  Site far more convenient than existing sites  Buildings would not be visible through woodland  Create more employment in the local area  Would support local business  Woods would be maintained and protected  Propsed building would be tasteful and well thought through  A new facility has not opened in Sussex for more than 40 years.

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

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

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

It is not considered that the proposal will have any material impact on crime and disorder issues.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 This application for a crematorium, manager’s house and associated access and parking would be judged against the rural and economic policies of the development plan. The application site is situated outside of the defined built up area boundary as defined in the Horsham Local Development Framework Proposals Map. Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies requires that development outside of the defined built up area boundary is tightly controlled APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8.

and development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria; a) Supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; b) Enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste c) Provides for quiet informal recreational use; or d) Ensures the sustainable development of rural areas.

Any development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead, either individually or cumatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside.

6.2 Policy CP15 relates to Rural Strategy and states that sustainable rural economic development within the District will be encouraged to deliver 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 its countryside location and should: 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 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 result in substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside particularly where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved. Any development in accordance with this strategy should not harm the rural character of the area by virtue of the nature and level of activity involved and the type and amount of traffic generated (or by other effects such as noise and pollution).

6.3 The location of crematoria are also affected by additional legislation and guidance which requires that crematoria should enjoy a peaceful and tranquil setting, and under Section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902 that no crematorium should be constructed nearer to any dwelling house than two hundred yards, nor within fifty yards of any public highway. The Department of the Environment Guidance 1978 also requires that any chosen site should not have any material effect on the immediate neighbourhood and that “a well wooded piece of ground with natural undulations and good views is ideal.”

6.4 National and local planning policy require development to be within built up area boundaries unless there is a specific and exceptional justification for a any countryside location. With regards to a crematorium it is considered that ideally positions within the built up area boundary should be considered primarily prior to countryside sites. However it is considered that the reality of finding a site, of the appropriate size and ambiance within the built up area boundary would be difficult, as it would be subject to inflated values due to competing land requirements such for commercial uses and housing. Inspectors have consequently considered such issues and have noted that “the requirement for a site of 2 hectares per thousand cremations, together with the need to create an appropriate ambiance for mourners and the statutory requirements that no crematorium be built within 182 m of any APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9.

dwelling or 45 m of any highways, make it unlikely that a suitable site could be found within an urban area.” (Appeal ref APP/J330/A/96/262892).

6.5 If it is considered that crematoria may be sited outside the built up area boundary any site would be required to be suitably located with regards to access and highway safety, serve a local need, to not have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area, or the amenities of adjoining properties, and not impact on the ecology of the area.

6.6 The site due to its location on the A272 is well located with regards to east/west access to the main roads through the district. The applicants have indicated 63 formal spaces within the site for car parking, although informal parking of a further 34 spaces can be accommodated within the site if required. The applicant has stated that the average number of vehicles attending a cremation service is 17 and therefore it is not considered an objection could be raised to the application on the grounds of lack of parking. The Applicants have submitted a Transport Statement that demonstrates that the proposed crematorium will generate an increase in vehicular movements to and from the A272 during the hours of opening of the crematorium, when compared against the previously expected movements associated with the eco holiday village. However the opening hours of the crematorium fall outside the normal morning and afternoon peak periods for traffic movements on A272. Furthermore, the percentage increase in traffic on A272 as a result of the proposal is expected to be no more than 0.9%. There will be some arrivals and departures during peak periods by staff based at the application site, but these are only likely to have an increase in impact in the order of 0.3% on A272 traffic flows. Any highway objections based on these small increases in vehicular impact on the A272 could not be sustained at Appeal. The County Surveyor has raised no objection to the application on highway safety grounds and has noted that “it is not considered that the introduction of a crematorium at this location will unduly interrupt the free flow of traffic on Cowfold Road” and that “there are no highway related grounds on which to base a reason of refusal of this application.”

6.7 The Councils Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the application with regards to the proposed scheme and has indicated that the plantation woodland and the presence of other existing woodland and hedgerows on the western and southern boundaries means that the site is fairly well visually contained and that there are opportunities to further strengthen the existing planting to address any wider visibility of the buildings. The site also slopes with land levels being lower by some 9 metres towards the rear of the site - where the proposed crematorium will be sited (some 240 metres from the road) which would reduce further any views of the buildings from the A272. The proposed dwelling would be sited some 75 metres from the site frontage and again due to the screening on the site and its single storey form would have only limited views from the A272. The application site due to the level of existing flora and fauna has been considered by the County Ecologist who has raised no objection to the proposals subject to conditions.

6.8 As part of the application process the Councils Public Health and Licensing Team were consulted on the proposal with regards to noise, pollution and contamination. From the information provided it was considered that the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the nearest residents with regards to noise. With APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10.

regards to Air Quality the Council is seeking the declaration of an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in Cowfold this month, and therefore any development that places an additional burden however small, on the traffic volume through Cowfold will work against the objectives of the proposed air quality action plan. It is accepted that the data provided within the application indicates a slight (minimal) impact. Appendix IG of PPS 23 states that it may be appropriate in some circumstances for the developer to fund mitigation measures elsewhere inside the AQMA to offset any increase in local pollutant emissions as a consequence of a proposed development. These measures could be secured through S106 agreements. It is therefore suggested that this would be appropriate in this case. The impact of the development on air quality could be funded through supporting the air quality monitoring station at Cowfold. The annual maintenance cost of which is around £2000. It is suggested that a reasonable time of 3 years would enable any changes in pollution levels through Cowfold to be identified.

6.9 Crematoria are one of the activities that require an environmental permit in accordance with the Environmental Permitting ( & Wales) Regulations 2010. Environmental permits contain conditions which ensure that best available techniques are being applied to minimise and control pollution. As a Part B regulated facility, Crematoria operators are required to control emissions to air and as a new installation the application building would be required to meet the most up-to-date abatement technology. Consequently, if permission was granted for this planning proposal then an application would be required for an environmental permit in order to fulfil the pollution prevention and control legislative requirements. DEFRA has produced guidance on what is deemed best available technology and as a new process the requirements for arrestment plant for mercury and dioxins will be required at the outset.

6.10 It is considered that a crematorium could be capable of fulfilling a local social need, and the applicant has submitted a detailed statement of need with the current planning application. Questions have been raised with regards to the figures used within the statement of need most importantly relating to the travel distances from existing crematoria. The applicant has relied on an industry standard measure of an average cortege speed of 20mph, with a 30 minute travel time. The figures suggested by the applicant would seem to highlight a gap in crematoria provision but this is reliant on both the 20 mph cortege speed and a 30 minute travel time. The applicant has also given both population figures and death rates within the local area and country as a whole. Whilst some of these figures are disputed by other interested parties, it is clear that the number of people being cremated is rising in comparison to the number being buried.

6.11 Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies relates to the provision of high quality design in all new developments in the district. The Councils Conservation and Design Officer has been consulted on the proposal and she has raised no objection to the scheme and indicated that she feels the building is of a high quality and contemporary standard, incorporating interesting design features, and as it is set away from the road and will be viewed as a stand alone structure.

6.12 If it is accepted that crematoria can be located in the countryside due to their particular legislative and size requirements, it is considered that the proposal APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11.

under policy CP15 should provide a social and economic benefit to the rural area. It is considered that a crematorium is a facility required by society and although its location due to its purpose is emotive and unlikely to be welcomed, this would not be a reason for refusing the application in itself unless material harm could be demonstrated. The applicant has noted that the facility would bring visitors to the area who may make use of the adjoining restaurant and the owner of the restaurant is supporting the scheme.

6.13 The applicant as part of the scheme has also applied to construct a two bedroom dwelling for the manager of the proposed crematorium. The applicant has suggested that the dwelling should be tied to the crematorium by way of a legal agreement. Whilst it is considered that the crematorium could on balance be supported it is not considered at this stage prior to the operation of the site that a new dwelling in the countryside could be justified. It is considered that other options such as on site security accommodated in other buildings rather than a dedicated dwelling or the possibility of purchasing existing accommodation in the locality should be investigated further prior to any approval of the proposed dwelling.

6.14 It is considered that on balance it would be difficult to refuse the current application. It is considered that the location of the site within the highway network, and its existing screening as well as the distance to adjoining properties would meet the requirements for a tranquil site as set out in the Crematorium Act 1902. The County Surveyor has raised no highway objections to the scheme or the level of activity proposed, the Councils Landscape officer has concluded that the site would be effectively screened in its proposed landscape setting and the building itself is considered to be of a high quality design. The Councils Public Health and Licensing Team have considered the information submitted and agreed it is appropriate and, that any noise emanating from the site would be minimal. It is therefore considered there are no justifiable reasons to refuse permission. It is also your Officers view that the specific requirements for a crematorium are such that it is highly unlikely that the scheme would set a precedent for further development if the business were to fail.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to consideration of alternative measures for site security and the completion of a section 106 agreement securing a financial contribution towards air quality mitigation measures and the following conditions;

1. A2 – Full Permission 2. The developer must agree with Southern Water, prior to commencement of the development, the measures to be undertaken to protect the public water supply main. Reason; As per S1 3. S4 – Surface Water details option A 4. Development shall not begin 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 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12.

approved in writing by the local planning authority. 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  confirmation that permission has been obtained if it is necessary to cross third party land.  details of pollution prevention measures for drainage from the car parking area 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 PPS25 and PPS23. 5. H3 – Existing Access Closed 6. G3 – Parking, Turning and Access 7. H4 – On Site Parking 8. L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping 9. M1 – Approval of Materials 10. E3 – Fencing 11. O1 – Hours of Working 12. O2 – Burning of Materials 13. O3 – Site Clearance 14. No development shall take place until a site investigation of the nature and extent of contamination has been carried out in accordance with a methodology which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The results of the site investigation shall be made available to the local planning authority before development begins. If any contamination is found during the site investigation a report specifying the measures to be taken to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development and, if necessary, for long term monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures before development begins. If during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been identified in the site investigation, additional measures for the remediation of this source of contamination shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures. Following the completion of all the approved measures and prior to occupation a verification report demonstrating their effectiveness shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies. 15. L2 a – Protection of trees not inspected 16. L4 – Landscape Management Plan remove “other than small privately owned domestic gardens” add “Woodland, pond and” before “landscape” add “details of how the more ecologically sensitive areas and habitats will be protected and enhanced” after “responsibility” 17. H1 – Access General 18. H3 – Existing Access closed 19. H10 – Cycling Provision 20. H6 – Wheel Washing APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13.

21. Details of the proposed grass roofs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The grass roofs shall then be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason; As per M1 22. No development or preparatory works shall begin until a suitably licensed ecological clerk of works has been engaged to oversee the great crested newt and reptile mitigation, supervising the erection of a reptile and great crested newt exclusion fencing, creation / enhancement of the receptor site, and translocation. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the reptile and great crested newt strategy (S8 of the Reptile & GCN report) submitted to support the application and a method statement to be agreed by Natural England. Reason: To maintain the conservation status of legally protected species in accordance with The Wildlife and Countyside Act 1981; The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (2010); Gov’t Circ. 06/2005, PPS9 and HDC policy DC5. 23. No development or preparatory works shall begin until a detailed ecological enhancement scheme with details of native plant species, physical features to benefit wildlife and long term management for the whole site has been submitted to the LPA for approval as part of an overall landscape scheme. Development shall only proceed in accordance with approved details. Reason - In accordance with PPS9 [14] and to help maintain the conservation status of legally protected species in accordance with The Wildlife and Countyside Act 1981; The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (2010); Gov’t Circ. 06/2005, and HDC policy DC5. 24. D10 – Floodlighting 25. G4 – Site Surface 26. G5 – Recycling 27. N15 – No Public Address Systems 28. V5 – No Extensions – Reason 3 29. Details of the proposed sustainable drainage systems as indicated in the planning application shall be submitted too and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The technology shall then be used in the implementation of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: As per M9 30. N5 – Control of Noise 31. J9 – Hours of Opening – 10 -17:00 hours Monday to Friday, 10 – 13:00 hours on Saturdays and no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays 32. D6 – Finished Floor Levels

Note to Applicant The car park surface water drainage systems will require an oil separator to reduce the risk of oil contaminated water leaving the site. Further guidance can be sought using Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 3: Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems, which is available from http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14.

A Section 278 agreement is required in order to carry out access works in the public highway, please contact Andrew Howick in the Implementation Team at West Sussex County Council on 01243 777251.

The applicant is advised that in respect of both great crested newts a European Protected Species licence will be required before works can commence.

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 ICAB1 – The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

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

Background Papers: DC/110783 Contact Officer: Nicola Mason

WK3/DC071028/46 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20th September 2011 Restoration works to Knepp Mill Pond by dredging and the construction of DEVELOPMENT: landscape enhancement features using imported inert materials together with the provision of public access and amenity (County Consultation) SITE: Knepp Castle Knepp Castle West Grinstead Horsham WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/11/1000 APPLICANT: Sir Charles Burrell

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: County Consultation

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that an objection be raised to the proposal.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for restoration works to Knepp Mill Pond by dredging and the construction of landscape enhancement features using imported inert materials together with the provision of public access and amenity.

1.2 The application is a re-submission of a previous scheme which was withdrawn due to concerns with respect to the scale of the landscape works, the timescale associated with the development and the perceived limited wider public benefit of the scheme (DC/10/1254).

1.3 The main amendments to the proposed development compared to the 2010 proposal are as follows:-

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

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2

1.4 A temporary access for the proposed works would be formed off the A272 at the location of an existing gated field access approx. 200m west of the A272/A24 Buck Barn crossroads and approx. 140m from the traffic lights on the A272. As part of the formation of the site access a section of the hedgerow south of the A272 and east of the access would be removed. On completion of the works the access and hedgerow would be reinstated.

1.5 A number of temporary acoustic barriers would be constructed during the works at various locations of the estate. The barriers would comprise either bunds constructed from soils stripped from the site or other material such as acoustic fencing or straw bales and would be a minimum of 2.5m in height.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 Knepp Castle Estate is located approx. 1 km south of and covers an area of approx. 1400 hectares. The estate comprises Knepp Castle, Knepp Mill Pond, parkland, woodland, grassland, grazing land, farmhouses and cottages, offices, light industrial units , a polo club and polo fields. There are around 20 residential properties in or on the boundary of Knepp Park.

1.7 The development is proposed in the area of the estate known as Knepp Park with an area of approx. 274 hectares and is located in the central eastern part of the estate. Part of Knepp Park is listed Grade II in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest in England. Knepp Castle is located at the centre of Knepp Park and is a Grade II listed building.

1.8 Knepp Mill Pond lies to the east of Knepp Castle and into which flows a tributary of the . It is submitted that the pond was at one time the largest artificial water body in the South of England but as a result of natural siltation the pond has been reduced to about a third of its original size. To the south-east of the pond are the remains of the original Norman Knepp Castle which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

1.9 Knepp Castle is bounded to the north by the A272 which runs in an east to west direction, to the east by the A24 which runs north to south, to the west by Pound Lane and to the south by the River Adur. The surrounding area is characterised by open fields and sporadic residential development.

1.10 Knepp Castle is served by a number of access points but the main access to the Castle is from Pound Lane.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS5 ( Planning for the Historic Environment), PPS7 (The Countryside), PPS9 ( Biodiversity and Geological Conservation), PPS10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) and PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) are relevant to the application.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

2.3 Whilst work on the preparation of the West Sussex Minerals and Waste Core Strategy has been suspended due to uncertainties that have arisen in recent months, Version 2 of the Background Papers remains relevant to the determination of the application.

2.4 The West Sussex Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft (July 2004) remains the approved land use planning strategy for waste and the basis for the control of waste development. It does not form part of the development plan but is a material consideration in making planning decisions.

2.5 Horsham District LDF Core Strategy – Policy CP1 (Landscape & Townscape Character), Policy CP2 (Environmental Quality) and Policy CP15 (Rural Strategy) are relevant to the application.

2.6 Policy DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), Policy DC2 (Landscape Character), Policy DC5 (Biodiversity and Geology), Policy DC9 (Development Principles), Policy DC10 (Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments), Policy DC11 (Historic Parks and Gardens, Policy DC13 (Listed Buildings) and Policy DC40 (Transport & Access) of the Horsham District LDF General Development Control Policies are relevant to the application.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.7 Extensive planning history but the application of particular relevance is:- DC/10/1254 – Restoration works to Knepp Mill Pond by dredging and the construction of landscape features using imported inert materials (County Consultation) – withdrawn.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Head of Strategic Planning has been consulted on the proposal and has expressed concern with regard to the dredging of the pond as follows:

‘’ I do have one more significant area of concern relating to the dredging of the pond. The ES states that in the short term this will result in the loss of foraging habitat for the Daubenton's bat. This could have longer term impacts particularly if the pond is a significant foraging area, as it could result in a decrease in the survival of these bats from which recovery of numbers is difficult in the longer term. I appreciate the applicants difficulty in predicting this particular impact, but it could well be more damaging than they indicate. Furthermore, there have recently been a number of legal challenges relating to planning applications which affect bats, (sometimes resulting in the quashing of a planning application). I therefore suggest that the applicants examine this particular issue in a little more detail, and involving others (eg Natural England / WSCC ecologists) as appropriate. There may for example be mechanisms to minimise effects - eg changes to the pattern of dredging that could be put in place. The ES may need to be updated to reflect any discussions that take place on this matter.‘’

3.2 The Head of Public Health & Licensing raises an objection to the proposal on the following grounds:

‘’ As with the previous application, DC/10/1254 it is noted that there are residential dwellings close to the boundary of the site. Therefore there are concerns regarding the potential for locally significant adverse environmental impacts including noise and dusts arising from the operation of the development.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

The applicant has supplied a revised environmental statement in support of the application. However the revised environmental statement has not addressed many of the issues raised in respect of the earlier application and therefore significant concerns remain in respect of the following issues:

NOISE.

1. The limited nature of noise survey provided in the Assessment of Environmental Noise Baseline Report is noted. The survey was confined to two weekdays and did not cover the hours of operation proposed in the application which includes Saturday working. The noise climate is likely to differ significantly at weekends.

2. At each identified receptor measurement periods of 3 hours were undertaken. However the measurements were carried out at different times and none of the measurement periods covered the early morning period It is questioned whether a noise survey consisting of 3 hours of measurements is sufficient to present a coherent picture of the existing noise climate or to form the basis of the more detailed comments and calculations presented in the Assessment of Environmental Noise Impact Assessment Report given the proposed life of the development.

3. The methodology for the use of the three hour measurement periods is not explained.

4. The Assessment of Environmental Noise Impact Assessment Report refers to the threshold noise levels given in section E3.2 of Annex E to BS5228 2009 Part One. However the noise measurement data provided does not compare to the periods quoted in Table E1 and no monitoring data is provided for Saturdays.

5. The applicability of the guidance in Section E.5 of Annex E to BS5228 2009 Part One is now acknowledged given that that the development will involve long term substantial earth moving. This section refers to the noise thresholds quoted in Mineral Planning Statement 2 (MPS 2) published in 2005.

6. Paragraph 2.19 of Annex 2 to MPS 2 states: “Subject to a maximum of 55dB(A)LAeq,1h (free field), MPAs should aim to establish a noise limit at the noise-sensitive property that does not exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A).” The possibility that background noise levels may be lower than that measured noise levels cannot be discounted because of the limited nature of the environmental noise survey.

7. The level of 55dBLAEQ (1 hour) is clearly intended as a level that should not be exceeded and is only applicable where the target of not exceeding background noise levels by more than 10dB(A) “would be difficult to achieve without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator.” It does not represent a general upper limit of acceptability, particularly for works which are described as “small scale.”

8. Paragraph 2.19 of Annex 2 of MPS2 also highlights the issue of tonal, peak and impulsive noise which may require separate limits independent of background noise. No detail on this aspect of noise control is given.

9. Paragraph 2.20 of Annex 2 to MPS 2 allows that for periods of up to 8 weeks of the year noise levels up to 70dB(A) LAeq1h (free field) should be considered where this would facilitate longer term environmental benefits to the site or its in environs. Given that this development represents a deposition of materials rather than extraction of minerals the “need” to expose occupiers of noise sensitive properties to this level of noise requires clarification. Paragraph 2.20 also states that “LAs should look to operators to make every effort to deliver temporary works at a lower level of noise impact.” Therefore the simple APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5

adoption of the 70dB(A) LAeq1h (free field) noise limit as a maximum for temporary works is not appropriate.

10. The assumptions underlying the noise predictions are not provided in the Assessment of Environmental Noise Report and therefore it is not possible to verify the conclusions

11. Noise barrier calculations are generally based on ground floor receivers which are likely to receive the most acoustic benefit. First floor rooms with windows overlooking the site will receive little or no benefit. During the construction of the bund and tor feature machinery and plant will be working at elevations that will negate any benefit of the temporary acoustic screening or baffle mounds at the boundary of the development site. It is not clear if the predicted noise levels include this effect.

12. It is noted that Lodge Farm will not be protected by temporary acoustic screening and will experience levels of noise some 6-7 dB above the prevailing ambient noise

13. All the HGV traffic associated with the development would access the development from the A272. These vehicles will be braking and slowing to turn into haul road and therefore can be expected to have different noise profile to vehicles that are moving freely along the road. HGV’s will also be turning from the haul road onto the A272 with the associated noise of braking and acceleration. Noise from body rattle on unladen vehicles can be a significant source of impulsive noise. Given the number of HGV movements associated with the development this noise impact requires further assessment.

14. It is noted that the Assessment of Environmental Noise Report refers to options for the use in temporary noise screening. These options include the use of straw bales. The selection of the screening materials will influence the effectiveness of the screens. It is not clear from the report what assumptions have been made in predicting noise levels. Use of straw bales can be effective in controlling noise for short term operations but the effectiveness of straw bales will degrade over time and this decline will depend on the weather conditions. Sustained periods of wet weather will significantly degrade straw bales and their acoustic performance will be compromised. The use of straw bales as noise screening should not be relied upon for this development.

15. As with the previous application predicted noise levels are provided to show the acoustic benefit to Knepp Castle Estates once the development is completed. However the impact of the bunds and acoustic fencing on residential properties that lay to the east of the proposed bunds and fencing remains a concern. The bund and fencings may act to reflect noise towards these properties resulting in a further degradation of their acoustic environment. This may be particularly significant for Charleston House where the bunds will turn at right angles to the A24 with the gap being closed by permanent acoustic fencing. It is assumed this fencing will be reflective in character and therefore this arrangement will create a channelling effect which will reflect noise at those facades of Charleston House which currently are not exposed directly to the noise from A24. No additional information has been provided in respect of these concerns.

16. As acknowledged in of the Environmental Statement the placing of the bunds and tor will not result in any significant improvement in the noise environment for Knepp Castle and its grounds. This is demonstrated by Figures 2 and 3 provided in the Assessment of Environmental Noise Report. However the works are likely to have significant noise impacts on residents in close proximity to the development over a period of years and may also result in a permanently degraded acoustic environment for some residential properties.

17. The proposed development will require a permit issued by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency Horizontal Guidance Note IPPC H3 gives guidance on noise control APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

for installations and activities that come under the remit of the Environmental Permitting regime. The guidance on noise limits states that “the aim should be to set the rating level from an installation at the numerical value of the background noise level.” For new installations the applicant is required to justify free field rating levels that exceed background noise levels or 50dB.

18. The guidance issued by the Environment Agency also considers the prevention of creeping background noise. This is where ambient noise levels increase as industry expands and develops. Limiting the noise limits to the existing background can help to prevent this. Some of the noise levels quoted in the applicant’s submission exceed the existing background and could be argued that this is causing a “creeping background effect”.

DUST.

The Environmental statement includes the Assessment of the Impact of Dust report submitted with the previous application. This report concluded that it is unlikely that there will be significant dust emissions from the site. This assessment was based upon the advice contained in MPS2 Annex 1 and Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings published in 1995 by the Department of Environment. My comments in respect of that application have not been addressed and are restated below:

19. Stage1 of a dust assessment carried out in accordance with Table 1c in Annex 1 to MPS2 requires that “existing ambient conditions should be recorded over a period sufficient to identify seasonal variations in the range of existing conditions which naturally exist (ideally by a dust-monitoring programme).”

20. Stage 1 also requires that “It should take into account, the principal existing dust sources (other than the site) such as air pollution from urban and industrial areas, existing mineral operations, agricultural activities and construction activities. Given that the site adjoins a major trunk route it can be anticipated that levels of particulate emissions may be high even if not sufficient to be identified as exceeding the Air Quality objective.

21. The assumption that significant wind blow for this material will not occur at wind speeds below 4 metres per second is not justified in the report. Table 2.1 in Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings - Volume Two Technical Report identifies that dust emissions can be initiated for disturbed at wind speeds in the range of 2.9-5.8 meters per second for disturbed soils containing less than 50% clay and less than 20% pebble (<1cm diameter). Adopting a lower wind speed would lead to an increase in days when significant dust blow would be anticipated.

22. Paragraph 1A.11 of Annex 1 to MPS2 identifies that open sites which lack shelter and other surface features are more likely to cause dust blow. It also notes that “Wind speeds increase with height, and large mounds which project well above ground level can thus be the subject of significant wind erosion”. Given the nature of the proposed development the effect of elevation on potential for windblown dust from tor feature and the bunds should be subject to a more detailed consideration.

23. The report concludes that it is not necessary to use a buffer zone to prevent dust nuisance at nearby properties. However for a substantial period works will take place within 200m of residential properties bordering the site and a number of residential properties will be within a few metres of the bunds. The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings - Volume Two Technical Report comments that “The most extreme dust impacts were most likely to be experienced in close proximity to dust generating activities (within 200m),” Given that soils will be handled when dry and friable it considered that there is the significant possibility of dust nuisance arising during the development.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7

24. Table 4 of Assessment of the Impact of Dust report identifies a number of control measures that will be implemented where significant dust blow occurs. The criterion for significant dust blow is not defined and therefore it is not clear under what circumstances these control measures will be operated. There is no proposal for ongoing dust monitoring through the duration of the works.’’

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Two letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents on the grounds of the adverse impact on local residents, highway safety, the importation of large amounts of material has not been justified and the lack of control over the timing of the project.

3.4 Shipley Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal on the following grounds:-

‘’The scheme is clearly two entirely separate major operations. Whilst SPC is broadly supportive of the restoration of Knepp Mill Pond (KMP) there is no support for the major importation of inert waste. Shipley Parish has at this time an inert waste site adjacent to the A272 near which remains uncompleted. The application was for a fishing lake and wetland area for public use. Practical experience of both this activity, and a site at Hop Oast, south of Horsham, has been valuable in formulating the Parish Council’s response to this proposal.’’

More specifically:-

a. The need for the importation of 270,000 cubic metres has not been established. b. The access onto the A272 and major issues with HGV movements. c. Experience of the site in Coolham has demonstrated that it is impossible to control the activities on the site. d. The site is unsuitable for an inert waste tip. e. Mud on the road f. Traffic congestion. g. The landscape feature would be out of character with the gently rolling nature of the surrounding countryside. h. The site is a Greenfield site of good agricultural land and should remain so. i. Lack of control over the imported material. j. Adverse impact on neighbouring residents in terms of noise and dust.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application are whether the principle of development is acceptable having regard to development plan policies and the effect of the development on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the area. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8

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

Element 1 – Lake Dredging

6.3 As a result of the natural process of siltation which it is submitted has been exacerbated by intensive farming and run-off from the A24 and A272 the pond has been reduced to less than a third of its original size and in some places is only a few centimetres deep which has led to the encroachment of trees and vegetation into the open water. It is maintained that this encroachment of vegetation has affected the setting of the Historic Park and has had an impact on views from Knepp Castle.

6.4 It is proposed that the pond would be dredged to return the lake to a minimum water depth of 1.5m in the central section of the lake. It is anticipated that the works would take 25 weeks and approx. 52,000 cubic metres of silt would be removed. The applicant submits that the restoration of the pond would be a focal point for the public access and amenity proposals.

Element 2 – Borrow Pit

6.5 A borrow pit would be excavated to the south east of the pond and approx. 56,000 cubic metres of material would be excavated and used to form the Floodgate Farm landscape Feature and partially form the Hillhouse Lawn landscape feature. The borrow pit would be designed to accept the dredged material from the pond and to allow water from the dredged material to flow back into the pond after settlement. The creation of the pit would take approx. 6.5 weeks and the dredged material would be deposited in the borrow pit over a period of approx. 25 weeks the following year. Following completion of the dredging the borrow pit would be filled almost to ground level and would be restored to a low lying wetland habitat.

Element 3 – Landscape enhancement features

6.6 Landscape features would be constructed along the eastern boundary of Knepp Park adjacent to the A24 and the A24 and A272 junction at Buck Barn crossroads to provide a visual and acoustic screen between the A24 and the properties on the eastern boundary of the Park. It is maintained that this element of the application would improve the scenic setting of Knepp Castle and Knepp Park as the features would screen out the intrusive views and noise associated with the A24 and the Buck Barn crossroads.

6.7 Approx. 77,000 cubic metres of inert materials would be imported into the site per year over a period of 3.5 years. A new site access from the A272 to the west of Buck Barn bungalows would be constructed to facilitate the importation of materials and haul roads would be constructed as necessary.

6.8 The landscape features are referred to as the Buck Field, Hillhouse Lawn and Floodgate Farm landscape enhancement features. Buck Field would be constructed along the eastern boundary of Knepp Park from Buck Barn bungalows to Hill House Farm to a maximum height of 28mAOD which is approx. 10m above current ground levels. The feature would have a flat crest up to a maximum of 68m wide and the gradients of the slopes would be between approx. 1v:4h and approx. 1v:25h. In order to construct this particular feature it would be necessary to import 222,000 cubic metres of inert materials.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9

6.9 The Hillhouse Lawn landscape feature would be constructed along the eastern boundary of Knepp Park from Hill House Farm to Charleston House and would be constructed to a maximum height of 30mAOD which is approx. 5m above current ground levels. The feature would have a flat crest up to 3m wide. The gradient of the western slope would be between 1v:2.5h and 1v:20h and the gradient of the eastern slope would be approx. 1v:3.5h. The width of the feature would range from 20m to a maximum of 115m. In the event that the A24 road improvement works proceed a new access to Hill House Farm would be constructed from a new junction at the current A24/B2135 junction. To allow for the proposed new access road a gap would be left in the southern part of the landscape feature. To the south east of the gap a small bund would be constructed to a maximum height of approx. 21.5mAOD which is up to approx. 2m above current ground levels. The two sections of the Hillhouse Lawn feature would have an overall volume of approx. 91,000 cubic metres and would be partially formed from the arisings from the borrow pit and the balance of material from imported inert materials.

6.10 The Floodgate farm landscape feature would be constructed along the eastern boundary of Knepp Park to the north of Floodgate Farm and south of Charleston House. This feature would be constructed to a maximum height of 21.6mAOD which is approx. 3m above current ground levels. The gradient of the western slope would be approx. 1v:3h and that of the eastern slope approx. 1v:4h. There is an existing bund in the majority of the area of the Floodgate Farm feature which is planted with Leylandii trees. It is proposed to remove the trees and the bund would form the basis of the landscape feature which would be constructed from approx. 13,000 cubic metres of material from the borrow pit.

6.11 All of the landscape features would be restored with a combination of grass, trees and shrubs to integrate with the current features of Knepp Park and to maximise the screening provided by the features. It would be necessary to import some materials for use in restoration although no figures have been provided as to the total amount of material.

Public Access and Amenity

6.12 The public access and amenity would be implemented as part of the restoration of the landscape features. The permissive footpath would be constructed from Bridleway 1875 to the south of Floodgate Farm along the crest of the landscape features to Buck Barn bungalows. It is proposed that the use of the permissive footpath would be for a period of 15 years following the grant of planning permission at which time its’ use would be reviewed. Seating areas would be established at four locations along the footpath to provide views of Knepp Castle, the pond and park.

6.13 The bird hide would be constructed adjacent to the dam wall at Knepp Mill Pond and would be available for public use.

6.14 In terms of infrastructure, a temporary access road would be formed off the A272 at the location of an existing gated field access approx. 200m west of the Buck Barn crossroads and approx. 140m from the traffic lights on the A272. As part of the formation of the site access a portion of the hedgerow south of the A272 and east of the access would be removed. It is proposed to reinstate the current arrangement on completion of the works. The access would have a width of 6.2m with a 15m radii and the first 50m of the access road would be constructed of a hard surface. A wheelspinner and splash facility would be provided to remove dirt and debris from the vehicles before they join the public highway.

6.15 A site compound in association with the landscape features would be constructed in the north western corner of the application area. The compound would contain site offices with mess facilities and communications equipment. Five car parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the site office for the site staff and visitors. The compound would also be used APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10

for the storage of fuels and lubricants. A second site compound would be constructed to the north of the borrow pit to be used in association with the lake dredging works.

6.16 A number of temporary acoustic barriers would be constructed during the works and would comprise either bunds constructed from soils stripped from the site or other material such as acoustic fencing or straw bales. The barriers would be constructed at various locations within the site.

6.17 It is proposed that the earth moving and inert material handling operations would take place between 0700 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturday. There would be no site works on Sundays or on public holidays and no work carried out during the hours of darkness. The land proposed to be developed would be stripped of topsoil which would be stored in bunds no more than 3m high in the south west corner of Buck Field. Vegetation cover would be established and maintained on the bunds until such time as the soils would be used for restoration.

6.18 As previously advised at Para1.3 the creation of the landscape features would necessitate the importation of approx 270,000 cubic metres of inert materials in addition to the material excavated from the borrow pit. The materials would be imported at a maximum rate of 77,000 cubic metres per year in HGVs, which it is assumed would have capacities of 10 cubic metres. The number of HGVs associated with the importation of materials would be approx. 29 vehicles per day which is equivalent to 58 movements per day.

6.19 The operations at the site would commence in the area of the Buck Field landscape feature and would continue during the lifetime of the site. It is anticipated that the borrow pit would be excavated and the material arising would be used to construct the Floodgate Farm landscape feature and partially construct the Hillhouse Lawn feature in Year 2. Inert material would be imported to complete the Hillhouse Lawn feature. It is anticipated that the dredging of the lake would be undertaken in Year 3. The Buck Field landscape feature would be completed in the first half of Year 4 together with final restoration and establishment of public access and amenity.

6.20 The application needs to be considered against the West Sussex Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft (July 2004) and the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

6.21 However, as previously advised at Para 2.4 work on the West Sussex Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft has been discontinued but having gone through part of the adoption process the Revised Deposit Draft is a material consideration in assessing this application, nevertheless, it is considered that only limited weight should be attached to it as there are a number of outstanding objections to the plan, including from this Authority.

6.22 Similarly, whilst work has been suspended on the West Sussex Waste and Minerals Core Strategy following a number of uncertainties which have arisen in recent months, the Background Papers are also a material consideration in the determination of the application although of limited weight.

6.23 The Head of Public Health & Licensing has objected to the proposal on the grounds of the noise and dust likely to be generated by the proposal. Given the scale of the proposed development there are concerns regarding the potential for locally significant adverse environmental impacts in respect of noise and dust arising from the operation of the development. Whilst the applicant has supplied a revised environmental statement in support of the application which seeks to answer some of these concerns, nevertheless, the document lacks sufficient detail to allow a proper assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11

6.24 Specifically, the noise survey was confined to two weekdays and did not cover the hours of operation proposed in the application which includes Saturday working and the noise climate is likely to differ significantly at weekends. It is also questionable whether a noise survey consisting of 3 hours of measurements is sufficient to present a coherent picture of the existing noise climate or to form the basis of the more detailed comments and calculations presented in the Assessment of Environmental Noise Impact Assessment Report given the proposed life of the development.

6.25 He further advises that noise barrier calculations are generally based on ground floor receivers which are likely to receive the most acoustic benefit. First floor rooms with windows overlooking the site will receive little or no benefit. During the construction of the bund and landscape features machinery and plant will be working at elevations that will negate any benefit of the temporary acoustic screening or baffle mounds at the boundary of the development site. It is not clear if the predicted noise levels include this effect. As acknowledged in of the Environmental Statement the placing of the bunds and landscape features will not result in any significant improvement in the noise environment for Knepp Castle and its grounds. This is demonstrated by Figures 2 and 3 provided in the Assessment of Environmental Noise Report. However the works are likely to have significant noise impacts on residents in close proximity to the development over a period of years and may also result in a permanently degraded acoustic environment for some residential properties.

6.26 With regard to dust, the Head of Public Health & Licensing has advised that the Assessment of the Impact of Dust report does not address his identified concerns on the previous application DC/101254. Whilst the report concludes that it is not necessary to use a buffer zone to prevent dust nuisance at nearby properties, nevertheless, for a substantial period of time, works will take place within 200m of residential properties bordering the site and a number of residential properties will be within a few metres of the bunds.

6.27 With regard to the visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding landscape there is concern that the proposed landscape features, given their scale and height, would appear incongruous in the gently rolling nature of the surrounding countryside which would be to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.

6.28 There is also concern that the proposed period of construction may well be extended beyond the anticipated 3.5 years. It is proposed that the development would use inert residual materials arising from construction and demolition projects. However, such projects are dependent on the weather and the construction industry and the supply of such material can fluctuate widely as demonstrated at Patmans Farm. In this particular instance planning permission was granted in May 2006 for a similar, albeit much smaller scheme, which proposed the construction of a pond and wetland (DC/04/2776). The proposal involved the importation of some 60-70,000 cubic metres of inert material and the construction period was anticipated to last approx. 18 months, however, at the time of writing the development has yet to be completed.

6.29 Having regard to the comments of the Head of Strategic Planning, concern is expressed that the development would result in the loss of foraging habitat for the Daubenton's bat. This could have longer term impacts particularly if the pond is a significant foraging area, as it could result in a decrease in the survival of these bats from which recovery of numbers is difficult in the longer term.

6.30 In conclusion, whilst there is no objection in principle to the dredging of Knepp Mill Pond and the construction of the borrow pit, nevertheless, it is not considered that there is any need or requirement for the importation of 270,000 cubic metres of inert materials for the creation of the landscape features which at Buck Field would be some 10 metres above existing ground levels. The applicant has put forward the justification that the landscape APPENDIX A/ 2 - 12

features would have a positive indirect beneficial effect on the setting of Knepp Park as they would reduce visual and noise intrusion from the A24, the A272 and the service area to the north-east. However, as acknowledged in the Environmental Statement the placing of the bunds and landscape features will not result in any significant improvement in the noise environment for Knepp Castle and its grounds. In addition, the Head of Public Health & Licensing has advised that the works are likely to have significant noise impacts on residents in close proximity to the development over a period of years and may also result in a permanently degraded acoustic environment for some residential properties. In this respect, it is not considered that the limited public amenity benefits (which are to be reviewed after 15 years) are sufficient to outweigh the significant adverse environmental impacts in terms of noise and dust and subsequent detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Background Papers: DC/10/1254 & DC/11/1000 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 20th September 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Cold store facility to store approximately 50 - 60 carcasses per week, installation of an emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes

SITE: Downsview Farm, Clay Lane, Cootham

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/11/0751

APPLICANT: Mr Richard Scott

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was first reported to 19th July’s Committee Meeting whereby it was resolved to delegate the application for approval in consultation with the local members to clarify the power supply to the development and the use of the generator. Since then, information regarding the power supply and use of the generator has been received from the applicant and has been sent to the Local Councillors and the issues resolved.

1.2 Since the committee meeting, the Council has received a pre action protocol letter seeking to take a judicial review against the council’s decision. The judicial review process was considered premature as the application in question has not been officially permitted. However, the main points of challenge were:

1) The failure to comply with the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC 2) Planning Conditions permitting change of use 3) The need to act as agent for the National Park.

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2.

2. ASSESSMENT

2.1 With regard to the first point of contention, the grounds of the challenge state that the project should be classified under paragraph 10(b), Schedule 2 of the EIA Directive. The challenge also asserts that the definition of the project should extend to the farming operation as a whole, including its ancillary uses (i.e. the keeping of pigs, sheep, together with onsite storage forms one project). Given this project definition, the claimant states that the site area exceeds the 0.5 hectare threshold where the Council should undertake a screening opinion for the application.

Whilst it is not disputed that an application for the cold store itself could be classified as an urban development project under Article 10b of Schedule 2, the Council would contend that a Screening decision is not required as proposed development, and that in any event the environmental impacts arising from the farming operation would not be significant enough to warrant an EIA in any case. The council view is that the complainant raises a new factor that might be a material consideration, they are challenging that the Council acted unlawfully in failing to carry out a comprehensive screening assessment. Members who made the decision at the committee were not aware of that when reaching their decision and so the application was not considered with that factor in mind.

Given the circumstances, and to avoid the inconvenience and expense of a Judicial Review application, since the application has not officially been permitted yet, the Council has decided to revisit the matter and carry out a comprehensive screening assessment which is attached as an appendix and report the matter back to members. It is considered that whilst there are some potential environmental impacts arising from the farming operation these are not considered likely to give rise to significant detrimental environmental effects by virtue of their size, nature or location. As such your officers are of the opinion that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not necessary and any environmental impacts that do arise can be dealt with as part of the normal planning or other environmental control practices.

2.2 With regard to the second point, the application site lies outside the boundary of the South Downs National Park. Planning permission was not required for its use as a pig farm because the existing use was for agriculture, therefore there was no change of use. This application is for a building of 88 square metres on a part of a site that measures 20.2 hectares in total. As such, a very small part of the land is affected by this building. The only land affected by the after use condition is that part of the land where the building is situate. The after use of the rest of the land is unaffected. The building is located on an area of hardstanding, and so removal of the building would be unlikely to require remedial works of a nature that would materially affect the character and appearance of the area. I attach a photograph that shows the location where the building is to be situated to assist you in assessing the character of the application site.

In the event of the building ceasing to be used in connection with the pig/sheep business as permitted, either by Mr Scott or his successor, then the building must be removed in accordance with the condition. The retention of a derelict or unused building in this location would not be acceptable if the operational reason for it did not exist. Countryside policies would require its removal. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3.

Circular 11/95 admits that where permission would not normally be granted there may be strong personal or compassionate reasons which would justify a condition restricting benefit to a named individual, and failure to consider that it was possible to impose a personal condition has been held to be an error in law (see Dobson and Another –v-SOS for Wales and Another [14.11.94]). It is accepted that in practice personal conditions are often applied to small scale businesses in residential or rural areas. In this case therefore it is perfectly acceptable to impose a personal condition.

2.3 With regard to the third point, the South Downs National Park has discharged the planning services duty to this Council, and as such this Council acts as agent for the National Park. The relevant planning policies referred to in the protocol are: the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007), the Site Specific Allocations of Land 2007, the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007), the Adopted Village and Parish Design statements, Parish Plans and Planning Obligations Planning Document 2007. The relevant policies have been applied in this case.

The South Downs National Park has been consulted in relation to this proposed claim, and they have commented as follows:

"Generally, the Council is quite clear on both the terms of and its responsibilities in relation to the Agency Agreement that it has with the South Downs National Park Authority. Each planning application is considered on its own planning merits and in relation to all relevant planning considerations. It is satisfied that this approach was followed in this case and there was liaison with the SDNPA Link Officer on both the application and the report to the Council's Planning Committee. National Park purposes and duties, insofar as they were relevant, were properly considered and are clearly referred to in the report. The Council has not acted unlawfully, as is suggested, and it is particularly relevant that the proposed site for the building is not actually located within the National Park. Paragraph 6.7 in particular deals with important landscape issues in relation to the proposal in some considerable detail.

Notwithstanding this, there are numerous references to the National Park, related Government guidance and to National park duties and purposes throughout the report to the Planning Committee. The report is balanced throughout and quite properly deals with all relevant issues. It does not assess the application in favour of Horsham District Council objectives and quite properly assesses the National park duties and objectives in the report".

The Council has therefore acted properly with regard to its obligations as Agent to the South Downs National Park and in accordance with the agreement between the parties.

2.4 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would still accord with Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007 as the building is fairly small in scale with a low level roof which would be sited on land which is at a lower level to the surrounding fields which would reduce the buildings visual impact on the area. The Screening Opinion also APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4.

concludes that “whilst there are some potential environmental impacts arising from the farming operation these are not considered likely to give rise to significant detrimental environmental effects by virtue of their size, nature or location.” It is therefore recommended that this application be granted.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1) A2 Full Permission 2) J5 Personal Limitation ‘The use (Cold store facility to store approximately 50 - 60 carcasses per week, installation of an emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes by Scot Free Range) hereby permitted shall be carried on by Mr R Scott (Scott Free Range) only and shall be for the period during which the premises are occupied by Mr R Scott Only.’ 3) In the event of the building hereby permitted ceasing to be utilised /occupied in connection with the pig / sheep business at Downsview Farm, it shall be removed from the site and the land shall be restored to a condition which has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – B3 reason. 4) M1 Approval of Materials 5) L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping 6) D6 Finished Floor Levels 7) O2 Burning of Materials 8) O1 Hours of Working

4. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

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

Background Papers: DC/11/0751

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler APPENDIX A/ .

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19th July 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Cold store facility to store approximately 50 - 60 carcasses per week, installation of an emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes

SITE: Downsview Farm, Clay Lane, Cootham

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/11/0751

APPLICANT: Mr Richard Scott

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal is for the erection of a cold store facility to store approximately 50 - 60 carcasses per week, installation of an emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes.

1.2 The building would be located within the yard area of Downsview Farm which is located to the east of Clay Lane and to the north of Amberley Road. The building would be sited into the bank which forms the northern boundary of the yard area. The building would measure 8m by 11m and would have a ridge height of 4.2m.

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ .

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The proposed site is within a countryside location and the boundary for the South Downs National Park runs along the southern edge of the access track. The site for the cold store would be just outside the South Downs National Park.

1.4 The farm consists of 20.2ha (50 acres) of grassland and is in two blocks with access to the farm and hard standing running through the middle. The land to the north of the access track 11.3ha (28 acres) is currently being used for pig production as the soil type is sandy. The other block of land 8.9ha (22 acres) to the south of the access track is predominantly clay and is unsuitable for pig production. The applicant proposes to keep 30 ewes on this block of land. Also included in this 22 acres is an area of hard standing which is at the end of the access track and is effectively a yard with 5 bulk feed bins and 2 shipping containers used for storage. There is planning permission for a mobile home on the site to the south of the entrance to the farm. There is also a small woodland on the south east boundary of the farm.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.5 DC/08/1741 Prior notification to erect 5 feed bin stores, permitted September 2008

DC/10/0785 Siting of temporary mobile home for agricultural worker and associated residential curtilage, permitted 27th September 2010.

There is no other relevant planning history for the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

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

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character & CP15 – Rural Strategy.

APPENDIX A/ .

2.5 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character & DC9 – Development Principles.

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

3.1 Head of Public Health & Licensing has stated that “In view of the nature of the area and the absence of any sensitive residential dwellings in close proximity to the site, this department has no objections to this application and therefore I have no adverse comments to make. The generator is to be placed inside a building, the site is in a dip and its distance from the nearest noise sensitive dwelling means that noise output will reduce significantly over that distance. Noise is not going to be an issue. I understand that its proposed use is for emergencies only.

From the plans it looks as though the nearest receptor will be about 250m away. Given the data provided the sound pressure level at the nearest receptor will be in the region of 40db. The applicant has suggested that the generator will be housed in a building which will further reduce the noise level at the nearest receptor. So from the data provided this shouldn’t exceed the World Health Organisation guideline values for community noise.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council has commented that “We were consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. DC/785/10 to which no highway objections were raised, however it was noted that any development which would increase vehicle movements at the existing access onto Clay Lane would potentially be subject to improvements to visibility.

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

The Applicant’s Design and Access Statement indicates that the proposal would generate an additional 12 movements per week, and these would presumably be large vehicles associated with the new cold storage building. WSCC would therefore recommend a condition ensuring that the hedge to the south of the access be maintained to a height of no greater than 1m above carriageway level to ensure intervisibility between vehicles travelling on Clay Lane and those emerging from the farm access.”

PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.3 Storrington & Parish Council has no objection to the application and state that “It is obvious that the applicant is trying to supply local meat to local business.”

APPENDIX A/ .

3.4 11 letters of objection have been received on the grounds that:

 The applicant wants to turn this agricultural land into light industrial use;  The generator will make considerable noise;  This is creeping development;  There were no pig shelters, silos weighing tents 3 years ago;  The proposal will have a visual impact on the area;  The applicant claims that this facility is required for delivery efficiency;  The site is close to the South Downs National Park;  Other available rental premises exist in the area that would meet the requirements of the applicant;  The applicant has failed to plant the trees and hedges he promised along the western boundary;  There is still an issue with noise and odour from the farm;  The applicant will increase his traffic movements to and from the site by taking the pigs to the abattoir, bring them back, taking them to get finished products and for sale;  Clay Lane is very narrow and any increase in traffic will have an impact on the lane;  The applicant will be storing and finishing meat products for others which is not pig farming;  There is no mains electrical power on the site at present;

3.5 The Association has objected to the application.

3.6 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

APPENDIX A/ .

6.2 Policy CP15 (Rural Strategy) states that “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 should:

a) contribute to the diverse and sustainable farming enterprises within the District or, in the case of other countryside-based enterprises and activities, contributes to the wider rural economy; and either b) be contained wherever possible within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion or, in thecase of an established rural industrial estate, within the existing boundaries of the estate or c) result in substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside particularly where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved.

6.3 The applicant has been trading as a pig farmer since 1998 and operates as a sole trader. He had been farming on rented land until he purchased the application site in the autumn of 2008 and moved his pigs onto the site. The pigs are kept in paddocks and there are four distinct areas on the farm, dry sows, farrowing, weaners/growers and fattening pigs.

6.4 There are no permanent buildings for the pigs with shelter provided by pig arcs. Straw is used for bedding and the progeny between weaning at 3-4weeks of age and slaughter are fed using an ad-lib system. The applicant sells 40-50 pigs/week, these pigs are all sold wholesale to local butchers or directly to the public.

6.5 The proposed cold store would provide storage for up to 60 pig carcasses and 40 lambs. The applicant states that they are currently unable to collect and store their pig carcasses slaughtered for delivery each week without several trips to collect them from Farnborough Abatoir which is 40 miles away which limits the efficiency with which he can deliver them to the butchers he supplies. The applicant has stated that this makes him less competitive, especially in the current economic climate.

6.6 A number of objections have been received to the application, one of the main objections was to the proposed generator within the building which is to be used for emergencies only. The Head of Public Health & Licensing has stated that “From the plans it looks as though the nearest receptor will be about 250m away. Given the data provided the sound pressure level at the nearest receptor will be in the region of 40db. The applicant has suggested that the generator will be housed in a building which will further reduce the noise level at the nearest receptor. So from the data provided this shouldn’t exceed the World Health Organisation guideline values for community noise. In view of the nature of the area and the absence of any sensitive residential dwellings in close proximity to the site, this department has no objections to this application and therefore I have no adverse comments to make. The generator is to be placed inside a building, the site is in a dip and its distance from the nearest noise sensitive dwelling means that noise output will reduce significantly over that distance. Noise is not going to be an issue.”

APPENDIX A/ .

6.7 The building would be sited to the northern side of the yard area which is just outside the South Downs National Park. The building would be built within the bank where the land rises up to the north by approximately 4m. Therefore, it is considered that the building would not be visible from the north although a soft landscaping condition will be attached in order to get some additional native hedging planted along the top of the bank (northern boundary of the yard) in order to screen the yard from the north. It is considered that the building would not be visible from the south due to the dense tree screen to the south of the yard, the level of the yard being approximately 3 – 4 metres lower than the surrounding land and the fact that the building will be clad in wood in order to restrict its visual impact on the surrounding area and South Downs National Park. Having consulted the South Downs National Park Liaison Officer it is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse visual impact on the natural beauty of the National Park.

6.8 The proposed use if granted would be for a cold store facility, emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes for use by Mr R Scott only in connection with Scott Free Range only. This would limit the use of the building to the applicant only.

6.9 The applicant has stated that the proposal would generate an additional 12 vehicle movements per week which the Highway Authority has raised no objection to. Therefore, a refusal reason based on traffic movements alone could not be justified.

6.10 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would accord with Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007 as the building is fairly small in scale with a low level roof which would be sited on land which is at a lower level to the surrounding fields which would reduce the buildings visual impact on the area.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1) A2 Full Permission 2) J5 Personal Limitation ‘The use (Cold store facility to store approximately 50 - 60 carcasses per week, installation of an emergency super silent generator, toilet, changing area and 2 No. deep freezes by Scot Free Range) hereby permitted shall be carried on by Mr R Scott (Scott Free Range) only and shall be for the period during which the premises are occupied by Mr R Scott Only.’ 3) In the event of the building hereby permitted ceasing to be utilised /occupied in connection with the pig / sheep business at Downsview Farm, it shall be removed from the site and the land shall be restored to a condition which has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – B3 reason. 4) M1 Approval of Materials 5) L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping APPENDIX A/ .

6) D6 Finished Floor Levels 7) O2 Burning of Materials 8) O1 Hours of Working

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

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

Background Papers: DC/11/0751

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Application DC/11/0751 – Cold Store Facility at Downsview Farm, Clay Lane - Screening Opinion

A concern has been raised by a nearby resident of Downsview Farm that the proposed application for the Cold Store Facility could potentially be an EIA development. It is therefore considered prudent for the Council to undertake a Screening Assessment to determine whether or not the project relating to the planning application DC/11/0751 should be subject to an EIA.

In order to determine whether an EIA would be necessary for the project, it is necessary to refer to Schedule 2 of the EIA regulations which set out a range of projects types and thresholds against which the need for an EIA can be assessed.

The challenge made to the Council regarding the proposed development suggests that the application could be classified under paragraph 10(b), Schedule 2 of the EIA Directive (Urban Development Projects). It is agreed that, when viewed in isolation the application for a cold store facility on the site could be classified under this definition. However, the size of the facility, at 88m2 falls some way below the threshold where it would be necessary to determine whether an EIA would be required. The proximity of the proposed building to the National Park boundary mean that the thresholds set out in Annex 2 may not apply. However the key impact of the Cold Store on the National Park would be visual in nature. The site of the proposed building is well screened from the National Park boundary, and the National Park Authority do not object to the application. Consequently it is considered that when viewed as a single application the application would not require an EIA.

Although the cold store facility, when taken in isolation does not require an EIA, case law has shown that when carrying out Screening Opinions projects should be viewed in their entirety rather than split. This prevents a number of smaller applications coming forward, none of which would individually have such significant environmental impacts to require an EIA, but taken together, would. It is therefore considered a sensible measure to widen out the screening assessment to the whole farm operation.

At the current time it is considered that the current farming operation extends to the current pig farming operation with its ancillary uses, such as onsite storage and the proposed cold store, together with the farmers stated intention to keep sheep on the southern part of the site. At this stage the Council is not including claimants inclusion of the ‘the probable application for butchery operations’ under the project definition. At the current time the Council has no details of such a scheme and cannot therefore make an assessment of its environmental impacts. In addition there is no certainty that this scheme will come forward. In the event that such an application is ever received it will be necessary for the Council to undertake a further screening assessment (taking into account the whole farm operations). This would be particularly important given the nature of projects set out under section 7 of Annex 2, all of which relate to food production.

It is considered that when regarded as a whole operation, the farm, together with its ancillary uses cannot be classified under 10b (Urban Development Projects), given that the primary land-use is agricultural. It is however necessary to consider the case law that the projects listed under annex 2 should be interpreted to be ‘wide of scope and broad of purpose’. There is however the possibility that the scheme could be considered under 1c ‘Intensive livestock installations’. The applicable threshold and criteria for this land-use is 500m2 and it is therefore necessary therefore for the Council to consider whether the scheme is likely to have such significant environmental effects that an EIA is necessary. In order to make an assessment of significance the Council has referred to the provisions of Schedule 3 of the EIA regulations. The results are set out in the table below. Assessment of Impacts against Schedule 3 Selection Criteria

1) Characteristics of the Development a) size of the development The farm is 20.2ha. The pig farm operates on 11.3ha of land on the north of the site. There are approximately 100 sows on the site. The pigs are free range, raised outdoors (housed in pig arcs). The southern 8.9ha of the site is unsuitable for pig farming, and the applicant proposes to keep 30 ewes on this part of the farm. In the centre of the site is an area of hardstanding served by an access track. On this ‘yard’ are 5 bulk feed bins and two shipping containers used for storage. The proposed cold store would also be located in this area. There is also planning permission for a mobile home to the south of the entrance to the farm. b) Cumulation with other Land to the south and west of the site is primarily development agricultural. The village of Storrington is located to the east, and the smaller settlement of Cootham adjoins the land to the north. Parham Airfield is also close by, to the north of Cootham. There are no other pig farms in the immediate vicinity of the site. Some ancillary development has taken place on the site – e.g. feed bins, storage containers, mobile home. This is small scale and relates to the farming operation. c) The use of natural resources Relatively low levels of natural resources are needed for the farming operations. There are no large scale buildings on the site, and electricity and energy requirements will be relatively low. The sheep’s food requirements would primarily be met by the grass on the site, and any supplementary food, together with pig feed and bedding is provided from arable crops. d) The production of waste Livestock farming will produce animal waste. The proposed sheep farming is low density and is unlikely to produce significant quantities of waste. The pig farming operation will produce more given the number of sows and piglets on the site. However, the outdoor nature of the farm means stocking densities are limited thus minimising the amount of waste produced, particularly when compared to a larger indoor facility. The other ancillary uses on the site (being primarily storage) are not likely to generate a large amount of waste. e) Pollution and nuisances The main environmental impact from agriculture is the leaching of nitrates from waste / fertilisers into the surrounding water / groundwater supplies. Pig farming in particular has the potential to generate odours and, in dry conditions, dust, as the animals root up grassland areas. It should however be recognised that prior to becoming a pig farm, the land was already in agricultural use and the environmental risks of nitrate pollution and odour would already have existed through the application of fertilisers and manure to the land. Noise was cited as a possible problem in relation to the proposed generator on the site, but evidence submitted in support of application DC/11/0751 indicates this will not have a significant impact. f) Risk of accidents There is no significant risk of accidents arising from the Pig / sheep farming operations. 2) Location of the Development The environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by development must be considered, having regard, in particular, to - a) existing land use The primary land use in the area is agricultural – sheep and arable are the most common uses. Sheep farming on the site would be in keeping with this, and the pig farm is also a continuation of the existing agricultural land-use of the site. The farm does adjoin properties in Cootham / Storrington, but these residences would have been impacted by previous agricultural activities that took place on the land. Farming operations would have no impact on the nearby airfield (a hangliding club). b) relative abundance, quality The farm is not a resource intensive operation and natural and regenerative capacity of resources are unlikely to be significantly affected by the natural resources in the area farm. c) the absorption capacity of the natural environment paying particular attention to: i) wetlands There appears to be a small stream around the boundary of the site. Although there is a risk of nutrient run-off there is no data from the EA to suggest high levels of pollution. River quality in the area is generally good. The risk of groundwater pollution is also low as the site is not on a source protection zone. ii) coastal zones N/A iii) mountains and forest areas N/A iv) Nature Reserves and Parks The southern part of the farm is within the South Downs National Park (NP). This area is intended for sheep farming which is consistent with land use in this area. The pig farm is outside the National Park, and the farm and the associated uses are screened from the NP by a tree line / woodland belt. Furthermore the National Park Authority have been consulted and are content that there is no significant visual impact on the landscape of the park. v) areas classified as SPAs / The pig farm and its associated operations will have no SACs impact on Arun Valley SPA which is a wintering ground for Bewick Swans and is sensitive to water abstraction. The farm has no direct impacts on water abstraction or the migration of the swans on to the SPA. vi) Areas in which Some of Storrington has been designated an air quality environmental quality management area due to high NO2 levels. Journeys to the standards laid down in current cold storage site may result in trips through this community legislation have area, but these would be reduced by storage on the farm, already been exceeded and could contribute to improved air quality in the Storrington area. vii) Densely populated areas The site is close to Cootham / Storrington. As set out 1e, noise impact on residents is not perceived to be an issue. There is potential for nearby residences to be affected by dust and odour. It should be noted that they have always adjoined agricultural land, and therefore been subject to the potential from odours such as muck spreading and dust from ploughing. Records from environmental health indicate that no complaints regarding odour have been received relating to the site since November 2010, and the two most recent complaints made regarding odour in the area were traced to muck spreading by other farmers in the area. vii) Landscapes of historical, The South Downs National Park is of historical, cultural cultural and archaeological and archaeological significance, but the farm would not significance result in the loss or damage to any of these features. 3) Characteristics of the Potential Impact The potential significant effects of development must be considered in relation to criteria set out under paragraphs 1 and 2 above and having regard in particular to a) the extent of the impact Overall the pig farming operations take place over 11.3 ha, (geographical size and size of sheep farming on 8.9ha. This is a small area in relation to the affected population) the overall amount of agricultural land in the area, and the overall contribution it would have on run-off / nitrate leaching. It is noted that some residential properties adjoin the farm, but these homes have always bordered the countryside and therefore been potentially impacted by agricultural activities. b) the transfrontier of the Impacts will not affect other EU states impact c) the magnitude and Any impacts arising from the farm are low in complexity complexity of the impact (i.e. odour, nitrate pollution, dust rather than a range of interlinked impacts) and small in magnitude. The largest impact is that of odour, but complaint records do not extend across the whole of Storrington, and furthermore the village is rural in nature and has always been subject to agricultural odours such as muck spreading. d) Probability of the impact If good farming practices and amelioration measures such as tree planting and screening take place, the probability of the impacts are low. e) Duration frequency and The risk of impacts is present for as long as the pig farm reversibility of the impact or other agricultural activity is present on the land. Ceasing agricultural use of the site would reverse all impacts.

Taking into account the considerations set out in Schedule 3 it is considered that pig farming on the site could have three possible impacts on the environment – pollution of water (including groundwater) supplies from the leaching of nitrate, dust arising from bare ground created by the pigs and odours arising from pig waste.

It is however considered that these impacts are not likely to be significant enough to require an EIA. Firstly scale of the operation is small, due to the outdoor manner in which the pigs are bred. This limits the number of animals which can be kept on the site, and therefore limits the amount of nitrate run-off that can take place. There is no data to indicate that dust is a problem or that nearby watercourses have become polluted. The site is not in an area where groundwater supplies are at risk. The main issue relating to the site is therefore that of odour. It is acknowledged that this has been a concern for local residents, but records from Environmental Health indicate that the most recent complaint relating to the site was made in November 2010. Furthermore it should be noted that the affected residents have always adjoined agricultural land, and have therefore been at risk from odours from muck spreading. More recent complaints about the site that have been traced back to different farms in the locality undertaking muck spreading operations serve only to highlight this point.

It is therefore considered that whilst there are some potential environmental impacts arising from the farming operation these are not considered likely to give rise to significant detrimental environmental effects by virtue of their size, nature or location. As such we are of the opinion that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not necessary and any environmental impacts that do arise can be dealt with as part of the normal planning or other environmental control practices.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 20th September 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Construction of 4 No. dwellings and associated landscaping works on land to the west of Trevellan, 23 Kithurst Park.

SITE: Trevellan, Kithurst Park, Storrington

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/11/1387

APPLICANT: Rosecroft Estates

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Agent request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for the construction of 4 No. 2 storey dwellings and associated landscaping works on land to the west of Trevellan, 23 Kithurst Park. The proposed site is part of Trevellan’s curtilage. The proposal is to split the site into 4 plots. The site measures approximately 95m by 36m with each dwelling having a plot measuring approximately 35m in depth by 24m in width. Plot 1 would measure 14m in width by 9m in depth with a front projection that measures a further 7.6m by 5.9m with a ridge height of 7.1m. The dwelling would provide 3 bedrooms to the 1st floor level. The rear garden for Plot 1 would measure 17m in depth by 18.5m in width. Plot 2 would measure 14.1m in width by 9m in depth with a front projection that measures a further 5m in depth by 5.9m in width with a ridge height of 7.1m. The dwelling would provide 3 bedrooms to the 1st floor level. The rear garden for Plot 2 would measure 12m in depth by 25m in width. This garden

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2.

would be heavily shaded by the large oak tree to the rear boundary. Plot 3 would measure 14.1m in width by 9.1m in depth with a front projection that measures a further 4.2m by 5.9m with a ridge height of 7.1m. The dwelling would provide 3 bedrooms to the 1st floor level. The rear garden for Plot 3 would measure 9.5m in depth by 24m in width. Plot 4 would measure 17.4 in width by 8.8m in depth with a rear projection that measures a further 3.4m in depth by 4m in width with a ridge height of 8m. The dwelling would provide 4 bedrooms to the 1st floor level. A 3 bay garage/car port is also proposed for Plot 4 which would measure 10.2m by 6.9m which would have a ridge height of 5.7m. The rear garden for Plot 4 would measure 17m in depth by 24m in width. This garden has a large pine tree to the south west corner.

1.2 A new vehicular access to the site is also proposed. This access would be achieved via Kithurst Park. The applicant proposes a new dropped kerb off the roundabout with a new tarmac driveway leading to the houses. The existing dwelling on site would have to be demolished to allow space for the new access. This part of the proposal is covered under application DC/11/1388. The access would be 4.5m in width for the first 20m and would have a metres width of beech hedging either side of the access.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The site is located within the built up area of Storrington and is located on the southern side of Kithurst Park. The site currently consists of a large detached 2 storey house with attached double length garage to the side and has a rear garden in excess of approximately 100m by 37m. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the South Downs National Park and open countryside with the South Downs beyond. The site is fairly open as numerous trees have already been felled. There is a public footpath that runs along the northern edge of Trevellan’s existing garden and to the south of Oaklea. There are three bungalows to the north of the site that look southwards.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.4 Application DC/11/1387 is for the construction of 4 No. dwellings and associated landscaping works on land to the west of Trevellan, 23 Kithurst Park, this application is pending consideration.

Application SR/26/77 for a detached 3 bedroom bungalow and a double length garage was permitted in 1977.

Application SR/30/73 for the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of a 4 bed detached dwelling was permitted in 1973.

Application SR/24/73 for 3 building plots was refused in 1973.

There is no other relevant planning history for the site.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3 & PPS7.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the quality of new development, CP5 – Built up areas and previously developed land, CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs & CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC4 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, DC9 – Development principles and DC40 – Transport & Access.

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

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

3.1 Strategic & Community Planning has stated “In the Statement of Compliance (Regulation 28 Statement) for the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document, Appendix F refers to Trevellan, Kithurst Park, Storrington "Adjacent to the Built-up Area Boundary. It is considered that this site is suitable to be included in the Built- up Area Boundary of Storrington. However, the proximity to the AONB means that only small scale carefully screened development would potentially be appropriate subject to detailed considerations."

“The proposal seeks the construction of 4 dwellings and associated landscaping works on land to the west of Trevellan, 23 Kithurst Park, Storrington. The application needs to be considered against the Local Development Framework particularly the Core Strategy 2007, the General Development Control Policies 2007 and National Planning Policy, in particular PPS3: Housing.

The site lies within the built up area boundary of Storrington, a Category 1 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy 2007, which sets out that APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4.

priority will be given to locating new development within towns and villages which have defined built up area boundaries.

Concern is raised however, over the level of development and the close proximity of the site to the South Downs National Park, as the site adjoins the South Downs National Park boundary. Policy DC4 of the General Development Control Policies 2007, although written before the designation of the South Downs National Park in March 2009, sets out that planning permission will not be granted for proposals in or near to the Sussex Downs (now the South Downs National Park) that would adversely affect the character, quality, views, distinctiveness or threaten public enjoyment of these spaces. In addition to this Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy 2007 and Policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 set out that the landscape character of the District together with the townscape character of settlements will be maintained and enhanced and that development will be permitted where it protects and / or conserves and / or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character. We therefore suggest consultation with the South Downs National Park authority regarding these issues.

Notwithstanding the above however, in the Statement of Compliance (Regulation 28 Statement) for the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document, Appendix F refers to Trevellan, Kithurst Park, Storrington and states that due to the sites proximity to the Sussex Downs AONB (now the South Downs National Park) that only small scale, carefully screened development would potentially be appropriate subject to detailed considerations.

In conclusion, no strategic policy objections are raised to the proposal in principle; however we suggest that you are mindful of the aims of the relevant policies and the above comments. The site specific matters raised above are best judged by you as a case officer after a site visit. I would be happy to offer further guidance if necessary.”

3.2 Public Health & Licensing has commented that this Department has no grounds on which to object to this application.

We would recommend the following conditions should permission be granted.

1. No burning of waste or waste materials on the site 2. A licensed waste removal contractor shall remove clearance debris from site. No burning of materials shall take place on site. 3. hours of use during clearance and construction phase and for loading and unloading of deliveries to the site to limited to 8:00-18:00 hours Monday to Friday 8:00-13:00 hours Saturdays no working on Sundays and Public holidays. 4. A satisfactory means of foul drainage must be provided for the property’s and agreed in writing with the planning Authority before installation. The new drainage provision may need permission form the Environmental Agency for any Discharge and from Building Control as a new drainage system.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5.

3.3 The Landscape Officer has commented:

Following a site visit, including careful consideration of views of the site, from the adjacent South Downs National Park I would object to the proposed development. It is considered contrary to CS Policies CP1a annd b, CP3 b and c and DC Policies DC4 and DC9c, d and f

The site, until its recent regrettable clearance, had a very well treed and semi- wooded character which made a valuable contribution to a soft transition between the suburban edge of Storrington and the adjacent South Downs National Park.

Nonetheless the character of the southern edge of the site and that of the adjacent plots on the national park boundary is relatively open allowing views into the well treed development of Kithust Park which is in character landscape dominated rather than built form dominated, with only a few larger two storey dwellings and mainly bungalow development

The proposals for 4 relatively large dwellings, closely spaced, it is considered will be contrary to/fail to conserve the existing distinctive landscape and townscape character of the urban edge identified above.-no longer being landscape dominated.

It is also considered it will result in adverse visual impact in views from the national park particuarly as seen from nearby footpaths, Kithurst Lane and Kithurst farm, as well as in more distant views from higher parts of the local downs. In this regard I would highlight not only the scale and bulk and spacing of the dwellings but their unvaried, uniform architectural design and lack of variety in materials (which could have included use of local sandstone) as contributing to adverse visual impact. The development would also have a localised adverse impact on the landscape character of the national Park itself in particular the adjacent meadow.

Some replacement hedgerow and small-medium size hedgerow tree planting has already been carried out on the southern boundary of the site. It is not considered however this will provide adequate/appropriate mitigation to address the adverse impacts above.

The submitted colour perspective View across the Meadow actually serves to illustrate the problems identified above- the existing relatively open edge to the national park will be replaced by an overdeveloped hard edge due to the scale and bulk of the closely spaced dwellings and close board fences

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 West Sussex County Council has commented that “A site visit was conducted on the 17th August 2011.

The proposal will accessed from Kithurst Park a private road not maintained by WSCC, therefore these comments are for your advice only. Each property will have its own individual access, parking and turning area. The proposed parking is within the latest WSCC car parking standards. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6.

A new access will be required; to achieve this Trevellan will be demolished and rebuilt to one side. The demolition and rebuild of Trevellan on a different location was subject to a previous planning application. I would recommend that the access road is constructed in a bound material and that suitable drainage methods are installed to ensure that private surface does not enter Kithurst Park.

Visibility onto Amberley Road (B2139) appeared acceptable, with no obstructions observed. On the information submitted and subsequent site visit no objections would be raised to this proposal form the highway point of view subject to the following conditions:

Access No development of the site shall commence until the vehicular access serving the proposed dwelling has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing. Reason – In the interests of road safety.

Cycle parking No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until covered secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with the WSCC minimum parking standards.”

3.5 West Sussex County Council’s Ecologist has stated “The bat interest is associated with DC/11/1388 but the mitigation is provided under …1387 hence these two applications are treated together in this response. The bat surveys and mitigation provided are in accordance with Natural England Standing Advice. The development will require a European Protected Species licence before works can begin.

Recommended condition - The development (demolition works, timing, construction methodology and bat mitigation) shall only proceed in accordance with the submitted bat report and the ‘Method Statement’ agreed by Natural England in the course of obtaining a European Protected Species licence; should works be delayed beyond 2013 a further bat check will be required before works commence. Should any bats be found during demolition advice must be sought from a licensed bat worker or Natural England before works can recommence.”

3.6 Southern Water has stated “The proposed development is some distance from the nearest public foul sewer. The applicant should assure himself that he has adequate rights to utilise the intervening private drainage systems. Otherwise the connection to the public sewerage system could be requisitioned under the terms of the Water Industry Act. The Council’s Building Control officers technical staff or Environment Agency should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7.

“Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.”

3.7 The Environment Agency has no comments to make.

3.8 Natural England has commented that “As the application site is directly adjacent to the National Park boundary the provisions of government policy relating to National Parks (currently including PPS7, circulars 12/96 and 125/77) apply. You may wish to seek the opinion of the South Downs National Park Authority in line with any local delegation protocols that exist. For clarity this is not a request for the Authority to call this application in for its own determination.”

Bats – The information supplied as part of the application includes details of the location and populations of bats, together with an assessment of the likely impacts. Bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This protection covers both the bats themselves and the places that they use for shelter.

The survey information provided by the applicants indicates that bats are utilising features that are to be affected by the proposed development. Natural England is satisfied that the avoidance and mitigation proposals set out in the application appear sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts on bat populations. The proposals should therefore not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of bats at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (as defined in Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010), subject to the condition listed below:

Prior to the commencement of any works 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.”

PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.9 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council has objected to the application on the grounds that: “This application along with DC/11/1388 should be viewed as one and cannot be looked at separately. The two developments would be totally visible from the National Park and would cause a total loss of amenity to some neighbouring properties that had already lost the mature tree boundary due to the removal of trees earlier in the year.

The proposed four new dwellings are considered to be too high density for the plot and garden grabbing. Trevellan as it stands currently fits in very well with the surrounding properties and should be retained. Within the Statement of Compliance (Regulation 28 Statement) for the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document, Appendix F referred to Trevellan, Kithurst Park and considered that this site is suitable to be included in the Built up Area Boundary of Storrington. However, the proximity to the AONB means that only small scale carefully screened APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8.

development would potentially be appropriate subject to detailed considerations. Members discussed this and came to the conclusion that neither of the proposed developments were small scale or well screened.

Reference should be made to 7.2 Principle and Guidelines of Storrington and Sullington’s Parish Design Statement which states “Preservation of the character and landscape of the area and retention of character properties.”

3.10 33 letters of objection have been received on the grounds that:

 PPS3 was amended in June 2010 to give local authorities the right to prevent garden grabbing and overdevelopment;  Visual impact on National Park;  Overdevelopment;  Demolition of Trevellen appears essential for access to the rear garden;  Loss of amenities, particularly views of the National Park;  Will set a precedent;  Several 40ft oaks were felled in recent weeks;  The substantial 2 storey houses are out of keeping with the surrounding area and will detract from the views from the National Park;  Traffic from 5 additional homes will greatly increase the wear and tear on the private road;  Loss of views;  The houses are too big/high;  The houses are too large for the plots proposed;  Kithurst Park properties on the south side have always had height restrictions on them, most of them are bungalows;  Wildlife has already be disturbed through the loss of trees;  Increased load on water and sewage removal;  Kithurst Park is a private Road maintained by the residents and Rosecroft Estates does not have access rights over the road;  The turning circle from the clockwise direction is inadequate;  The development is too dense;  The site could take 2 or 3 smaller single storey bungalows;  Policy DC4 states “Planning permission will not be granted for proposals in or near to the Sussex Downs or High AONB that would affect the character, quality, distinctive views or threaten public enjoyment of these landscapes.”

3.11 2 letters of support has been received on the grounds that:

 The site is large and the development of 4 houses would not constitute overdevelopment;  There would be no overlooking;  There would be no loss of general amenity;  The garden was too big for one dwelling;  The land is untidy;  The development would improve the area without affecting neighbours;

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9.

3.12 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

6.2 The site is located within the built up area boundary of Storrington and on the outskirts of the South Downs National Park. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the National Park.

6.3 The Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Policy CP5) has identified two categories of settlements which are considered appropriate to have a defined built- up area. These settlements are categorised as a reflection of their relative position in a “settlement sustainability hierarchy” by virtue of their ability potentially to accommodate different levels of additional development. Category 1 settlements are classified as towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport – capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. Therefore, infill is only considered acceptable in principle, within the built up areas of Category 1 settlements. Storrington is classified as a category 1 settlement.

6.4 In the Statement of Compliance (Regulation 28 Statement) for the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document, Appendix F refers to Trevellan, Kithurst Park, Storrington "Adjacent to the Built-up Area Boundary. It is considered that this site is suitable to be included in the Built-up Area Boundary of Storrington. However, the proximity to the AONB means that only small scale carefully screened development would potentially be appropriate subject to detailed considerations."

6.5 The proposal needs to be assessed against policy DC9 which states:

Planning permission will be granted for development which:

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10.

a) make efficient use of land whilst respecting any constraints that exist; b) do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking; c) ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of high standard of design and layout; d) are locally distinctive in character, respect the character of the surrounding area; e) use high standards of building materials, finishes and landscaping

6.6 It is considered that the development represents a cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be highly prominent when viewing the site from the south of the site (National Park). The dwellings are considered to be larger than the dwellings in the surrounding area with higher ridge heights and smaller plots. The area is characterised by single storey bungalows and 1 ½ storey bungalows. The cumulative impact of 4 large detached houses would have a visually intrusive impact from the National Park given the fact that all of the natural vegetation/trees on the site have been removed. The dwellings proposed are considered to be too large for the plots with the rear garden for Plot 3 only measuring 9.5m in depth. Plot 2 would be heavily overshadowed/shaded by the large oak tree to the rear boundary. The overall built form of the dwellings and the associated residential paraphernalia including close boarded fences erodes the open character and has an adverse impact on the rural character of the area.

6.7 It is considered that small scale development that is carefully screened could potentially be considered acceptable in accordance with the comments in the Statement of Compliance (Regulation 28 Statement) for the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document, Appendix F. However, this development is considered to constitute overdevelopment of the site.

6.8 Policy DC4 of the General Development Control Policies 2007, although written before the designation of the South Downs National Park in March 2009, sets out that planning permission will not be granted for proposals in or near to the Sussex Downs AONB (South Downs National Park as it is now) that would adversely affect the character, quality, views, distinctiveness or threaten public enjoyment of these landscapes. Where exceptionally development is necessary, landscape enhancements, mitigation or compensation measures must be provided.

6.9 In addition to this Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy 2007 and Policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 set out that the landscape character of the District together with the townscape character of settlements will be maintained and enhanced and that development will be permitted where it protects and / or conserves and / or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character. We therefore suggest consultation with the South Downs National Park authority regarding these issues.

6.10 The Landscape Officer has objected to the application and it is considered that the nature of his comments confirm that there is a fundamental objection in principle to the number of dwellings proposed which cannot be overcome by any mitigation measures.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 11.

6.11 Having consulted the South Downs National Park Liaison Officer on the proposal he is of the view that the proposal is too dense and cramped and would have a harmful impact on the character of the National Park.

6.12 It is considered that the proposal would be contrary to Policies DC2, DC4 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1) The dwellings as proposed due to their number, height, scale and siting would result in overdevelopment of the site which would detract from the character of the surrounding area including the adjacent South Downs National Park contrary to Policy DC4 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 & CP1 & CP3 of the Core Strategy 2007..

2) The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure, fire and rescue services and community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

Background Papers: DC/11/1387 & DC/11/1388

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 20th September 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing dwelling at 23 Kithurst Park and construction of a replacement dwelling and associated landscaping works.

SITE: Trevellan, Kithurst Park, Storrington

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/11/1388

APPLICANT: Mrs B Hodgson

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of existing dwelling at 23 Kithurst Park and construction of a replacement dwelling and associated landscaping works. The existing dwelling on site measures 12.5m in width by 6.1m in depth but has a front projection that protrudes out by 2.1m and a rear projection that protrudes 5.6m and the property has a ridge height of 7.8m. There is an attached garage to the side which measures 6.7m in width by 9.5m in depth and has a ridge height of 4m. This dwelling would be demolished and replaced by a dwelling measuring 18.4m in width by 8.6m in depth with a rear conservatory measuring 3.4m in depth by 4m with a ridge height of 4.6m. The ridge height of the main dwelling would be 8m in height.

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.

1.2 The dwelling would be re-built further to the south east of the site but would still retain 3 – 6.5m to the side boundary with 22 Kithurst Park and 9m to the boundary with 24 Kithurst Park. The driveway to the dwelling would be re-positioned and a 1m high cleft oak post and rail fence would be positioned along the northern side boundary to the front half of the plot and a 1.8m high close boarded fence would be sited along the rear section of this boundary. The site is proposed to be split up with the replacement dwelling having a triangular rear garden measuring 10 – 23m in depth by 15 – 35m in width. The rest of the garden is subject to application DC/11/1387 for the erection of 4 detached dwellings.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The site is located within the built up area of Storrington and is located on the southern side of Kithurst Park. The site currently consists of a large detached 2 storey house with attached double length garage to the side and has a rear garden in excess of approximately 100m by 37m. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the South Downs National Park and open countryside with the South Downs beyond. The site is fairly open as numerous trees have already been felled. There is a public footpath that runs along the northern edge of Trevellan’s existing garden and to the south of Oaklea.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.4 Application DC/11/1387 is for the construction of 4 No. dwellings and associated landscaping works on land to the west of Trevellan, 23 Kithurst Park, this application is pending consideration.

Application SR/26/77 for a detached 3 bedroom bungalow and a double length garage was permitted in 1977.

Application SR/30/73 for the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of a 4 bed detached dwelling was permitted in 1973.

Application SR/24/73 for 3 building plots was refused in 1973.

There is no other relevant planning history for the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS3.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the quality of new development, CP5 – Built up areas and previously developed land, CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs & CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC9 – Development principles and DC40 – Transport & Access.

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

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 West Sussex County Council has commented that “I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments. The proposal will access onto Kithurst Park which is a private road not maintained by WSCC. Minor alterations are being proposed to the car parking, access and on-site turning. In terms of vehicular movements, the proposed dwelling is unlikely to result in any material increase or any detrimental impact. Providing the proposed car parking does not exceed the WSCC Maximum Standards, no highway concerns would be raised.”

3.2 Southern Water has stated “Any new connections will require a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent:

“A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, S023 9EH. (Tel 01962 858688) or www.southemwater.co.uk

The Council’s Building Control officers technical staff or Environment Agency should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.”

3.3 Natural England has commented that “As the application site is directly adjacent to the National Park boundary the provisions of government policy relating to National Parks (currently including PPS7, circulars 12/96 and 125/77) apply. You may wish to seek the opinion of the South Downs National Park Authority in line with any APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.

local delegation protocols that exist. For clarity this is not a request for the Authority to call this application in for its own determination.”

Bats – The information supplied as part of the application includes details of the location and populations of bats, together with an assessment of the likely impacts. Bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This protection covers both the bats themselves and the places that they use for shelter.

The survey information provided by the applicants indicates that bats are utilising features that are to be affected by the proposed development. Natural England is satisfied that the avoidance and mitigation proposals set out in the application appear sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts on bat populations. The proposals should therefore not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of bats at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (as defined in Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010), subject to the condition listed below:

Prior to the commencement of any works 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.”

PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.4 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council has objected to the application on the grounds that: “This application along with DC/11/1387 should be viewed as one and cannot be looked at separately. The two developments would be totally visible from the National Park and would cause a total loss of amenity to some neighbouring properties that had already lost the mature tree boundary due to the removal of trees earlier in the year.

The proposed four new dwellings are considered to be too high density for the plot and garden grabbing. Trevellan as it stands currently fits in very well with the surrounding properties and should be retained. Within the Statement of Compliance (Regulation 28 Statement) for the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document, Appendix F referred to Trevellan, Kithurst Park and considered that this site is suitable to be included in the Built up Area Boundary of Storrington. However, the proximity to the AONB means that only small scale carefully screened development would potentially be appropriate subject to detailed considerations. Members discussed this and came to the conclusion that neither of the proposed developments were small scale or well screened.

Reference should be made to 7.2 Principle and Guidelines of Storrington and Sullington’s Parish Design Statement which states “Preservation of the character and landscape of the area and retention of character properties.”

3.5 28 letters of objection have been received on the grounds that:

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5.

 PPS3 was amended in June 2010 to give local authorities the right to prevent garden grabbing and overdevelopment;  Visual impact on National Park;  Overdevelopment;  Garden grabbing;  Demolition of Trevellen appears essential for access to the rear garden;  Loss of amenities, particularly views of the National Park;  Will set a precedent;  Several 40ft oaks were felled in recent weeks;  The substantial 2 storey houses are out of keeping with the surrounding area and will detract from the views from the National Park;  Traffic from 5 additional homes will greatly increase the wear and tear on the private road;  Loss of views;  Kithurst Park properties on the south side have always had height restrictions on them, most of them are bungalows;  Wildlife has already be disturbed through the loss of trees;  Increased load on water and sewage removal;  Kithurst Park is a private Road maintained by the residents and Rosecroft Estates does not have access rights over the road;

3.6 1 letter of support has been received on the grounds that:

 The design is in keeping with the other dwellings on Kithurst Park;  The design is an improvement on the 1950 design of Trevellan;  Highway access is very safe via Kithurst park - Loss of general amenity would be enhanced with the modern design of the new dwelling;  Overdevelopment does not arise due to the size of the site;  Privacy light and noise have been taken into account by design and placement of the access road;  Trevellan is a very poor example of 1950 construction i.e. the insulation is very poor , the foundations have been undermined by tree roots leading to endless problems;

3.7 2 letters of no objection has been received stating:

 We have no objection to the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and another house and garage being erected provided that the height is kept the same or lower than the existing one;  We do not object to the application but have concerns over the reduction in garden area and its frontage onto Kithurst Park;

3.8 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

6.2 The proposal needs to be assessed against policy DC9 which states:

Planning permission will be granted for development which:

a) make efficient use of land whilst respecting any constraints that exist; b) do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking; c) ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of high standard of design and layout; d) are locally distinctive in character, respect the character of the surrounding area; e) use high standards of building materials, finishes and landscaping

6.3 The existing dwelling on site measures 12.5m in width by 6.1m in depth but has a 2 storey front projection that projects out by 2.1m and a 2 storey rear projection that protrudes 5.6m and the property has a ridge height of 7.8m. There is an attached garage to the side which measures 6.7m in width by 9.5m in depth and has a ridge height of 4m. This dwelling would be demolished and replaced by a dwelling measuring 18.4m in width by 8.6m in depth with a rear conservatory measuring 3.4m in depth by 4m with a ridge height of 4.6m. The ridge height of the main dwelling would be 8m in height. The proposed dwelling would be approximately the same width as the existing dwelling and its garage, 0.2m higher than the existing dwelling on site and would be approximately 5m shallower than the existing dwelling on site. There would be no net gain of dwellings as this application purely seeks to replace the existing dwelling on site within the existing residential curtilage of Trevellan.

6.4 It is acknowledged that there are numerous objections to the proposed scheme and that of application DC/11/1387 for 4 additional detached dwellings. It would appear that the majority of the objections are for application DC/11/1387 rather than the replacement dwelling application. Several neighbours have commented that this APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7.

application and DC/11/1387 should be considered together. It is considered that application DC/11/1387 is reliant on this application being permitted in order to move Trevellan over, to give vehicular access to the rest of the site. However, this application is not dependent on DC/11/1387 as the development could be implemented without application DC/11/1387 being permitted. Therefore, it is considered that this application can be considered independently on its own merits. Furthermore, any decision on this application would not act as any precedent for the 4 unit proposal.

6.5 Having consulted the South Downs National Park Liaison Officer on the proposal he is of the view that the proposal would not have a material effect on the character of the National Park. It is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling on site and would not be out of keeping with the character and pattern of the local area. The proposal allows sufficient gaps to the boundaries with neighbouring dwellings and it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to a greater degree of overlooking than the current situation on site. West Sussex Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal as vehicular movements are likely to remain the same.

6.6 It is considered that the dwelling is not disproportionate to the existing dwelling on the site and therefore on balance the replacement dwelling is considered acceptable and accords with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1) A2 Full Permission 2) M1 Approval of Materials 3) D5 No windows 4) E3 Fencing 5) L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping 6) O1 Hours of Working 7) O2 Burning Of materials 8) H10 Cycling Provision 9) J10 Removal of permitted development – dwellings “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (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.” 10) H4 On Site Parking APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8.

11) Before development commences detailed cross sections from east to west and north to south through the site showing the finished floor levels of the dwelling in relation to the existing levels within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – D6 reason. 12) 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. Reason – L9

Note to Applicant

The applicant is advised that a formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, S023 9EH. (Tel 01962 858688) or www.southemwater.co.uk

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character of the area.

Background Papers: DC/11/1388 & DC/11/1387

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20 September 2011 Retrospective permission for a material amendment to permission Ref DC/10/1631 (New roof to existing dwelling, internal alterations, double car port/garage, incorporation of additional accommodation to first floor and DEVELOPMENT: conversion of attached garage to habitable space) to include increased height of south & north gables and chimney stack by 600mm and change of material from stone to render and colour change of cladding from black to grey blue SITE: The White Lodge Sunset Lane West Chiltington Pulborough WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/11/1500 APPLICANT: Jane and Phil Andrews

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member request ( Councillor Circus)

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks retrospective permission for a material amendment to the previously approved application DC/10/1631, which was for the increase in ridge height to provide additional accommodation to the first floor and a new double garage. The amendments include an increased height of the south & north gable ends, as well as the chimney stack both by 600mm and a change of material from stone to render and colour change of cladding from black to grey blue.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

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

Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are DC9 & DC15 in Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.4 DC/10/1631 - New roof to existing dwelling, internal alterations, double car port/garage, incorporation of additional accommodation to first floor and conversion of attached garage to habitable space - Approved

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 No internal consultation

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Chiltington Parish Council had made no comments at the time of writing this report and any comments will be given verbally at the meeting.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 14 letters of objection had been received, who have made the following comments:

 The use of materials, not in keeping  Not in character with the neighbouring dwellings  Increase in height  The building is an eyesore  Use of cheap materials

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issue is the effect of the development on the surrounding area and the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3

6.2 The application seeks retrospective permission for a number of amendments to the previously approved application DC/10/1631 for the increase in roof to provide further habitable space and other alterations plus the erection of a double garage. The amendments which have already been implemented are for a change in the colour of the cladding from the approved black to grey blue, which are prevalent on certain aspects of the dwelling. A rise in the height of the northern & southern elevation gables by 0.6m, as well as the chimney being increased in height by the same amount and thereby taking it above the height of the main ridge. 6.3 The approved application enabled the existing dwelling to raise its ridge height by 2.4m, in order to create further habitable space. The approved application altered a 1960s bungalow, which may have been considered at the time of construction to be inconsistent with the large prominence of ‘Wells Cottages’ within the area. The increase in height of the gable ends would be considered acceptable in relation to the approved scheme and would not have been disproportionately greater than the original dwelling. Whilst the works undertaken on the dwelling maybe considered now to have a greater prominence within the surrounding area than previously, however there are many examples of dwellings along the surrounding lanes of varying designs and sizes, which do not fall within the category of a ‘Wells Cottage’, hence the reason for approving the previous application and it also clear that the proposed represents a visual improvement upon the existing bungalow. 6.4 The current application which also seeks an amendment to the colour of the cladding from black to a grey blue has caused much concern amongst the occupiers of dwellings within the vicinity, whom state its appearance now along with the already approved slate tiles is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. It is clear that the colour of the cladding is different to the neighbouring dwellings within the immediate area of which the Wells Cottages are the majority, however there is evidence of dwellings of a more modern appearance along the lanes, which are considered to sit sympathetically amongst older dwellings and retain the character of the area. It is therefore considered that on balance the amendments to the dwelling would not cause undue harm to the visual amenities of the street scene, as well as the neighbouring dwellings.

6.5 It is therefore considered that the amendments to the original approval are acceptable and would comply with the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007)

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that permission be granted

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.

Background Papers: DC/10/1631 Contact Officer: Doug Wright APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20th September 2011 Erection of self-contained annexe (resubmission following DEVELOPMENT: withdrawal of application Ref. DC/10/2344) SITE: Stane Street Hollow Stane Street Codmore Hill Pulborough WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham APPLICATION: DC/11/1268 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Beacher

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Applicant/agent request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a detached two storey two bedroom annexe for the applicant’s parents.

1.2 The proposed building would be located some 26.4 metres to the south of the main dwelling which is a grade 2 listed building. The proposed annexe would be some 12 metres wide and 8.5 metres deep. The building would be some 8.7 metres high and would be constructed with a plain clay tile roof, and a random stone finish to match the main house. The proposed annexe would consist of a garage, utility room, entrance hall, lift, gym, shower room and bedroom at ground floor level and a bedroom, bathroom, study area, dining, living and kitchen and a conservatory at first floor level. The annexe would be self contained with no reliance on facilities within the main house.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is situated outside of the built up area boundary in an area of countryside between the settlements of Codmore Hill and Pulborough. The site is

Contact: Nicola Mason Extension: 5289 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2.

located on the western side of the A29 Stane Street and is presently occupied by Stane Street Hollow a two storey listed building, and two further dwellings which were originally outbuildings for Stane Street Hollow prior to their individual conversion to residential use. A public footpath runs through the site from east to west.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.5 PL/63/75 – In October 1975 permission was granted for a restaurant, ground floor flat and the use of the forecourt for customers.

1.6 PL/70/77 – In December 1977 an application for the construction of a dormer window to the rear was approved.

1.7 PL/70/87 – In August 1987 an application for a kitchen extension was permitted.

1.8 PL/109/00 – In January 2001 an application for the change of use and conversion of a redundant barn into a residential dwelling was approved.

1.9 DC/05/2487 – In March 2006 an application for the conversion of garage into a single dwelling was approved.

1.10 DC/06/2631 – In March 2007 an application for an amendment to DC/05/2487 incorporating the relocation of the access road was approved.

1.11 DC/10/2344 - In January 2011 an application for the erection of a 2 bedroom self contained annexe was withdrawn.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS5 and PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements), CP14 (Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services, CP15 (Rural Strategy) and CP19 (Managing travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport) are considered relevant to this application. APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3.

2.4 General Development Control Policies DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC3 (Settlement Coalescence), DC9 (Development Principles), DC13 (Listed Buildings), DC28 (House Extensions, Replacement Dwellings and Ancillary Accommodation), and DC40 (Transport and Access) are also considered relevant to this application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Councils Conservation and Design Officer has objected to the application and has concluded that the application does not meet the requirements of HDC’s adopted policy DC13 or the wider remit of PPS5. The Conservation and Design Officer has noted that the scale and design of the proposed building would detract from the setting of the listed building.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Pulborough Parish Council has raised no objection to the original plans submitted. No comments have yet been received relating to the amended plans.

3.4 One letter has been received objecting to the application on the grounds that the proposal is for development within an important local gap, historically Stane Street Hollow had a larger garden, which has previously been developed to create Drumlin and Ekton Rew and the building would detract from the setting of the listed building.

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

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

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

It is not considered that the proposal will have any material impact on crime and disorder issues.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4.

6.1 The application site is situated outside of the defined built up area boundary as defined in the Horsham Local Development Framework Proposals Map. The application site forms an important part of the gap between the settlement boundaries of two areas of Codmore Hill. The application site is also within the curtilage of a grade 2 listed building (Stane Street Hollow) and consequently any impact on the setting of the existing listed building needs to be fully considered. As the site is outside the built up area boundary the application would also be judged against policy DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies which relates to applications for ancillary accommodation in the countryside. The application has been amended during the progression of the application with the plans now submitted being the same as those submitted under withdrawn application DC/10/2344.

6.2 Policy DC28 of the General Development Control Policies requires that applications for ancillary accommodation should be located appropriately within the curtilage of the existing dwelling and, that the need for additional space cannot be met from the existing dwelling or other buildings suitable for conversion within the site. The use of ancillary accommodation as a separate dwelling will not be permitted.

6.3 The proposed two bedroom property would be self contained with its own gym, lift, utility room, entrance hall, shower room and bedroom at ground floor level and a bedroom, bathroom, study area, dining, living and kitchen and a conservatory at first floor level as well as its own curtilage, garage and access. It is considered that the accommodation proposed is beyond that required for ancillary accommodation as the proposed unit would not be incidental to the use of the main dwelling and there would be no sharing of facilities The property could therefore be occupied as a separate dwellinghouse, resulting in the provision of a new dwelling in the countryside contrary to the policies of the development plan and policy DC28.

6.4 Policy DC28 also requires that consideration is given to whether the need for additional space could be met from the existing dwelling. The application makes reference to Stane Street Hollow being a listed building and therefore not being able to be altered, however this is only covered briefly in the Design and Access Statement and no evidence supporting this conclusion has been submitted. The Local Planning Authority has also not been approached for an informal opinion as to whether an extension or alteration to the main house could be a feasible alternative for providing the facilities required rather than the construction of a two bedroom, two story detached annexe.

6.5 The Councils Conservation and Design Officer has noted that the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling would dominate the setting of the listed building and would be out of keeping with its countryside setting and the former historic farmstead character of the courtyard, the listed building and surrounding former barns. The Conservation Officer also notes that cumulatively the scale and design details of the proposed building would draw the eye, and viewed within the same context with the listed building would detract from its setting. It therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to DC9, and DC13 of the General Development Control Policies and the wider remit of PPS5.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5.

6.6 The applicant makes reference to a scheme in Henfield where an annexe was approved within the curtilage of a listed building however; it is considered that the proposals are not comparable as the scheme in Henfield was a simple single storey building, which appeared as a garden building. The proposal at Stane Street Hollow is two storey and has twice the floor area of the property in Henfield, and appears as a substantial dwelling in its own right. The proposed annexe at Stane Street Hollow would also due to the layout of the site result in further development within an important gap between the adjoining built up area boundaries.

6.7 Whilst the applicants circumstances are noted, it is your officers view that personal circumstances should not overrule planning policy as personal circumstances only occasionally outweigh more general planning considerations since buildings, for example, will remain long after the personal circumstances of the applicant have ceased to be relevant.

7. RECOMMENDATION

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

1. The proposed self contained annexe by reason of its location within the site, and its self contained facilities would result in an additional unit of accommodation in the countryside contrary to policy CP1 and CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Policies and policy DC1, DC2, DC3 and DC28 of the General Development Control Policies. 2. The site lies in a rural area and the proposed development being unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry or the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste, conflicts with policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. 3. The proposed annex by reason of its size, design and siting would detract from the setting of the listed building and would harm the rural character of the locality and would therefore be contrary to policy DC9, and DC13 of the General Development Control Polices as well as the requirements of PPS5.

Background Papers: DC/10/2344 and DC/11/1268 Contact Officer: Nicola Mason

WK3/DC071028/46 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 20th September 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing building, construction of two-storey building with ground floor veterinary surgery and first floor flat

SITE: Former Flower Pots, London Road, Ashington

WARD: Chanctonbury

APPLICATION: DC/11/1314

APPLICANT: Mr Matthew Gittings (Arun Veterinary Group)

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement that ties the ownership of the flat to qualifying local residents or an employee of Arun Veterinary Practice & securing financial contributions towards community facilities.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a 2 storey building with ground floor veterinary surgery and first floor 1 x 2 bed flat. The proposed building would measure 9.2m in width by 14.9m in depth and would have a ridge height of 7.4m. The building would not have a square foot print due to the angle of the southern boundary of the plot. The ground floor plan shows a consulting room, waiting area, reception, lobby, dispensary, lab, cat ward, dog ward, instrument prep and theatre and the 1st floor shows a sitting

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.

room, kitchen/breakfast room, 2 bedrooms, one with en-suite and a cloakroom and shower room.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site is located within the built up area of Ashington and is located on the western side of London Road. The site is of a triangular shape with a stream running along the southern boundary of the site. There is a shallow bungalow known as Brookside to the north of the site and Bridge Garage to the south of the site. The site currently consists of a single storey building which has been unused for a number of years.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 DC/05/1284 - Demolition of Brookside and Flowerpots (vacant shop) and the erection of a 2 storey building comprising 2 retail units and 6 residential flats and access (scheme A), withdrawn July 2005

DC/05/1287 - Demolition of Flowerpots (vacant shop) and erection of 2 retail units and 2 flats (Scheme B), withdrawn July 2005

DC/05/2892 - Demolition of existing dwelling and shop and erection of 2 retail units and 6 flats and access, withdrawn January 2006

DC/06/1605 - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 2-storey building comprising 4 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed (total 6) flats, withdrawn July 2007

DC/08/0220 – Construction of one retail premises and 2 x 2 bed flats, withdrawn September 2009

DC/09/2298 – Demolition of existing building construction of 2-storey building with ground floor veterinary surgery and a first floor 1 x 3 bed flat, permitted September 2010

There is no other relevant planning history for the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS3.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the quality of new development, CP5 – Built up areas and previously developed land, CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs & CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC9 – Development principles and DC40 – Transport & Access.

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

3.1 Strategic & Community Planning has stated “This proposal seeks permission for the demolition of the existing building, construction of a two-storey building with ground floor veterinary surgery and first floor flat at Former Flower Pots, London Road, Ashington. A policy view was provided on the previously approved application (DC/09/2298), which was an almost identical scheme proposing mixed uses, and therefore the general principle of our comments has remained the same.

The application needs to be considered against the Local Development Framework particularly the adopted Core Strategy 2007; the General Development Control Policies 2007; and the Site Specific Allocations of Land 2007.

The proposed development is located within the built up area boundary of Ashington, a Category 2 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy 2007. Policy CP5 sets out that Category 2 settlements have a limited level of services and should accommodate only small-scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs (which are specifically defined, in order to avoid reinforcing unsustainable travel patterns). Policy CP5 goes on to state that the emphasis will be on the re-use of suitable previously developed land for housing.

The comments for DC/09/2298, raised the issue that although Strategic Planning appreciates the proposed development is on previously developed land and will provide a replacement service for the settlement that generally accords with Policy DC19 of the Development Control Policies DPD and looks to address local needs; Strategic Planning believes that the construction of the veterinary surgery does not necessarily, in itself, justify the need for market housing and that the Site Specific Allocations of Land DPD 2007 Policy AL6, and subsequent planning permission DC/10/0864, allocates Land at Meiros Farm for 29 dwellings, which will address specific market housing, and indeed, affordable housing, needs in the settlement for the foreseeable future.

However, DC/09/2298 was approved as the proposal was deemed to be acceptable against the local needs requirements to allow some limited further housing where there is an environmental benefit, and the applicant entered into a S106 Agreement that ties the ownership of the property(ies) to qualifying local residents for a period of time. Strategic Planning raise no objection in principle to this application as long as such agreement remains.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4.

In conclusion the department does not, in principle, raise a strategic policy objection to the proposal as long as the applicant enters into a S106 Agreement and you as the case officer are satisfied the minor changes to the scheme approved under DC/09/2298 are acceptable. We suggest that you are mindful of the aims of the relevant policies and the above comments.

The site specific matters raised above are best judged by you as a case officer after a site visit, however, I would be happy to offer further guidance if necessary.”

3.2 Public Health & Licensing has stated “The veterinary surgery is likely to generate a degree of noise from people and animals arriving and leaving the area, entering and exiting the building, from distressed animals in the surgery and other practice activities within the building. This will have an impact on the residential unit above the surgery. If animals are to be kept overnight in the dog and cat wards then this could also result in night-time disturbances for residents in the flat. It is not clear from the plans whether there will be any air handling units for air conditioning and forced ventilation which again could have an impact on the noise environment for residents in the flat.

For these reasons I recommend that not only should the ownership of the veterinary surgery and the flat remain tied, but also the occupancy of the flat should be linked to those involved in the veterinary surgery.

Any air handling units should be assessed for noise impacts using the principles of BS4142.

I recommend that general opening hours of the surgery should be restricted to 0800-1800 on Mondays to Fridays and to 0800-1300 on Saturdays, allowing for emergency admissions on an occasional basis.

During the demolition and construction phase, in order to prevent pollution a construction environmental management plan should be submitted, approved and implemented. This should have regard to best practice measures to control noise, dust and waste. Useful guidance for appropriate noise controls can be found in the British Standard BS 5228-1: 2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites; and guidance for dust control is found in the BRE publication Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Sites (2003). It is likely that a site waste management plan will be necessary due to the project cost of the development and this would be sufficient to cover controls on wastes arising from construction and demolition activities.

There should be no open burning of waste materials on the site.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 West Sussex County Council has stated “WSCC was consulted on a previous planning application (DC/09/2298) for a proposed veterinary surgery in this location and raised no highway objections. It is understood that this latest application mainly involves changes to the design and boundary treatments.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5.

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

From an inspection of the plans alone, the proposed amendments to the previous application are not anticipated to impact adversely on highway safety.”

3.4 Southern Water has stated “Southern Water requires a formal application for any new connection to the public foul sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.

We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: “A formal application for any new connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, S023 9EH (Tel 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk”

The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site is via a watercourse. The Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse.

The application proposes development that may produce a trade effluent. No trade effluent can be discharged either directly or indirectly to any public sewer without the formal consent of Southern Water. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water’s Trade Effluent Inspectors. Please see https:www.southernwater.co.uk/BusinessCustomers/wasteSeivices/tradeEffluent/ for further information.

3.5 The Environment Agency has stated “The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measure(s) as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission.

Condition 1 - The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: Finished floor levels are set no lower than 25.5m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).”

PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.6 Ashington Parish Council has stated that “The Council had no objections to the application. There was slight concern that the proposed colour scheme (green walls with grey window frames) is possibly not in keeping with the street scene.”

3.7 1 letter of objection has been received on the grounds that:  The application site includes some of Brookside’s land;  The site is very tight with little amenity space;  The proposed building is 2 storeys and is massive compared to the bungalow; APPENDIX A/ 8 - 6.

 The proposed footprint is much larger than the existing one and goes up another storey;  There is no enough amenity space for such a large building;  There will be overlooking from the side dormer windows;  The customers will be able to stare into the lounge at Brookside;  If the fence height is taken from the top of the raised walkways then the fences would actually measure 2.25m and will be overbearing;  The 2 storey building will restrict light entering the lounge and kitchen window;  Concern is raised at noise disturbance from dogs barking;  The bins will be positioned outside the kitchen window which will create odours;  The parking survey is not a true and accurate reflection of what occurs on site;  Where will staff and customers be parking?

3.8 15 letters of support have been received on the grounds that:

 Any sympathetic development will be a huge improvement;  Having a veterinary surgery within the village will make many residents lives much easier;  We currently have to travel to Storrington to visit a vets;  The demolition of a dilapidated building and its replacement with something in keeping can only be a good thing for the village;  The property has been empty for approx 5yrs now and is in desperate need for demolition and redevelopment;  the existing 8' closed board fence that runs from the rear corner of the property adjacent to the stream and parallel with the stream which joins the adjoining bungalow 'Brookside' is retained/replaced with like for like and that sufficient 'shrubbery' remains in situ to avoid what would be a direct view into the rear of our garden across the stream;  the drawings indicate that there will be a balcony on the upper level that would also allow an unrestricted view into our garden without such fencing/retention of existing shrubbery;  Concern is raised at where the veterinary customers will park and Monza Garage currently park in the lay-by outside the building;

3.9 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

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.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 7.

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

6.2 The proposed building would measure 9.2m in width by 14.9m in depth and would have a ridge height of 7.4m. A similar building was permitted under DC/09/2298 and this building measured 9.8m in width by 14.3m in depth and had a ridge height of 7.2m. The main difference from the approved scheme and the one before you is that the application site (red edge) has been reduced on the northern side of the site and it no longer incorporates a car parking space to the front of Brookside. This land is owned by Brookside. Additionally, the building is now 0.6m less in width, would be 0.6m deeper and would be 0.2m higher than the scheme approved under DC/09/2298. The flat is now a 2 bedroom flat instead of a 3 bed flat as proposed previously.

6.3 A previous application for the construction of retail premises and 2 x 2 bed flats under reference DC/08/0220 was recommended for approval but subsequently withdrawn. This application was considered acceptable subject to the flats being advertised for a period of 1 year to people with a direct link to the Parish of Ashington, then after 1 year they could be advertised to people within Thakeham, Washington, Wiston & Shipley for a further year and if the occupiers of the properties wished to sell or vacate the dwellings within a period of 5 years of their first date of occupation then the dwellings would have been marketed as above. This building measured 9.9m in width by 14.5m in depth and had a ridge height of 7.2m.

6.4 The Local Development Framework Core Strategy has identified two categories of settlements which are considered appropriate to have a defined built-up area. These settlements are categorised as a reflection of their relative position in a “settlement sustainability hierarchy” by virtue of their ability potentially to accommodate different levels of additional development. Category 1 settlements are classified as towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport – capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. Category 2 settlements are villages with a more limited level of services which should accommodate only small scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs. Policy CP5 stresses that development in Category 2 settlements should be strongly justified by both need and sustainability criteria.

6.5 Ashington is a Category 2 settlement and in this respect, development is resisted unless it can be demonstrated to contribute to meeting identified local requirements for housing including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of APPENDIX A/ 8 - 8.

community facilities and services and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

6.6 The retail unit at the application site is understood to have been empty for in excess of 5 years and, as a result, the application site is beginning to fall into some disrepair. The site is highly visible when entering Ashington from the southern end of the village and even allowing for the current appearance of the building, its part flat roofed design means that even when operational, the building contributed little to the character of the area.

6.7 While the current appearance of the building is not in itself a reason for granting planning permission, it is clear that an appropriate redevelopment scheme could visually enhance the character of the surrounding area. Although it is apparent that little has been done in terms of maintaining the building, it should also be borne in mind that the owners of the site have been trying to secure planning permission for the site over recent years.

6.8 Dealing with the appearance of the development first, it is considered that the scale of the development has now been reduced to a suitable level. Previously, officers were concerned that the proposed building at the front of the site could appear overbearing within the street scene while to the rear, although there was sufficient distance to neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, the bulk of the design could potentially affect the outlook from 6 Brookside to the rear and Brookside to the north. However, the current proposal is very similar to the approved scheme granted under DC/09/2298. It would be very difficult to justify refusal of this current scheme given the applicant has an approved scheme that could be implemented.

6.9 At its nearest point, the proposed building would be approximately 30 metres away from the nearest residential property to the rear, 6 Brookside. The distance therefore exceeds the Council’s distance of 21 metres between 1st floor facing windows. With regard to the concerns of the owner of Brookside, amended and additional plans have been sought in relation to the precise gap to the northern boundary, the height of the fence which now incorporates trellis to the top in order to reduce light loss to Brookside, obscure glass has been fitted to the dormer windows in the northern elevation in order to prevent overlooking of Brookside and windows in the northern ground floor level would be fitted with opening restrictors.

6.10 Concerns in respect of highway safety are noted, particularly with regard to the lay- by in front of the application site. The County Surveyor has stated “From an inspection of the plans alone, the proposed amendments to the previous application are not anticipated to impact adversely on highway safety.” The Highway Authority commented on the previous application stating “The majority of users of the veterinary surgery are likely to be travelling from the local area and therefore a significant number will not rely on the use of a private car. It is noted that there is currently a demand for on street spaces in this location, however WSCC would not be minded to raise any highway safety objections to the proposals. On street parking is not restricted in this area and the demand for parking is not anticipated to be excessive as it is likely that the surgery will employ an appointment based operation.”

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 9.

6.11 The remaining issue is therefore key to the determination of the application on the assumption that in all other respects the application is acceptable. Ashington is a ‘Category 2’ settlement as defined by policy CP5 of the Local Development Framework. Development within such settlements should accommodate only small- scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs. Policy CP12 sets out the District’s requirements for affordable housing provision and in settlements with a population of less than 3000, including Ashington, the policy requires that permission will only be granted for schemes providing 100% affordable housing, unless it can be demonstrated that market housing is required under Policies CP5 or CP8. Policy CP8 is not relevant in this instance as it relates to greenfield sites.

6.12 The application does propose 1 open market unit and therefore, for it to comply with policies it needs to demonstrate that market housing is required. The comments of both the Head of Strategic & Community Planning and the Housing Strategy & Development Manager are relevant. Firstly, the Head of Strategic & Community Planning comments “our comments on the previous applications (DC/08/0220 & DC/09/2298) stated that the proposal may be acceptable against the local needs requirements to allow some limited further housing where there is an environmental benefit and where there is also a S106 Agreement that ties the ownership of the property to qualifying local residents for a period of 10 years, for example. The applicant has expressed a willingness to enter into such an agreement and in such circumstances this department would have no objection in principle to the application.” For the reasons outlined above, it would appear that there could be an environmental benefit, since the proposal would improve the visual character of the area in a gateway location to the village.

6.13 The Housing Strategy & Development Manager comments that “our comments on the previous applications (DC/08/0220 & DC/09/2298) stated that the proposal may be acceptable against the local needs requirements to allow some limited further housing where there is an environmental benefit and where there is also a S106 Agreement that ties the ownership of the property to qualifying local residents for a period of 10 years, for example. The applicant has expressed a willingness to enter into such an agreement and in such circumstances this department would have no objection in principle to the application. Housing Officers support the above comments and welcome the restriction to tie ownership of the property to qualifying local residents for an agreed time period.”

6.14 The applicants would need to enter into a legal agreement which ensures that the flat is only marketed and occupied in the first instance by people within the Parish of Ashington or by an employee of Arun Veterinary Practice. After a period of 1 year of advertising, the flat could be marketed to people within Thakeham, Washington, Wiston & Shipley parishes. If the occupiers of the flat subsequently wished to sell or vacate the flat within 5 years of their first date of occupation then the flat would be marketed to people within Ashington Parish for up to 1 year and then onto the surrounding parishes for another year. None of these Parishes, including Ashington, contains a Category 1 settlement and therefore the potential occupiers of the proposed flat would not be relocating from a more sustainable location to an unsustainable location. As such, therefore, it could be held that APPENDIX A/ 8 - 10.

occupation of the flat by local people, in housing need, would not reinforce unsustainable transport patterns.

6.15 It is considered, therefore, that in this particular instance a case can be made for granting permission subject to the legal agreement restricting the occupation of the flat, in the first instance, to those in the Parish of Ashington and secondly within adjoining Parishes as well as to the standard financial contributions towards community facilities (£1385). On balance, it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement that ties the ownership of the flat to qualifying local residents or an employee of Arun Veterinary Practice & securing financial contributions towards community facilities.

1) A2 Full Permission 2) M1 Approval of Materials 3) D5 No windows 4) E3 Fencing 5) J1 Use Limitation ‘Arun Veterinary Practice to the ground floor and a 1st floor residential flat’ 6) L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping (to include details of the restoration/soft landscaping to the river bank) 7) O1 Hours of Working 8) O2 Burning Of materials 9) The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved FRA and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 25.5m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).Reason

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 and Policy DC5 of Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

10) Development shall not begin 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 LPA. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 11.

11) H10 Cycling Provision 12) S2 Restriction on occupation (Sewage Disposal) “Before development commences, details of the disposal of sewage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.”

13) The Veterinary Practice shall not be open for trade and business except between the hours of:

0800 hours and 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive; 0830 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays; And no work shall be undertaken on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason – V2

14) Before development commences (including demolition) a construction environmental management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management plan should have regard to best practice measures to control noise, dust and waste.

Reason – N8 reason

Note to Applicant

The applicant is advised that useful guidance for appropriate noise controls can be found in the British Standard BS 5228-1:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites; and guidance for dust control is found in the BRE publication Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Sites (2003).

Note to applicant

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

Note to Applicant

The applicant is advised that should they wish to have a 1 hour waiting restrictions placed on the lay by outside the site, then they would need to contact the Traffic Regulation Order Team at West Sussex County Council on 01243 777100.

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

The proposed development would meet an identified housing need, would not reinforce unsustainable transport patterns and would improve the visual character of the area. APPENDIX A/ 8 - 12.

Background Papers: DC/11/1314, DC/08/0220 & DC/09/2298

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20 September 2011 Removal of existing roof, new roof formed with dormers with rooms in roof space, alterations and extensions to ground floor and erection of new DEVELOPMENT: double garage (revised scheme showing reduction in entrance and overall roof pitch and height) SITE: Cambounet Bower Lane West Chiltington Pulborough WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/11/1491 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs D Brandon

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for the increase in height of the existing roof to provide accommodation within the roof space as well as the addition of dormer windows on the front and rear elevations.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site is located on the northern corner of Bower Lane and Silver Glade with access via the latter. The existing dwelling is a single storey building, positioned relatively centrally within the plot and benefits from a large parking area to the front and also has a swimming pool in the north west corner. The property is located within the built up area of West Chiltington.

Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are DC9 & DC15 in Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.4 DC/1/0563 Removal of existing roof, new roof formed with dormers with rooms in roof space. Alterations and extensions to ground floor and erection of new double garage - Withdrawn

DC/11/1478 Removal of existing roof, new roof formed with dormers with rooms in roof space, alterations and extensions to ground floor and erection of new double garage (revised scheme with reduced entrance) – Pending

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 No internal consultation

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Chiltington Parish Council had made no comments at the time of writing this report and any comments will be given verbally at the meeting.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 16 letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and other areas, who have made the following comments:

 The proposal is out of proportion  Out of character with the area  Overlooking to neighbouring dwellings  Overdevelopment  Damaging to the local area  Excessive in height  Loss of privacy

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issue is the effect of the development on the surrounding area and the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

6.2 The application seeks permission for the raising the height of the existing roof to provide first floor accommodation, as well as a new front porch, a single storey extension and conservatory on the rear elevation. The application also includes a double garage. The proposed application is a resubmission of the previously withdrawn application DC/11/0563 which was considered to be excessive in size and would have an overbearing impact upon the existing dwelling and thereby having a detrimental affect upon the surrounding area. It was also considered to cause undue harm to the neighbouring dwellings, by way of overlooking and a loss of privacy. This application also sits alongside a larger scheme from this one, which has since been refused.

6.3 The proposed extension would increase the ridge height of the dwelling from 4.6m to 7m an increase of approx 2.4m, which would create 4 bedrooms, 2 ensuite and a further bathroom. The proposal also includes 3 dormer windows on the northern of which amended plans have been received to include obscure glazing and 4 on the southern elevations, as well as a number of rooflights. The proposed single storey extension creating a larger kitchen/utility room, situated along the rear elevation would be modest in size, being 1.2m in depth and 8m in width abutting the proposed conservatory on the eastern side of the rear elevation, which measures 5.8m in width to a depth of 4.4m. Both these aspects of the application would be considered acceptable. The proposed increase in roof height to provide further living accommodation is considered to be an improvement from previous schemes and acceptable in its height, scale and massing, as to not have an overbearing impact upon the existing dwelling, as well as the additional height being considered consistent with neighbouring dwellings and therefore would not cause any undue harm to the surrounding area. The dwelling sits within a large plot that is well screened by vegetation, as well as sufficient separation distances from neighbouring dwellings which would not be considered to have a detrimental impact upon their residential amenities.

6.4 The proposal therefore complies with the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007)

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01. A2 Full Permission 02. M6 Prescribed Materials

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4

03. The windows in the first floor of the northern elevation of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass as shown on the approved plans. Details of which, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening details shall be maintained at all times.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/0563, DC/11/1478 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 20th September 2011

DEVELOPMENT: 2 No. semi-detached dwellings to replace existing dwelling and carport

SITE: St Francis, Thakeham Road, Storrington

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/11/1460

APPLICANT: Mr N Johnson

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure community facilities and transport infrastructure contributions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal is for the erection of 2 no. semi-detached dwellings to replace the existing dwelling and carport. Amended plans have been received which reduce the ridge height of the dwellings from 9.5m to 8m in height. The dwellings would measure 14m in total width (7m each) by 11m in depth and would have a ridge height of 8m. The dwellings would provide a living room, kitchen/diner, utility, and cloakroom to ground floor level, 3 bedrooms, an en-suite and a bathroom to 1st floor level and a further bedroom/office to the 2nd floor level.

1.2 The dwellings would be sited 16.6m from the front boundary, a gap of 1.2m would be retained to the eastern boundary, a gap of 1.5m would be retained to the

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2.

western boundary and a rear garden measuring 16.8m in depth by approximately 8m in width would be provided for each dwelling.

1.3 A separate garage block is proposed to the rear of the dwellings which would measure 12.2m in width by 6.2m in depth and would have a ridge height of 5m. The building would provide a cycle/bin store and car port for each dwelling.

1.4 Application DC/05/1081 permitted a replacement dwelling and garage in June 2005. This application permitted the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement on a one for one basis.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The proposed site is within the built up area of Storrington and is located on the southern side of Thakeham Road. There are two large oak trees to the front boundary of the site. There is a detached single storey bungalow on site at present with vehicular access via a single track lane to the west of the site. This single track lane gives access to Foxgloves which is a neighbouring property to the rear of the site. The rear garden is laid to lawn. There are 10 terrace properties to the west which back onto the application site. To the east of the site is the vehicular access to the church and its associated car parking.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.6 SG/35/63 Site for bungalow, Refused December 1963

SG/42/63 Site for bungalow, permitted January 1964

SG/17/64 Bungalow, Permitted July 1964

DC/05/1081 Replacement dwelling and garage, permitted June 2005.

DC/10/2147 Two new dwellings to replace existing dwelling, withdrawn 15th December 2010

DC/11/0789 Two new dwellings to replace existing dwelling, refused 30th June 2011

There is no other relevant planning history for the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS3.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the quality of new development, CP5 – Built up areas and previously developed land, CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs & CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC9 – Development principles and DC40 – Transport & Access.

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

3.1 The comments of the Arboricultural Officer will be reported verbally at the meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Southern Water has commented that they “require a formal application for any new connection to the public foul sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent:

A formal application for any new connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, S023 9EH (Tel 01962 858688) or www.southemwater.co.uk

The planning application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system.”

3.3 West Sussex County Council has commented that “I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments. West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. DC/11/0789 to which no objections were raised.

This application is comparable to the existing application. The existing access will be utilised with car parking to the rear. Previously the applicant stated that they could achieve 90 metres in visibility in both directions along this part of Thakeham APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4.

Road. From an inspection of the latest plans this would appear to be accurate. Turning has been provided for both properties. The most recently available verified accident records, which reveals there have been no personal injury accidents in vicinity of the existing point of access. The proposed parking is considered adequate for what is being proposed. Cycle parking should also be included this most be secure covered and capable of holding at least one cycle per bedroom of the proposed dwellings.

The proposal will see a small intensification in use of what already exists at the site however it is unlikely that this intensification would lead to a highway safety issue.

If the LPA are minded to approve this application a condition securing cycle parking, vehicular parking and turning should be included.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.4 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council has commented that “Members agreed that this application was an improvement on the previous plans and could see no planning grounds to object. The proposed properties are more in keeping with the surrounding ones and fit better on the plot. It was also noted that the applicant had taken on board previous comments regarding parking. It is felt that the proposed rooflines are visually (due to the fact that no measurements appear on the Plans) in line with those of Timberlands. No objection providing that the measurements of the roofs and car ports are in keeping with the surrounding area/properties.”

3.5 7 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:

 The right of way over the private drive to Foxgloves only extends for 74” from the road which means there is no access to the car ports and no building is allowed nearer than 33” from the south east boundary;  The land was originally sold for one dwelling only;  The height and close proximity of the dwellings would overshadow numbers 9 and 10 Timberlands;  The car ports seem inaccessible as this would involve the use of the private drive to Foxgloves;  The height of the buildings appears too high;  Several trees have been lost on this site and further loss would alter the character of the area;  Additional traffic entering/exiting Thakeham Road will cause highway safety issues;  The rear windows of the dwellings would look directly into the rear gardens of Timberlands causing loss of privacy;  Over development of the site;

3.6 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

6.2 Storrington is a Category 1 Settlement and therefore infill is acceptable in principle subject to other Development Plan policies. Category 1 settlements are classified as towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport – capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.

6.3 Policy DC9 states planning permission will be granted for development which:

a) make efficient use of land whilst respecting any constraints that exist; b) do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking; c) ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of high standard of design and layout; d) are locally distinctive in character, respect the character of the surrounding area; e) use high standards of building materials, finishes and landscaping;

6.4 Application DC/05/1081 permitted a replacement dwelling and garage in June 2005. This application permitted the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement on a one for one basis. The permitted dwelling was to be sited where the existing dwelling is sited within the plot. The dwelling permitted measures 10.6m by 9m (10.5m when measuring the gable projection) and would have a ridge height of 7.6m and 8.7m when measuring the gable. The western elevation (the elevation facing the houses at Timberlands) of the dwelling is of 1 ½ style design.

6.5 Amended plans have been received which reduce the ridge height of the dwellings proposed from 9.5m to 8m in height. The dwellings proposed under this application would be 3.4m wider in total, 2m deeper/0.5m deeper (if you measure the gable projection) and 0.4m higher than the lower part of the approved dwelling’s roof and 0.7m lower than the higher gable projection on the approved dwelling (DC/05/1081). APPENDIX A/ 10 - 6.

6.6 The dwellings would be sited 16.6m from the front boundary, a gap of 1.2m would be retained to the eastern boundary, a gap of 1.5m would be retained to the western boundary and a rear garden measuring 16.8m in depth by approximately 8m in width would be provided for each dwelling. A separate garage block is proposed to the rear of the dwellings which would measure 12.2m in width by 6.2m in depth and would have a ridge height of 5m. The building would provide a cycle/bin store and car port for each dwelling.

6.7 This proposal has overcome the tight relationship/overlooking & loss of outlook that existed between the 2 dwellings proposed on the two previous applications (DC/10/2147 & DC/11/0789). By having 2 semi-detached properties this proposal addresses the rear window to front window relationship that was of concern previously. A distance of approximately 16m would be retained between the proposed dwellings and the row of terrace properties to the west (Timberlands). Many letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of Timberlands stating that the proposed dwellings would restrict their outlook and have an overbearing impact. In this respect, it is considered that the height of the dwellings has been reduced down to 8m and there would be a distance of 16 metres between their rear elevations and the dwellings side elevation which is above the Council’s recommended rear to side elevation distance of 10.5m within the Council’s Design Guidance Advice leaflet No. 1. Therefore it is considered that it would be difficult to justify a refusal reason on these particular grounds.

6.8 Several of the objectors have raised concerns at loss of light and overshadowing of the properties at Timberlands. A distance of at least 5.5m would be retained between the side elevation of the dwellings and Timberlands rear boundary fences which would prevent overshadowing of their rear gardens. An access to Foxgloves runs down the south west side of the site which separates the proposed properties from the rear gardens of Timberlands.

6.9 Highway safety concerns have also been raised, however West Sussex Highway Authority has commented that “The proposal will see a small intensification in use of what already exists at the site however it is unlikely that this intensification would lead to a highway safety issue.” Additional concerns have been raised over the ownership of the access driveway and the right to pass, this is a private civil matter between the parties involved and is not considered to be a planning matter.

6.10 There are many differing sized plots in the area, however the dwellings proposed for these plots are considered to be in keeping with the pattern and character of surrounding development. It is considered that the size of the useable residential amenity area for each dwelling is now proportionate to the size of the dwellings and surrounding plots. It is considered that the dwellings proposed under this application have addressed many of the concerns raised previously and the proposal is considered to be of a scale and character that is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and the development would not materially affect neighbouring occupiers to an extent that would warrant refusal of the application.

6.11 In June 2007 the Planning Authority adopted a Supplementary Planning Document as part of the Local Development Framework entitled ‘Planning Obligations’. The APPENDIX A/ 10 - 7.

document provides 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 will be sought. Its purpose is to provide developers, land owners and local communities with further details on the requirements of the District Council have set out to ensure that the process is efficient, transparent, coordinated and managed. The Document was the subject of widespread public consultation prior to its formal adoption. The obligations it seeks are to be used to prescribe the nature of development, to compensate for the loss or damage created by the development or to mitigate a development’s impact on the surrounding built and natural environment. A small residential development such as this is expected to make financial contributions to the following:

o Sustainable transport initiatives and highways as part of a Transport Access Demand contribution. o Open space, sport and recreation provision. o Community facilities and services.

The method by which financial contributions towards transport improvement, open space and community facilities are to be calculated is set out in some detail within the annually reviewed annexe section of the document and, in particular, reference is made to Annexe B, Group B, Sections 1, 2 and 3. In respect of the TAD contribution, Supplementary Planning Guidance would seek a contribution of £2520, a Fire & Rescue Contribution of £180 and a community facilities contribution of £2930 is sought. These figures have been calculated by reference to the annex of annually reviewed indices that forms part of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application be granted subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure community facilities and transport infrastructure contributions and the following conditions:

1) A2 Full Permission - 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) M1 Approval of Materials - 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.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 8.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3) E3 Fencing - No development shall take place until details of screen walls, gates 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, gates 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.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4) J10 Removal of permitted development – dwellings “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (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(s) of the dwelling(s) 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.”

5) L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping - No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants 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 the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6) G6 Recycling - The dwelling(s) / building(s) 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.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 9.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

7) O1 Hours of Working - 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 DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

8) H10 Cycling Provision - Before development commences, details of the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

9) S4 Surface Water Details (Option A) - Full details of means of surface water drainage to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on development. 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.

10) Deliveries, loading and unloading shall be restricted to 0800 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and no deliveries, loading or unloading shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

Reason – V2 reason

11) O2 Burning of Materials - No burning of materials shall take place on the site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 10.

12) D5 No windows “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 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 any of the elevations of the development without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.”

13) No development shall take place until an initial design stage assessment by an accredited assessor for the Code for Sustainable Homes and an accompanying interim certificate stating that each dwelling has been designed to achieve Level 3 of the Code has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until it has been issued with a final Code certificate of compliance." Reason – To ensure the construction of a sustainable form of development and to take into account the impact of climate change in accordance with policy DC8 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies.

14) D6 Finished Floor Levels

15) D4 Obscured Glass “Windows in the bathrooms, en-suites & cloakrooms’

8. Reasons

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

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

Background Papers: DC/11/1460, DC/11/0789, DC/10/2147 & DC/05/1081

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 20th September 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Retrospective permission for the replacement of 1 No. air conditioning unit and installation of 2 No. additional air conditioning units on wall of service station SITE: Harwoods Rover, Horsham Road, Five Oaks WARD: Billingshurst & Shipley APPLICATION: DC/11/0120 APPLICANT: Harwoods Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the retention of 2 No. air conditioning units and 1 No. refrigeration cooling unit on the eastern wall of the service station building. The three units are situated next to each other, are located 2.7 metres above ground floor level and incorporate varying sizes. The refrigeration cooling unit measures 1.3 metres by 0.5 metres and 0.9 metres in height. The two air conditioning units measure 0.9 metres by 0.5 metres and 0.8 metres in height and 0.7 metres by 0.5 metres and 0.5 metres in height.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The application site comprises a petrol station located on the northern side of Horsham Road. The main sales building is located adjacent to the road and comprises a single storey building with a canopy which extends over the pump forecourt to the western side of the building.

Contact: Rebecca Tier Extension: 5382 APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2.

1.3 The site is located outside the built up area with an open grassed area to the north and Harwood’s car sales garage situated to the west. On the opposite side of the road there are a number of two storey residential properties.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

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

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

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/11/0121 – Planning permission was refused in 2011 for the retention of 1 No. replacement illuminated pole sign, 1 No. replacement illuminated canopy fascia sign, 1 No. replacement illuminated shop fascia sign, 1 No. new illuminated 'Wild Bean Cafe' sign, new services signage, new pump island signage and new freestanding poster sign.

DC/06/2909 – Planning permission was permitted in 2006 for 3 flag poles and flags and 2 free standing totem signs.

DC/05/0986 – Planning permission was permitted in 2005 for partial overcladding of buildings.

DC/04/0143 – Planning permission was permitted in 2004 for the retention of 6 lighting bollards.

DC/04/0102 – Planning permission was refused in 2004 for additional parking, soft landscaping, improved access and turning. The appeal on this application was subsequently dismissed.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Council’s Area Environmental Health Officer initially made the following comments on this application: APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3.

I have viewed plans on Public Access and visited the site on 2nd February 2011 to assess proposed layout of buildings and potential impact on neighbouring residential properties.

I note that there are some residential properties in close location to this site. The applicant will need to demonstrate that any adverse environmental impacts are mitigated especially the potential for noise nuisance from the air conditioning units affecting neighbouring residential properties at late night/early morning hours when the ambient traffic and background noise levels are reduced.

There is no technical data on the air conditioning units accompanying this application. This Department seeks reassurances that noise levels from the condensers will not exceed background noise levels as per the guidance provided in BS4142: 1997 Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas. The information should be supplied to this Department for prior approval before the application is considered.

The air conditioning units must operate optimally throughout life expectancy and therefore a clear servicing and maintenance programme for the units must be adopted. Details should be supplied to this Department for prior approval before the application is considered.

3.2 Following the submission of the Industrial Noise Assessment the Council’s Public Health & Licensing department have been re-consulted. The Council’s Area Environmental Health Officer has made the following comments:

The information received suggests that the projected noise levels at the nearest affected dwelling will be in the order of 33dBA. At these levels, it is unlikely that any disturbance will be caused.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Billingshurst Parish Council has raised no objection to this application.

3.4 One letter of objection has been received from an occupier of Hatari who considers that all three units are unsightly and are bound to impact considerably on the character of the area and the approaches into the small hamlet of Five Oaks. The neighbour also considers that these units are likely to become noisy in time and would have benefited from being situated on the rear of the building, out of sight, together with insulation and sound proofing.

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

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

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 4.

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

6.2 The proposal seeks to retain three air conditioning units which have been erected on the eastern wall of the service station building. The two smaller units provide indoor air conditioning units for the shop floor and office and the larger third unit serves the refrigerators within the shop. The units sit alongside each other and measure 0.9 metres by 0.5 metres, 1.3 metres by 0.5 metres and 0.7 metres by 0.5 metres. The easterly side of the building is most visible when travelling in a westerly direction along the A264. However, the three air conditioning units are not considered to be excessive in terms of size and their grey exterior colour do not appear out of keeping with the main petrol station building. It is therefore considered that the air conditioning units do not detract from the countryside location or appear duly prominent within the road.

6.3 There are a number of residential properties located on the opposite side of the road to the south of the application site. In order to ensure that the air conditioning units cause no impact to these neighbouring residents in terms of noise disturbance, the Council’s Area Environmental Health Officer requested that a noise assessment was submitted to assess the proposed noise levels of the units. An Industrial Noise Assessment report was subsequently submitted which assessed the existing background noise levels within the area and the noise levels omitted by the external plant machinery. The combined noise level at the nearest noise sensitive location (NNSL) with all plants operating has been calculated as 32dB(A). On the basis of the calculations and information incorporated in the report, the Council’s Area Environmental Health Officer has advised the case officer that the noise levels produced by the three units will be very low and is unlikely to cause any impact in terms of noise disturbance to the neighbouring occupiers on the opposite side of the road.

6.4 In conclusion, this report has sought to assess the impact of the refrigeration and air conditioning units on the character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. It if the view of officers that the units do not cause any impact on the appearance of the street scene or the countryside location in which the site is situated. With the additional acoustic information submitted, the Council’s Environmental Heath Officer has also indicated that the units cause no adverse impact in terms of noise disturbance to the neighbouring properties located to the south.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 5.

7.1 It is recommended that retrospective planning permission be granted.

8. REASONS

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

Background Papers: DC/11/0120 Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier APPENDIX A/ 12 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20th September 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Addition of 2 No. velux roof lights SITE: Bowshotts Stud, Cowfold Road, West Grinstead WARD: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/11/1308 APPLICANT: Mr Nick Hall

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

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the installation of 2 rooflights within the roofspace of this converted barn. The proposed rooflights would be sited on the side (north) elevation of this residential property.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 This site comprises a relatively large and deep plot which is quite narrow at the boundary of Cowfold Road but increases in width towards the rear of the site. The site also comprises a detached, 1 ½ storey dwelling which was granted planning permission to be converted to a residential property from an agricultural barn in 1988, this site also comprises a number of stable buildings, barns and equestrian facilities for the established equine use at this site.

1.3 This dwelling is located on the northern side of Cowfold Road and is situated outside the built up area as defined by the Local Development Framework and as such is subject to the relevant countryside policies of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007). There is a public footpath which runs north – south to the east of this site.

Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva Tel: 01403 215633 APPENDIX A/ 12 - 2

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1 & PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of the Horsham Development Control Policies (2007) are DC1, DC2, DC9 & DC28.

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

2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are C4, CC4 and CC6.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 DC/09/1811 – In 2009 planning permission was refused for the erection of a wind turbine.

DC/09/1809 – In 2009 planning permission was refused for the erection of a timber shed for use as a home office

DC/09/1807 – In 2009 planning permission was refused for the installation of rooflights, windows and solar panels

DC/08/1343 – In 2008 planning permission was granted for the retention of 2 rooflights in contravention of condition 5 of approved planning permission WG/101/88

WG/77/02 - In 2002 planning permission was granted for the construction of a riding arena

WG/76/02 – In 2002 planning permission was granted for the Erection of 2 replacement stable blocks comprising 6 stables feed room tack room and hay store

WG/77/02 – In 2002 planning permission was granted for the Construction of a riding arena

WG/14/98 – In 1998 planning permission was granted for the Conversion of barn area into living accommodation

WG/21/90 – In 1990 planning permission was granted for Conversion of stable block to annexe for dependant relative

WG/101/88 – In 1988 planning permission was granted for Conversion of part of barn to one residential unit

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

APPENDIX A/ 12 - 3

3.1 The Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser has stated that the 2 rooflights proposed on the hipped end of this building would clutter the roofslope and result in a negative appearance on this traditional roof.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 West Grinstead Parish Council has stated that they have no objection to the proposal.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issues are the scale and form of the development, the effect of the development on the character of the area and the character of the converted building, and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

6.2 This application seeks planning permission for the insertion of 2 additional rooflights within the roofspace of this converted barn, the main part of which was granted planning permission to be converted into a residential dwelling in 1988, further planning permission was granted in 1998 to convert the remainder of the barn building to residential. The proposed rooflights would be situated on the side (north) elevation on the hipped end roofslope of this dwelling.

6.3 In 2009 a planning application was refused for the insertion of 6 rooflights and 3 windows, this was refused as the number and siting of the rooflights were considered to detract from the character of the converted barn. Subsequent to this refusal 3 rooflights have been installed, 1 on the rear (west) and 2 on the front (east) elevation. However, these rooflights were approved under the original permissions in 1988 and 1998 to convert the different parts of the building, and as the works for these approvals commenced within the 5 year time limit of the permission, the remainder of the approved works can continue at any point as the planning permissions remain in perpetuity. Under the approved plans for these applications there is permission for an additional rooflight on the rear (west) elevation which has not been installed but could be inserted at any time in the future.

6.4 There are a total number of 5 rooflights in situ on the roofslope of the existing dwelling, there are also 2 rooflights on the single-storey element on the north elevation. The proposed 2 additional rooflights would be situated on the hipped end (north) elevation of this dwelling. This hipped end of the property is quite narrow and is of traditional steep pitch. It is considered that the cumulative impact of the proposed 2 additional rooflights combined with what is already in situ would have the effect of suburbanising the traditional character of this barn and as such would be harmful to the existing simple rural character APPENDIX A/ 12 - 4

of this converted property. The Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser has been consulted on this application and is of the opinion that the 2 rooflights proposed would clutter the roofslope and would result in a negative visual appearance on this traditional roof.

6.5 There are neighbouring dwellings to the east and west of this property. The nearest of these dwellings is located approximately 35m to the southwest of the proposed rooflights, given the nature of the proposed works, the oblique angles between these dwellings and the separation distances involved it is considered that there would be no adverse affects upon the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling as a result of the proposed works.

6.6 Whilst it is noted that the proposed rooflights would have no adverse affect upon the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, it is nonetheless recommended that planning permission be refused as the proposed rooflights by virtue of their number and siting would detract from the rural character of the converted barn. It is also considered that the hipped end roofslope on this barn is a particularly sensitive elevation and is of a simple traditional design and any alteration to this elevation would be likely to have an adverse impact upon the character of this converted barn.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 The proposed rooflights by reason of their siting and number would clutter the roofslope and represent an unacceptable form of development that would detract from the character of the converted barn. Furthermore, it is considered that the cumulative impact of the proposed works with the existing, suburbanises the rural character of the barn. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies 2007 and policies CP1 & CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007.

Background Papers: DC/11/1308, DC/09/1809, DC/08/1343, WG/14/98 & WG/101/88. APPENDIX A/ 13 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 20th September 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Proposed cessation of use of land for traveller pitches, demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 8 dwellings (Outline with some reserved matters)

SITE: Lamorna, Old London Road, Washington

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/10/1287

APPLICANT: Mr John Joseph Smith

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer Referral

RECOMMENDATION: To grant outline consent subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement that ties the ownership of five of the properties to qualifying local residents & securing financial contributions towards community facilities and transport infrastructure.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was first reported to 19th April’s Committee Meeting whereby it was resolved to grant permission & consideration had to be given to inclusion within the legal agreement of a clause requiring the existing occupiers to vacate the site prior to the occupation of the dwellings. Since then, the agent of the application has written to your officer expressing his wish to amend the wording of the legal agreement to that agreed at committee in April.

2. ASSESSMENT

2.1 Paragraph 6.9 of April’s committee report highlights the wording of the proposed legal agreement. The purpose of the legal agreement was to ensure that the houses are only marketed and occupied in the first instance by people within the Parish of Washington. After a period of 6 months of advertising, the houses could

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ 13 - 2.

be marketed to people within Ashington, Thakeham, Wiston & Shipley parishes. If the occupiers of the houses subsequently wished to sell or vacate the houses within 5 years of their first date of occupation then the houses would be marketed to people within Washington Parish for up to 6 months and then onto the surrounding parishes for another year.

2.2 The agent has stated that he wants the legal agreement to be amended to ensure that 5 houses are marketed and occupied in the first instance by people within the Parish of Washington. After a period of 6 months of advertising, the houses could be marketed to people within Ashington, Thakeham, Wiston & Shipley parishes. However, the agent wishes to delete the following sentence from the S106 legal agreement: “If the occupiers of the houses subsequently wished to sell or vacate the houses within 5 years of their first date of occupation then the houses would be marketed to people within Washington Parish for up to 6 months and then onto the surrounding parishes for another year”.

2.3 The agent has stated that the site has been marketed since April 2011 and this marketing exercise has demonstrated that whilst there are builders/developers willing to purchase the site in principle, they are not able to proceed as they cannot secure development funding based on the premise that this restriction also applies to future purchasers of the dwellings after the 1st occupiers sell. This reduces even further the extremely small pool of possible purchasers. Lenders see the probable prolonged lock up of capital and lack of cash flow negatively as this situation could easily tip the builder into liquidation. The purchasers would be extremely unlikely to secure a mortgage even with a deposit as the limited ability to sell the unit over a 12 month period does not fulfil lending criteria and would also make disposal very difficult for the lenders should owners default and the lender re possess.

2.4 Therefore, it is considered that given the situation, the deletion of the second part of the wording in the legal agreement could be considered acceptable as the legal agreement would still seek to restrict the occupation of 5 houses to local people in the first instance.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 It is recommended that outline consent be granted subject to a S106 legal agreement that ties the ownership of five of the properties to qualifying local residents & securing financial contributions towards community facilities and transport infrastructure and subject to the following conditions:

1) A1 Outline Permission 2) M1 Approval Of Materials 3) E3 Fencing 4) J10 Removal of permitted development – dwellings 5) L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping 6) G6 Recycling 7) O1 Hours of Working 8) H10 Cycling Provision 9) S4 Surface Water Details (Option A) 10) Deliveries, loading and unloading shall be restricted to 0800 hours APPENDIX A/ 13 - 3.

and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and no deliveries, loading or unloading shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays. Reason – V2 reason 11) O2 Burning of Materials 12) No development shall take place until an initial design stage assessment by an accredited assessor for the Code for Sustainable Homes and an accompanying interim certificate stating that each dwelling has been designed to achieve Level 3 of the Code has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until it has been issued with a final Code certificate of compliance." Reason – To ensure the construction of a sustainable form of development and to take into account the impact of climate change in accordance with policy DC8 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies. 13) D6 Finished Floor Levels 14) S2 Restriction on occupation (Sewage Disposal) 15) H1 Access (General) (1st Option)

4. REASONS

The proposed development would meet an identified housing need.

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

Background Papers: DC/10/1287 & DC/09/0801

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler

APPENDIX A/ .

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19th April 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Proposed cessation of use of land for traveller pitches, demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 8 dwellings (Outline with some reserved matters)

SITE: Lamorna, Old London Road, Washington

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/10/1287

APPLICANT: Mr John Joseph Smith

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer Referral

RECOMMENDATION: To grant outline consent subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement that ties the ownership of five of the properties to qualifying local residents & securing financial contributions towards community facilities and transport infrastructure.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks outline consent for the removal of the existing mobile homes, outbuildings & existing dwelling and the erection of 8 no. dwellings (3 semi- detached pairs and 2 detached) each with a single garage. The applicant has indicated that the layout and access are to be considered as part of this outline application, all other matters will be dealt with under any subsequent reserved matters application should consent be granted.

Contact: Kathryn Sadler Extension:5175 APPENDIX A/ .

1.2 The applicant has agreed that five of the dwellings (60% of the units) could be tied via a S106 legal agreement so that they could only be marketed & sold to local people within the parish for a period of up to 6 months.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 Lamorna is located outside any built up area and is therefore in a countryside location. The site is located on the western side of the A24 and is accessed off a single width access track via Old London Road. The site consists of a single storey detached bungalow which is presently un-occupied, two mobile homes and a caravan which are occupied by the applicant’s romany family. There are several outbuildings which are used for storage. There is a derelict caravan and several vehicles on site including a horse box, trailer, vans and cars. The site is level on entry but rises up quite substantially to the north west side. The boundaries of the site are heavily vegetated which provides screening.

1.4 Montpelier Gardens which consists of a close of 2 storey semi-detached properties runs along the southern boundary of the site and access way. To the east of the site is The Cottage and Iron Stone Barn and Vineyards is located to the east of the site.

1.5 The Gypsy Count in July 2008 indicated that there were 8 unauthorised mobile homes and that on the 19th January 2009 there were 3 unauthorised mobile homes on site. From the Council’s records there is no planning history relating to a planning permission for 8 mobile homes on this site. It would appear that the mobile homes and caravans on the site are unauthorised.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.6 WS/17/83 Mobile home, WC and showers, permitted 23/8/1983

WS/18/86 Permanent retention of mobile home, permitted 30/7/1986

WS/5/87 Erection of agricultural bungalow to replace mobile home (outline), permitted 4/3/87

WS/15/87 Agricultural dwelling (Reserved Matters), permitted 29/5/87

WS/30/95 Temporary relaxation of agricultural occupancy condition on WS/5/87, Permitted 20/12/95

DC/09/0801 Erection of 3 new 5 bed dwellings (retaining existing bungalow) and remove existing mobile homes and outbuildings, withdrawn September 2009.

There is no other relevant planning history for this site.

2. INTRODUCTION

RELEVANT POLICY APPENDIX A/ .

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 & PPG13

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

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

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development Principles, DC32 – Gypsies & Travellers & DC40 - Transport & Access.

2.5 The following policies of the South East Plan are relevant in the assessment of this application: CC1: Sustainable Development, CC6: Sustainable Communities & Character of the Environment, CO5: Transport & IW3: Rural Areas.

3.0 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

3.1 The Design & Conservation Officer has stated “It would be difficult to substantiate a reason for refusal based on the minor impact the proposals would have on the setting of the listed building Rock Place & outbuildings as there is a dwelling, garden (the Cottage) and a substantial tree belt between the site and the listed building. However reference to PPS5 and DC13 do need to be addressed in the agents’ planning statement and information pertaining to the setting as required by policy HE6 of PPS5 is sought in order to comply with this part of the policy.”

3.2 Strategic & Community Planning has stated “This proposal is for the cessation of use of traveller pitches and ancillary buildings and demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 8 dwellings (Outline with some matters reserved). Note that my comments in relation to this proposal remain for the most part unchanged from those given on a previous application DC/09/0801 for 3 new five bedroom dwellings on the site.

There is no planning history relating to permission for 8 mobile homes on this site. It is my understanding that the caravans on the site are unauthorised. The Gypsy Count in July 2008 indicated 8 unauthorised mobile homes and that on the 19th January 2009 indicated 3 unauthorised mobile homes. In light of the identified need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches within the District and the applicants associations with the District, any application maybe difficult to resist on a APPENDIX A/ .

temporary basis at least, because, although the Council is currently undertaking work to find suitable sites for Gypsy and Travellers within the District, this may take some time.

In my comments on the previous proposal DC/09/0801, it was noted that the Design & Access Statement that accompanied that application, stated that the owner had increasing concerns regarding complaints he had received about tenants and the general appearance of the site by the neighbours, as well as problems associated with managing such a site. It was also noted that there is large amount of hard surfacing and other paraphernalia on the site not usually appropriate in a countryside location; moreover, that the property sits in a small cluster of residential properties on the eastern side of the A24, and therefore, it is not a totally isolated location.

From a strategic policy point of view, therefore, although the site lies outside of any settlement, in the countryside, where residential development is normally strictly controlled, there is a case to be made here, that, by allowing this proposal (which is contained within the curtilage of the existing property) the local environment for existing residents would be improved, securing a long term benefit for the local community, in accordance with the aims of Policy CP1 which seeks to protect and enhance landscape character.

This proposal, although proposing more dwellings than the previous scheme, shows smaller units that could be said to accord with aims of Policy DC18, Smaller Homes/ Housing Mix. Consideration has been given as to whether affordable housing could be provided on the site which would benefit the community and help to meet identified local requirements for housing and would increase the long term benefit for the local community that developing the site would achieve. However, affordable housing is not proposed as part of this scheme and in any case can not be enforced as this is a residential development of less than 15 dwellings where there is no policy requirement to do so.

Overall, in my opinion, providing the development principles set out in Policy DC9 are met, there would be no overriding policy objection to this proposal.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 West Sussex County Council has stated that “Comments previously made by the county council cover:

1. The need to meet the county council’s new methodology for parking standards 2. Changes in vehicle trips compared with current use 3. Visibility at the Old London Road/Rock Lane junction 4. Visibility at the existing site access.

A response was received from Mayer Brown in a letter dated 15 October 2010:

1. The mix of housing sizes is not known at present, therefore it is not possible to accurately estimate parking requirements APPENDIX A/ .

2. A comparison of trip attraction between the existing and proposed uses shows that fewer trips will be generated by the proposals 3. As fewer trips will be attracted by the proposed development, the impact on the London Road/Rock Lane junction will be reduced 4. No changes are proposed to the site access; however, the applicant would accept a condition to trim and maintain hedges within their control.

The county council accepts the first three points in the response. The last point is complicated by the fact that there is a substantial hedge along London Road to the north of the site which may grow over highway land. It is important that this isssue is addressed in order to provide the best practicable visibility to the north. It is accepted that traffic is light on London Road and that the usage of the site access will be less than at present; however, a safe access still needs to be provided. It is suggested that a condition be attached to any permission which addresses this issue. It is not considered that a road safety audit is required because the number of vehicles using the site access will be less than under the present usage of the site.”

3.4 The Environment Agency has stated that the application has a low environmental risk.

3.5 Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent:

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development.

Our initial investigations indicate that there are no public surface water sewers in the area to serve this development. Alternative means of draining surface water from this development are required. This should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer.

The Council’s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following condition is attached to the consent: “Construction of the development shall not 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.

For further advice please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, S023 9EH Tel 01962 858688 or www. Southernwater.co.uk

3.6 Washington Parish Council has stated that they have no objection to the amended plans. APPENDIX A/ .

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.7 1 letter of support has been received on the grounds that:

 This would be a welcome development, as having traveller's pitches so close to the bottom of my garden does present problems and is not an ideal situation.

3.8 3 letters of objection have been received on the grounds that:

 Old London Road is far too small to see the potential growth in residential properties - most residential properties have at least two cars;  Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no going back;  Access to the A24 from Rock Road is dangerous due to the volume and speed of vehicles;  People will park their cars along the Old London Road;  The Parish Plan states that there is a need for mainly small properties for the young and elderly;  The building of 11 houses is out of keeping with the houses in the surrounding area and represents overdevelopment on a site of this size;  Access to the site is also an issue as it is inadequate and not suitable for the increased number of vehicles (average of 2 cars per household = 22 cars).

3.9 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

6.2 In terms of the principle of the development, government guidance contained particularly in PPS7 and LDF Policy seeks to strictly control development including new dwellings in the countryside, to protect the countryside and to support sustainable forms of development.

APPENDIX A/ .

6.3 A previous application (DC/09/0801) for the erection of 3 x 5 bed dwellings and retaining the existing dwelling on site was withdrawn in September 2009 after the application was recommended for refusal as it was considered that the dwellings had substantial footprints and were of a size, scale and height that were considered to be visually intrusive in the surrounding rural landscape.

6.4 This new proposal has been justified on the basis that the proposal would cease an unneighbourly use and the removal of a significant eyesore. The agent has looked into Local Housing Need within the area and a Housing Needs Survey was carried out in 2004 by Action for Rural Sussex for Washington Parish Council. Para 1.7 of this report states “There was significant support in the parish for the need for some housing to meet the needs of people with a local connection for whom there is no suitable market or affordable accommodation (61% - 139 responses). In April 2010, Horsham District Council published its Locally Generated Needs Study which was commissioned and carried out by GL Hearn as an independent body. The non technical executive summary states:

Para 4.2 “The analysis indicates that the majority of demand for additional market housing will be for two and three bedroom homes; and most in the form of houses (or bungalows). This contrasts with what has been built in the last decade, which has seen stronger development of flats.”

Para 4.3 “For affordable housing, the majority of the affordable housing requirement over the plan period to 2026 is for one and two bedroom homes, although there is a considerable requirement for three bedroom accommodation.”

6.5 Policy DC9 states “planning permission will be granted for development which:

a) make efficient use of land whilst respecting any constraints that exist; b) do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking; c) ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of high standard of design and layout; d) are locally distinctive in character, respect the character of the surrounding area; e) use high standards of building materials, finishes and landscaping;”

6.6 This proposal is for the cessation of use of traveller pitches and ancillary buildings and demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of 8 dwellings (Outline with some matters reserved). The applicant has stated that five of the dwellings (60% of the units) could be tied via a S106 legal agreement so that they could only be marketed & sold to people within the parish of Washington for a period of 6 months.

There is no planning history relating to permission for 8 mobile homes on this site. The caravans on the site are unauthorised. The Gypsy Count in July 2008 indicated 8 unauthorised mobile homes and that on the 19th January 2009 indicated 3 unauthorised mobile homes.

6.7 Strategic & Community Planning have stated that “From a strategic policy point of view, therefore, although the site lies outside of any settlement, in the countryside, APPENDIX A/ .

where residential development is normally strictly controlled, there is a case to be made here, that, by allowing this proposal (which is contained within the curtilage of the existing property) the local environment for existing residents would be improved, securing a long term benefit for the local community, in accordance with the aims of Policy CP1 which seeks to protect and enhance landscape character. This proposal, although proposing more dwellings than the previous scheme, shows smaller units that could be said to accord with aims of Policy DC18, Smaller Homes/ Housing Mix. Consideration has been given as to whether affordable housing could be provided on the site which would benefit the community and help to meet identified local requirements for housing and would increase the long term benefit for the local community that developing the site would achieve. However, affordable housing is not proposed as part of this scheme and in any case can not be enforced as this is a residential development of less than 15 dwellings where there is no policy requirement to do so. Overall, in my opinion, providing the development principles set out in Policy DC9 are met, there would be no overriding policy objection to this proposal.”

6.8 It is considered that if houses are to be permitted in this location outside any defined built up area then the houses have to be 2 or 3 bed houses in order to meet the local need of the area and tied to local people through a S106 legal agreement. The use of the land for gypsy caravans is unauthorised, however due to the length of time that this land has been in this particular use, it is now exempt from enforcement action. Therefore, the Local Planning Authority are not able to control the use of the land in its current form. The environmental benefits of this application would result in the site being tidied up, the mobile homes, caravans, cars, structures, tyres and other paraphernalia that is currently on the site would be removed. It would appear that there could be an environmental benefit from the proposal, since it would improve the visual character of the area and improve nearby residents amenities.

6.9 The applicant has expressed a willingness to enter into a S106 legal agreement that ties the ownership of five of the properties to qualifying local residents for a period of 6 months. The legal agreement would ensure that the houses are only marketed and occupied in the first instance by people within the Parish of Washington. After a period of 6 months of advertising, the houses could be marketed to people within Ashington, Thakeham, Wiston & Shipley parishes. If the occupiers of the houses subsequently wished to sell or vacate the houses within 5 years of their first date of occupation then the houses would be marketed to people within Washington Parish for up to 6 months and then onto the surrounding parishes for another year. None of these Parishes, including Washington, contains a Category 1 settlement and therefore the potential occupiers of the proposed houses would not be relocating from a more sustainable location to an unsustainable location. As such, therefore, it could be held that occupation of the houses by local people, in housing need, would not reinforce unsustainable transport patterns.

6.10 It is considered, therefore, that in this particular instance a case can be made for granting permission subject to the legal agreement restricting the occupation of the houses, in the first instance, to those in the Parish of Washington and secondly within adjoining Parishes as well as to the standard financial contributions towards APPENDIX A/ .

transport infrastructure and community facilities. On balance, it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that outline consent be granted subject to a S106 legal agreement that ties the ownership of five of the properties to qualifying local residents & securing financial contributions towards community facilities and transport infrastructure and subject to the following conditions:

1) A1 Outline Permission 2) M1 Approval Of Materials 3) E3 Fencing 4) J10 Removal of permitted development – dwellings 5) L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping 6) G6 Recycling 7) O1 Hours of Working 8) H10 Cycling Provision 9) S4 Surface Water Details (Option A) 10) Deliveries, loading and unloading shall be restricted to 0800 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and no deliveries, loading or unloading shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays. Reason – V2 reason 11) O2 Burning of Materials 12) No development shall take place until an initial design stage assessment by an accredited assessor for the Code for Sustainable Homes and an accompanying interim certificate stating that each dwelling has been designed to achieve Level 3 of the Code has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until it has been issued with a final Code certificate of compliance." Reason – To ensure the construction of a sustainable form of development and to take into account the impact of climate change in accordance with policy DC8 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies. 13) D6 Finished Floor Levels 14) S2 Restriction on occupation (Sewage Disposal) 15) H1 Access (General) (1st Option)

8. Reasons

The proposed development would meet an identified housing need.

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

APPENDIX A/ .

Background Papers: DC/10/1287 & DC/09/0801

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler

APPENDIX A/ 14 - 1

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20 September 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Erection of 1.2m stock fencing and wooden gate SITE: Plots 5 and 6, Bramblefield, Crays Lane, Thakeham, West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/11/1233 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Barry Knight

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member request

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for stock fencing to a height of 1.2m and an agricultural gate, which would provide the applicant with an enclosed .864 ha plot within a larger agricultural field.

1.2 The fence would comprise traditional post and wire fencing, to a height of approximately 1.2m. The proposed timber gate is of typical agricultural size, scale and composition.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The subject site, which is situated in the countryside, forms part of a large agricultural field situated northwest of Bramblefield and southeast of Dukes Hill. Access to the site comprises an unfinished track to the north of Crays Lane.

1.4 The overall site is significantly elevated with the land falling away on northwest and southeast sides, towards the B2139 and Crays Lane. The site is adjoined on all sides by agricultural lands, significant amounts of which have been sub-divided as individual plots. Boundaries in the plots surrounding the subject site, where erected, generally consist of wire and timber post fencing erected to a similar height as the current proposal. The subject site of this application is situated in the northern half of the field, where at the time of inspection no fencing had been erected.

Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 14 - 2

1.5 The subject site is immediately adjoined to the north by Land South of Little Garns, which has been the subject of a number of applications for stock fencing arising from a separate Article 4 direction.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS 7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policy of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 is: DC1.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy is: CP1.

PLANNING HISTORY

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

Adjoining site DC/10/1598 - Retention of stock fence and gate (plot P): Permission granted on 5th August 2010. DC/11/0107 - Retention of 1.4m stock proof fencing and metal gate at plot M: Application has been referred to committee for consideration on 19th April 2011. DC/11/0114 - Retrospective permission for the erection of stock fencing on land at Plot G: Application has been referred to committee for consideration on 19th April 2011. EN/10/0154 - Article 4 direction relating to (1) The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure being development comprised within Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the National Order, and, (2) The use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which not more than 14 days in APPENDIX A/ 14 - 3

total may be for the purposes referred to in paragraph B.2 of the said Class B, and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of the permitted use, being development comprised within Class B of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Order The purposes referred to in paragraph B.2 are (c) The holding of a cattle market: and (d) Motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed, and practising for these activities

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 None consulted

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None consulted

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Thakeham Parish Council consultation response – STRONG OBJECTION The Council objects to the division of agricultural land into small plots and believes their enfencing encourages uses more appropriate to allotments or gardens (hobby farming) leading to visual clutter which denigrates the countryside. This is exacerbated by the effective fencing in of the rights of way that have been created for the new owners of land.

If the decision is not delegated but instead referred to the Area South Committee the Parish Council would wish to speak at the meeting.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 It is considered that the central issue in the determination of the application is the effect of the development on: (1) The character and visual amenities of the area

6.2 The proposed development would provide the applicant with an enclosed .864 ha plot within a larger agricultural field. APPENDIX A/ 14 - 4

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

6.4 The proposed fencing, which would be approximately 1.2m in height, would generally match the existing fencing elsewhere on the site in terms of composition and height. The proposed gate is of typical agricultural size and composition.

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

6.6 The Parish Council has raised an objection to the development on the basis that it, and similar developments, denigrates the countryside.

6.7 With regard to the substantive nature of the Parish Council’s objection, on the grounds of the likely use of the subject site, and adjoining sites, as private allotments or hobby farms, these issues have not been addressed as part of the Article 4 direction, nor do they form part of this planning application. As such, the objections raised are outside this Authority’s control in respect of this application.

6.8 In conclusion, given the form, nature and extent of the stock fencing proposed, in a location which is removed from the public highway, coupled with the unobtrusive nature of existing fencing with the overall site setting, it is considered the said fencing would not unduly impact upon the character and visual amenities of the area.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that permission be granted, subject to the following condition(s)

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. The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall strictly accord with those indicated on the approved details associated with the application Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

8. REASONS

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

Background Papers: DC/11/1233 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell APPENDIX A/ 15 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20th September 2011 Residential development of 14 dwellings (comprising 6 x 3-bed, 1 x 5-bed DEVELOPMENT: and 7 x 4-bed), garaging and access SITE: Trees East Street Billingshurst West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/08/2254 & S106/1704 APPLICANT: Hillreed Homes

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Request to vary a Section 106 Agreement previously agreed at Committee.

RECOMMENDATION: To vary Section 106 agreement (S106/1704) as requested.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To seek the approval of Committee to vary the Section 106 agreement as requested.

THE PROPOSAL

1.1 This proposal seeks to vary an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 which was completed on 2nd December 2009 (Reference S106/1704).

The Agreement states, amongst other things, that:

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

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 APPENDIX A/ 15 - 2

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

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

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3 & PPG13.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1 (Townscape character), CP2 (Environmental Quality), CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP4 (Housing Provision), CP5 (Built-up Areas and previously developed land), CP9 (Managing the release of housing land), CP12 (Meeting housing needs), CP13 (Infrastructure requirements) and CP19 (Managing travel demand).

2.4 Policy AL1 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD is relevant to the application.

2.5 The following policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies are relevant to the application: DC6 (Woodland and Trees), DC9 (Development Principles), DC12 (Conservation Areas), DC18 (Smaller homes/Housing Mix) and DC40 (Transport and Access).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 DC/06/0896 – Erection of 1 dwelling and garage – withdrawn February 2007.

DC/06/1697 – Erection of 18 dwellings (Outline) – withdrawn in September 2006

DC/08/0283 – Erection of 25 dwellings, access, garaging and parking – refused in May 2008. The application was refused primarily on the grounds that the proposal represented an over-development of the site which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers and would be likely to be harmful to the health of preserved trees on the site.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

APPENDIX A/ 15 - 3

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

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

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

6.2 The previously agreed legal agreement (S106/1704) states, amongst other things:

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

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

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

6.5 As previously advised at Para 3.1, the Housing Development & Strategy Manager has no objection to the proposal and in the circumstances it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that Sec106/1704 be varied as requested.

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Background Papers: DC/08/2254 & S106/1704 APPENDIX A/ 16 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 20th September 2011 Discharge of Section 106 agreement no. 623 and formation of new DEVELOPMENT: planning obligation to incorporate an increased range of sale goods which will be unrestricted to specific parts of the garden centre. SITE: Old Barn Nursery and Garden Centre, Worthing Road, Dial Post

WARD: West Grinstead

APPLICATION: Section 106 agreement no. 623

APPLICANT: Wyevale Acquisitions Borrower Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Request to discharge Section 106 no.623 previously agreed at Committee.

RECOMMENDATION: That the request to discharge the Section 106 agreement is denied.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 To consider the discharge of Section 106 agreement no.623 and the replacement planning obligation deed that has been drawn up by the client’s solicitors.

BACKGROUND

1.2 Old Barn Nurseries was developed following the grant of planning permission WG/2/90 for the construction of a barn and the erection of 2,000 square metres of glass houses. This permission was subject to a planning agreement controlling the goods that could be sold from the land. These goods included hardy and non-hardy plants, water garden and marginal plants, fresh fruit and vegetables, cut dried and artificial flowers and foliage, small equipment and products associated with indoor/outdoor garden plants such as garden tools and light refreshments and confectionary to nursery retail customers only. Garden sheds, greenhouses, building materials, swimming pools and similar large items were restricted from being sold on the site under this agreement.

1.3 Following the establishment of the enterprise, the planning agreement was breached in as much as goods were being sold which were not identified in the

Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier Ex: 2382 APPENDIX A/ 16 - 2

agreement. Application WS/17/93 was subsequently submitted to resolve some of the on-going breaches on the site. The opportunity was taken at this stage to secure a further planning agreement ensuring that the land at the northern end of the site is only used for agricultural or horticultural purposes or as a plant production area. It was also agreed that Christmas decorations could be sold from the site provided this was restricted to a specific area within the greenhouses.

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

1.5 Section 106 no.623 states that “the owner and the applicants hereby covenant:

Not to sell or display for sale any goods other than those goods listed in the Schedule to this agreement numbered 1 – 5 and those referred to in Condition 2 attached to the 1993 Planning Permission and no sale or display for sale of goods shall take place except as authorised in this agreement and the said condition 2”.

Schedule 1 – (Goods which may be sold from the Yellow Land)  Hardy garden plants (eg. trees, shrubs and roses)  Non-hardy plants, (eg. bedding plants, house plants)  Water garden and marginal plants  Fresh fruit and vegetables  Cut, dried, artificial flowers and foliage  Small equipment and products associated with indoor/outdoor garden plants (eg. Garden tools, fertilisers, chemicals, propagators, seed trays, pots etc)  Light refreshments and confectionary to nursery retail customers only  Christmas decorations  Garden furniture  Barbecues  Pet foods (excluding live pets)  Garden clothing (eg. wellington boots, Barbour jackets)  Domestic garden machinery (eg. mowers, strimmers and hedge cutters)

Schedule 2 – (Goods which may be sold from the Blue Land)

 Light garden landscaping materials to include paving, boulders and rockery stones  Fencing posts and panels  Plants shrubs and ornamental trees  Clay and ceramic pots, tubs and garden ornaments

APPENDIX A/ 16 - 3

Schedule 3 – (Goods which may be sold from the Green Land)

 Hardy garden plants (eg. trees, shrubs and roses)  Clay and ceramic pots, tubs and ornaments  Plant supports

Schedule 4 – (Goods which may be sold from the Pink Land)

 Plants and seeds  Ceramic and plastic pots

Schedule 5 – (Goods which may be sold from the Brown Land)

 Plants  Ceramic and plastic pots  Plant supports

Schedule 6 – (Goods which cannot be sold from the Land)

 Garden sheds  Greenhouses  Building materials (excluding materials specifically referred to in Schedule 2 above)  Swimming pools and similar large items

1.6 In addition to the above restrictions relating to the sales of goods on the Old Barn Nurseries site, condition 2 of planning application WG/17/93 specifically refers to the use of the barn building and specifies that:

“The cafeteria use hereby approved shall be restricted to the area shown on the submitted plan No. KP/Spears2(Ap) as marked yellow and the remainder of the barn (marked green on that plan) shall be used only for ancillary retail sales.”

THE PROPOSAL

1.7 This proposal seeks to discharge the original Planning Obligation which was completed on the 23rd April 2004 (Reference S106 623). A new deed has been drawn up by the client’s solicitors which seeks to replace the discharged Planning Obligation. The proposed deed specifies that:

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

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

 Goods and services related to gardens and gardening APPENDIX A/ 16 - 4

 Horticultural products, trees, plants, shrubs, house plants and flowers of any type including fresh and dried flowers  Garden equipment, tools and accessories  Machinery for garden use and servicing of it  Barbecues and their accessories  Conservatories  Outdoor and conservatory furniture, furnishings and accessories  Fresh and local farmhouse produced foods including meats, dairy products, vegetables and beverages  Sheds, garden buildings, greenhouses, summerhouses, gazeboes, pergolas, garden offices  Swimming pools and associated equipment, materials and fittings for pools, ponds and lakes and for the servicing of pool surrounds  Fencing, trellis and landscaping materials  Aquatics, water garden equipment and their accessories  Garden ornaments and statuary, baskets and their containers for the growing and display of indoor and outdoor plants and flowers  Books, magazines, periodicals videos and CD and DVDs relating to gardening, leisure, hobby, travel, sports and coffee table books and other literature other than fiction  Pets, pet accessories, pet care and advice  Indoor and outdoor hobbies, toys, games, crafts and garden play equipment  Baskets, wickerwork and country crafts  Christmas trees (live and artificial) decorations, gifts  China, glass and gifts  Soft furnishings associated with garden and conservatory furniture  Outdoor clothing and footwear, including wellington boots, garden aprons and smocks, gardening boots and clogs, gardening gloves, gardening hats, gardening rain proofs and gardening overalls.  Outdoor and country pursuits and equipment, (eg. camping, fishing, equestrian, hiking, climbing etc)  Restaurant, coffee shop and children’s play area  Arts and crafts Products  Other items incidental to the operations of the garden centre as a garden centre and ancillary to its character as a garden centre  Such other products, goods or services as the Council shall have first approved in writing

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.8 Old Barn Nurseries is located in a countryside location to the east of the A24 and to the west of Grinders Lane. The Old Barn Nurseries site comprises 6.3 hectares of land in mixed use for the purposes of the garden centre and horticultural business use.

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

APPENDIX A/ 16 - 5

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS6 and PPS7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character & CP15 – Rural Strategy.

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

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/11/1341 – This application for a proposed kitchen extension and pergola to the barn is currently pending consideration.

DC/11/1026 – This application for the erection of playground equipment is currently pending consideration.

DC/11/0872 – This application for the erection of 1086 square metres of polytunnels, the installation of rainwater tanks and the re-location of a site office is currently pending consideration.

DC/10/1486 – Planning permission was granted in 2010 for the demolition of an existing building and erection of a conservatory.

DC/10/0219 – Retrospective planning permission was granted in 2010 for the retention of 2,400 square metres of polytunnels.

DC/09/1659 – Retrospective planning permission was granted in 2009 for the retention of resurfaced car park and installation of soak-aways.

DC/09/0708 – Planning permission was granted in 2009 for the change of use of the ground floor of the existing bungalow to a coffee shop and alterations to the elevations.

APPENDIX A/ 16 - 6

DC/08/2632 – Retrospective planning permission was granted in 2009 for the retention of various business and directional free standing adverts and banner signs.

DC/08/2424 – Planning permission was refused in 2009 for the construction of a hand car wash and valeting operation to include a site cabin and canopy.

WG/65/02 – Planning permission was granted in 2005 for the erection of an open sided glasshouse; replacement building comprising nursery production facility/potting shed; polytunnels; use of former mushroom shed as ancillary workshop; alterations to land levels for use as a nursery production areas, access road and retention of alterations/re-roofing and re-cladding works to former mushroom sheds.

WG/39/00 – Planning permission was granted in 2000 for the formation of an additional access and additional car parking and service road.

WG/21/97 – Planning permission was granted in 1997 for a glass house extension, a plant shade area and pergola, surfacing overspill car park and a conservatory addition to the bungalow building. WG//17/93 – Planning permission was granted in 1994 for elevational changes to the glass house building, use of glass house for A1 retail and display, extension to barn, a shaded growing area, lighting and car parking.

WG/36/91 – Planning permission was granted in 1991 for a change of use of part existing farm shop to cafeteria.

WG/21/91 – Planning permission was granted in 1991 for the erection of a barn for use as a farm shop.

WG/2/90 – Planning permission was granted in 1990 for the erection of 23,000 square foot Class I steel framed glass house, farm shop with storage and parking.

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

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

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

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

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 The extensive planning history on the site shows that the Old Barn Nurseries site has substantially grown since the approval of the barn and glass houses on the site APPENDIX A/ 16 - 7

in 1990. The site now incorporates a garden centre, restaurant, coffee shop and horticultural business. The site also shows signs of further expansion, as at the time of writing this report three planning applications are also currently pending consideration for the erection of playground equipment (DC/11/1026), a kitchen and pergola extension to the restaurant barn (DC/11/1341) and the erection of polytunnels, installation of a rainwater tank and relocation of site office (DC/11/0872). The drainage issues on the site are also currently unresolved.

5.2 In National Planning Policy Statements PPS6 and PPS7 and local planning policy DC38 it is recognised that certain developments such as garden centres and farm shops can meet a demand for local produce in a sustainable way and can contribute to the rural economy. It is however noted that proposals should not conflict with other rural policies and should not adversely affect easily accessible shopping available to the local community. The purpose of the previously agreed legal agreement was to restrict the sale of goods in the garden centre to those associated with a garden centre business and to protect the rural location of the site. The legal agreements on the site have also traditionally restricted the sale of different goods in certain parts of the main garden centre building. Under Section 106 no.623 the main range of goods is currently restricted to the front northerly section of the building and fewer garden related products are allowed to be sold in the rear sections of the building, (please refer to Section 1.5 for the full list).

5.3 It is acknowledged that there is an established garden centre business on the site, however under the current legal agreement the site has been restricted to selling goods associated with the operation of the garden centre business. The proposed planning obligation shows a much wider range of products, many of which are unrelated to the garden centre business, examples include pets, toys, games, country crafts, china, glass, gifts, outdoor and country pursuits equipment and books/magazines relating to leisure, hobby, travel and sports. In addition to this, bulky items including conservatories, sheds, garden buildings, greenhouses, summerhouses, garden offices and swimming pools which have always traditionally been restricted from being sold on the site have been included on the revised schedule of goods. Many of the range of goods are considered to fall outside the remit of products that are relevant to the operation of a garden centre business. The establishment of a unit that can sell such a wide range of products is considered to be detrimental to the countryside location and could potentially damage the viability and vitality of nearby retailing village centres. There is also concern that the sale of a wider range of bulkier garden outbuildings and structures items could lead to further storage requirements on site which is likely to be detrimental to the surrounding countryside amenity.

5.4 The replacement planning obligation also specifies that the list of goods can be sold on any land within the red edge of the map submitted. This would enable the proposed schedule of goods to be sold within any of the existing buildings on the site, including the barn and bungalow buildings which have café and restaurant uses. This would enable the floor space of the retail sales of the business to be substantially increased in addition to the wider range of goods that could be sold on the site. The use of the bungalow building was also restricted under conditions 2 and 8 of application DC/09/0708 which specified that the ground floor level of the building should be used as a coffee shop and the first floor level of the building should be used as residential accommodation for the owners/staff of Old Barn APPENDIX A/ 16 - 8

Nurseries. The revised planning obligation therefore conflicts with conditions attached to previous planning approvals for the bungalow building.

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

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 That the request to discharge the Section 106 agreement is denied.

Background Papers: Section 106 no. 623, WG/17/93 & WG/21/97. APPENDIX A/ 17 - 1

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20 September 2011 DEVELOPMENT: New extensions and alterations SITE: Jendens Farm Smithers Hill Lane Shipley Horsham West Sussex RH13 8PP WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/11/1357 and DC/11/1359 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Kim Richardson

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member request (Cllr Lindsay)

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the full planning and listed building consent applications.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The applicants propose new extensions and alterations to the existing listed building dwelling. The development would be constructed along the west (side) and north (rear) elevations and would provide the applicants with a replacement family room, reception hall and extended dining room and kitchen at ground floor level and an en-suite for the master bedroom and additional bedroom at first floor level.

1.2 The application is a revised scheme from application Refs. DC/11/0306 and DC/11/0307, which were withdrawn on 14th April 2011.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is located in a rural location to the west of Smithers Lane. The site consists of a two-storey dwelling (Grade II listed), a number of agricultural buildings and stables and a large formal garden. The listed building itself consists of the original 15th Century rectangular shaped building, which has been extended on a number of occasions up to the 19th Century to the east and north. The current form of the building takes its shape from an additional extension on the north elevation, which extended to first floor level, along with an additional pitched roof.

1.4 The overall site is significantly removed from Smithers Hill Lane, below the level of the road, and is adjoined on all sides by agricultural lands. In terms of boundary treatments, there is a large brick wall to the west of the dwelling, which separates

Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 17 - 2

the residential site from the adjoining agricultural yards. Otherwise there are a number of wooden post and rail fences and a large amount of garden styled planting, which screens the site. The dwelling is, however, largely exposed within the context of the surrounding lands and is clearly visible from the 2 No. public footpaths / bridleways that run through the south and west of the property.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS5 and PPS 7

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 are: DC1, DC13, and DC28.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy are: CP1, CP3.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/06/0793 - 2-storey and single storey extensions, alterations and change of use of land to form re-aligned driveway – Refused 06/07/2006. DC/06/0806 - 2-storey and single storey extensions and internal alterations (Listed Building Consent) – Refused 06/07/2006. DC/07/2036 - Formation of one attic bedroom with dormer windows, extend first floor gable end to form living accommodation, extend ground floor and form new porch, re-build existing ground floor living accommodation (Listed Building Consent) – Permitted 30/10/2007. DC/07/2037 - Formation of one attic bedroom with dormer windows, extend first floor gable end to form living accommodation, extend ground floor and form new porch, rebuild existing ground floor living accommodation, 3 additional windows – Permitted 30/10/2007. DC/08/0422 - Formation of cellar under family room – Permitted 28/02/2008. DC/08/0423 - Formation of cellar under family room (Listed Building Consent) – Permitted 28/02/2008

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

APPENDIX A/ 17 - 3

3.1 Design and Conservation Officer – No objections, please request through condition the following; samples of proposed materials; details at 1:1 sections and 1:20 elevations of all new windows and doors.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None consulted

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Shipley Parish Council - The Parish Council support the application, providing that the proposed extensions and alterations have the approval of the Conservation Officer and that all materials used match those of the existing fabric of the building

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 It is considered that the central issue in the determination of the application is the effect of the development on: (a) The character and visual amenities of the locality (b) The character and setting of the listed building

6.2 The applicants propose new extensions and alterations to the existing listed building dwelling. If permitted, the development would provide the applicants with a replacement family room, reception hall and extended dining room and kitchen at ground floor level and an en-suite for the master bedroom and additional bedroom at first floor level.

6.3 The current proposal is a revised scheme from that which was previously withdrawn (DC/11/0306 and DC/11/0307), and would replace the lean-to extension, extend the north elevation at ground floor and first floor level and infill the first floor of the north elevation towards the eastern end. Consent has previously been granted, following significant revisions, for a single storey lean-to extension on the west (side) elevation and the formation of an additional bedroom at second floor (attic) level with 2 No. dormer windows.

6.4 With regard to the principle of the development, the site has been the subject of a number of previous applications in respect of similar development types, the majority of which have been refused or withdrawn. Although consent has been granted for extensions previously, it is considered the scale and nature of the proposed extensions are significantly greater than those previously approved and, as such, the principle has not been established. APPENDIX A/ 17 - 4

Indeed, it is noteworthy that part of the scheme currently under consideration were omitted from application Ref DC/07/2037 following receipt of amended plans.

6.5 The Design and Conservation Officer’s report considers the proposals would comply with policy DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and the provisions of PPS5. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, it is considered the overall cumulative impact of the proposed extensions by reason of their scale and layout, in particular the two-storey extension on the north elevation and the single storey extension on the west (side) elevation, would have a significant impact on the existing dwelling, to the extent the extensions would overwhelm and detract from the existing dwelling. In this regard, it is considered the proposed extensions would be neither sympathetic with, nor subservient to, the scale and character of the existing dwelling. As such, it is considered the proposal would contravene policy DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). Indeed, given the above outlined concerns regarding the scale and design of the proposal, it is considered the proposed development would also contravene policy DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6.6 With regard to the design of the proposal, the application proposes a range of extensions to the west and north elevations of the existing dwelling, which would have the effect of extending the building’s footprint and transforming the building’s appearance. The replacement family room on the west (side) end and the two-storey element on the North elevation would be clearly visible from the 2 No. public footpaths passing around the subject site. While it is considered individual aspects of the proposal may be acceptable as an extension of the property, the cumulative impact of the extensions, by reason of their unsympathetic scale and design, would have a significant impact on the dwelling, particularly the west and north elevations. This would be to the detriment of the character and setting of the existing listed building dwelling.

6.7 In conclusion, given the form, nature and scale of the proposed extensions, it is considered the proposed development would not reflect the scale and character and be subservient to the existing dwelling as required by policy DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). The proposal would disrupt the historical built form of the listed building and would overwhelm and detract from the character and setting of the listed building and, as such, would contravene policies DC13 and DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

DC/11/1357

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

1. The cumulative impact of the proposed extensions by reason of their scale and layout, in particular that of the two-storey extension on the north (rear) elevation and the single storey extension on the west (side) end, would significantly extend the footprint of, and would disrupt the historical built form of, this listed building. The proposal would overwhelm and detract from the character and setting of the listed building and, as such, neither be in sympathy with nor subservient to the existing dwelling. The proposal would, APPENDIX A/ 17 - 5

therefore, contravene in particular policies DC13 and DC28 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DC/11/1359

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

1. The cumulative impact of the proposed extensions by reason of their scale and layout, in particular that of the two-storey extension on the north (rear) elevation and the single storey extension on the west (side) end, would significantly extend the footprint of, and would disrupt the historical built form of, this listed building. The proposal would overwhelm and detract from the character and setting of the listed building and, as such, neither be in sympathy with nor subservient to the existing dwelling. The proposal would, therefore, contravene in particular policies DC13 and DC28 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/11/1357 and DC/11/1359 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell APPENDIX A/ 18 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20th September 2011

Erection of 12 No. solar panels and retrospective planning for the erection DEVELOPMENT: of a building used as a battery store and 4 No. solar panels.

SITE: Pear Tree Farm, West Chiltington Lane, Billingshurst WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/11/1248 APPLICANT: Tracey Poulton

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of a timber clad building to be used as a battery store and the siting of 4 stand alone solar panels. This application also seeks planning permission for the erection of an additional 12 solar panels.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 This site comprises a detached grade II listed dwelling, a grade II listed, semi-derelict barn which has planning permission to be converted to a residential unit and approximately 13 ha of land which is a mixture of residential curtilage and agricultural land. There is an area of Ancient Woodland at the westernmost point of this site.

1.3 This site lies at the junction of West Chiltington Lane and New Road. New Road runs along the Northern boundary of the site and West Chiltington Lane runs along the western boundary. There are 2 public footpaths which cross this site and converge at a point in front of the residential curtilage of the listed building to form a single footpath which exits on the western boundary of this site.

Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva Tel: 01403 215633 APPENDIX A/ 18 - 2

1.4 This site is situated outside of any designated built up area and as such is considered to be a countryside location and as such is subject to the relevant policies of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS7, PPG15 & PPS22.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007) are DC1, DC8, DC9, DC13 & DC28.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Horsham District Council’s Core Strategy are CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15.

2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are BE6, C4 and CC6.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 DC/10/2427 – In 2010 planning permission was refused for Retrospective permission for the installation of 16 No. solar panels 1 No. wind turbine and battery store. In 2011 the subsequent appeal was allowed.

DC/10/0346 & DC/10/0347 – In 2010 planning permission and listed building consent was approved for a Two storey link extension and alterations to Grade II Listed farmhouse with single storey storage building and construction of new access drive and garage

DC/10/0244 – In 2010 prior approval was required to erect a storage barn for agricultural purposes.

DC/09/2310 & DC/09/2268 – In 2010 planning permission and listed building consent was approved for repairs, alterations and change of use of redundant agricultural barn for residential purposes

DC/09/2210 – In 2010 listed building consent was granted for underpinning.

DC/08/1704 & DC/08/1705 – In 2009 planning permission and listed building consent was granted for a single-storey link extension and alterations to the farmhouse and replacement shed.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Councils Design and Conservation Adviser was consulted on the previously refused application and has stated that her previous comments still stand for this current APPENDIX A/ 18 - 3

application. She states that the views of Pear Tree Farm from West Chiltington Lane and New Road are important, the countryside location and surrounding isolation in the landscape is a positive part of the farmhouses setting that is desirable to preserve and enhance. She has made the following comments regarding the different aspects of the application. Battery store – she has stated that in her view the battery store is a small, shed-like building which has been constructed using traditional materials and design. Because of these factors she considers that the battery store is not considered to detract from the setting of the listed building. Solar panels - the solar panels are located in a field behind a hedge and tree belt, because of this screening, the listed building can only be glimpsed from their location and the panels are not visible from the listed building. They are set away from the lane and are not considered to be generally visible in the wider context of the landscape. However, she does state that there would be concern if more than 16 were required on the site or if they were to be required in a different location as the impact on the setting of the listed building would therefore need to be reviewed again.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Billingshurst Parish Council has stated that they would again like to comment that they do not like retrospective plans. However, they state that they do not object to the 16 solar panels but the Parish Council believe the battery store has been built in an intrusive spot, nevertheless, to save the applicant removing and building elsewhere the Council would like to see a planning condition put on that the building has to be well screened from residents walking the nearby public footpath. The Parish Council has stated that local people have complained to their office about the battery store building.

3.4 The occupier of a nearby dwelling has objected to the retrospective planning application for the battery store. It is their view that the building is a substantial structure of 24 square metres, and may not be intended for use as a battery store as it is clearly designed for other uses. They question whether the batteries need a store and they also believe that the batteries could be accommodated inside a much smaller enclosure. They also note that a generator is located within this building and question the purpose of this generator, as emergency back-up generators can be housed within purpose designed and sound- proofed enclosures. In their opinion the erection of such a large building in this area has shown no regard for the countryside location and the rural surroundings.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

APPENDIX A/ 18 - 4

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

6.2 In 2010, a planning application for the installation of 4 No. solar panels and the construction of a building to house batteries and a generator (partially retrospective) together with the installation of 1 No. wind turbine and 12 No. additional solar panels was refused. However, this decision was subsequently appealed by the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate allowed the appeal. As such the works proposed in this current application have the benefit of planning permission through this appeal decision. Therefore, the appeal decision and the contents of this decision is a material consideration in assessing and determining this application.

6.3 This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of a detached timber framed building to be used as a battery store and the installation of 4 stand alone solar panels. The applicant has stated that they were advised by the planning office that they could temporarily install 4 panels and a structure to house the batteries in order to provide energy to the site for the restoration of the cottages. This information is correct; however, the applicant now wishes to make these existing installations permanent and as such requires the benefit of planning permission. The applicant has advised that the rationale for making this application is due to the fact that this property is not connected to a mains electricity supply, and as such an alternative source for obtaining electricity is needed.

6.4 The battery store is located alongside a public footpath and is approximately 35m to the northwest of the semi-dilapidated listed barn. The storage building has been constructed from traditional materials and is of a traditional design, and is not considered to detract from the setting of the listed building. It is acknowledged that the existing building is visible from the public footpath, however, it is considered that the building relates well to the existing barn and its setting, and is not thought to be visually intrusive in this locality. The battery store is also set at the foot of a large tree which softens and screens the appearance of this building. However, given the comments of the Parish Council it is recommended that a landscaping condition be attached to the permission to ensure that the battery store be further screened from the public footpath.

6.5 The solar panels are sited in a field behind the existing battery store and are screened from view from the public footpath by the existing hedge and tree row. They are set away from the lane and are considered to not be generally visible in the wider context of the landscape, furthermore, they are not visible from the listed building and the listed building can only be glimpsed from their location. This application also seeks planning permission for the erection of 12 additional solar panels, these would be located in the same position as the existing 4 solar panels, and for the reasons cited above, they would not be visually obtrusive in this locality and would not be readily visible from the public footpath. The siting of the solar panels would be set away from West Chiltington Lane, and they would not be considered to be generally visible in the wider context of the landscape.

6.6 The Governments Planning Policy Statement 22 on Renewable Energy states that the landscape and visual effects of particular renewable energy developments will vary on a case by case basis according to the type of development, its location and the landscape setting of the proposed development. Some of these effects may be minimised through appropriate siting and design. Policy DC8 states that schemes for renewable energy will be permitted where they do not have a significant adverse effect on the landscape character.

6.7 It is recognised that there is a lack of electricity to this site, and that there is a genuine and established need for alternative sources of providing energy at this site. It is considered APPENDIX A/ 18 - 5

that the existing and proposed solar panels are not overly visible from any public vantage points at this site and are relatively well screened by the trees and hedgerows sited behind the panels. The battery store building is constructed from appropriate materials and is not considered to overly visible in this locality or thought to be an unacceptable visual intrusion upon this countryside and rural area. As such, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for both the retrospective and proposed works.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Permit A2 Full Planning M1 Approval of Materials L1 Hard & Soft Landscaping

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Background Papers: DC/11/1248, DC/10/2427, DC/09/2310 & DC/09/2268

APPENDIX A/ 19 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 20th September, 2011 SITE: St Michael’s Church, Amberley. WARD: Chantry. APPLICATION: Tree Preservation Order No. 1435.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Objection to a Tree Preservation Order.

RECOMMENDATION: To confirm Tree Preservation Order No 1435.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider whether Tree Preservation Order 1435 should be confirmed.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 Provisional Tree Preservation Order No 1435, St Michael’s Church, Amberley, was served on the 29th March 2011 on a Coast redwood tree under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999, and included a Section 201 Direction, affording the tree in question immediate protection.

1.2 The statutory consultation period for the receipt of representations has now expired, enabling the Order to be confirmed.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The tree the subject of the Order is sited just to the west of the lych-gate at the north-east corner of the churchyard, immediately to the south of the access path to the church, and close to the church hall.

1.4 The area in question is within the South Downs National Park and the Amberley Conservation Area.

1.5 Contained within the local Built-up Area boundary, the area is also a designated Archaeological Site, and is subject to an Article 4 Direction.

1.6 St Michael’s church is a Grade I listed building, of national importance.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 19 - 2.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.7 On 22nd February 2011 a notification under Section 211 of the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 was received of the intention to remove the tree from Messrs. Andrew Gale Tree Surgery Limited on behalf of Mr Michael Halls of The Cricketers, Station Road, Amberley (ref: DC/11/0333).

1.8 As it was considered that the tree had high amenity value, and as representations had been received both in favour of and in objection to its removal, it was resolved that the tree should be formally protected at the very least until a more intensive consideration of its properties and qualities had been arrived at.

1.9 Accordingly Tree Preservation Order number 1435 was served on 29th March 2011 and included a Section 201 Direction, affording the tree immediate protection.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Section 198(1) of the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 states that Local Planning Authorities may make a TPO if it appears to them to be “expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area”.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICIES

2.2 Policy DC6 of the General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework document (December 2007).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 As the notification of intent to fell the tree was considered likely to raise considerable local interest, thirty local residents living in close proximity to the tree were written to, inviting their views. The Parish Council was also notified.

3.2 Amberley Parish Council stated that it would a shame to see the tree felled, but agreed to accept it with regret. It was requested that, in the circumstances, a condition should be applied to any consent granted requiring replanting. The Parish Council was subsequently reminded that the Council has no powers to grant consent to notifications of intent within a Conservation Area subject to conditions.

3.3 Three letters of objection were received, pointing out principally that there did not appear to be anything wrong with the tree, that it was of amenity value, and that it did not appear to be causing any problems to the adjacent buildings.

3.4 Five letters of support for the tree’s removal were received, and subsequent to the serving of the Tree Preservation Order a further three have been received. Comments have been made that:  The tree is a ‘non-native’, inappropriate for retention within a conservation area. APPENDIX A/ 19 - 3.

 It obscures the view of the ancient yew adjacent to the church door, and the castle beyond, as well as the graveyard to the south-west; its impact upon the local surroundings “is significantly negative”.  Being of a species of very large possible ultimate size, it is inappropriate in its position, which it has already outgrown in particular regard to the proximity to the adjacent church hall and the Old Vicarage. Root damage has also already caused some unevenness in the church pathway, and could cause further damage “to nearby walls and buildings and perhaps to the war memorial”.  Should the tree fail, it would likely cause major damage to the church hall and the war memorial.  The long heavy branches are starting to foul the war memorial, and are sometimes shed in high winds; on some occasions public safety is compromised as broken limbs are ‘hung-up’ over the church path.  Being evergreen, the tree sheds foliage, light deadwood, and other detritus all year round, fouling not only the gutters and drains of the church hall but covering the church path, sometimes making it slippery and thereby a safety hazard to pedestrians, especially the disabled. The pathway is the sole means of public access to the church.  The tree could only realistically be kept under control “by mutilation”.  Although it is understood that the tree was planted as a memorial, the person responsible has since passed away, obviating any personal distress.

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

Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) of the Human Rights act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 The tree in question is a Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), originals of which in the USA are the tallest trees on earth. This specimen is relatively squat, being only around 16m tall but exhibiting a trunk diameter at chest height of 822mm. The trunk emanates from a small low tump, the centre of the tree being 1.4m to the south of the church footpath. The trunk has a minor lean to the north- east, but is otherwise in good order. The crown is dense, but characterised by over- extension of the longest branches which are in many cases rather too heavy for their breadth. The radial crown spread is around 6.5m south, west, and east, but to the north was found to be 8.7m, constituting a noticeable bias.

5.2 The tree has clearly been subject to little maintenance in recent years. The crown bias noted is uncorrected; the canopy heavily dense; and there is an increased level of deadwood within the crown. However, the trunk and basal area is in good condition, with no sign of hollowing, decay, or ingress of fungal colonisation.

5.3 The tree is clearly and unambiguously prominent in the streetscene, particularly when viewed heading west along Church Street, from where it stands out at the head of the turning area between the church hall to the south and the residential properties to the north. Sited on the highest part of the churchyard, it is prominent from north, south, and west also. It is considered therefore to have very high amenity value.

APPENDIX A/ 19 - 4.

5.4 Conversely, by way of its position in the landscape, it also restricts views of the large old yew tree close to the doorway of the church, and of the attendant churchyard.

5.5 The tree is in relatively close proximity to adjacent buildings and features. At 4.2m to the east is an old stone wall associated with the church hall, the closest point of the hall itself being 8m from the tree. The main retaining wall abutting Church Street, to the north, is 9m away, and in this locality is the war memorial on the north side of the footpath to the church; the lych gate is just to the east. There is an old gravestone to the south 1.5m away.

5.6 Save for some very minor distortion to the church footpath, there is no evidence that any of these built features are suffering from any structural defect connected with the tree’s presence, nor has any evidence been submitted indicating such.

5.7 It is not contested that should the tree fail, it would cause extensive damage upon whatever structure fate decreed it should fall upon. However, this can be said of any moderate to large sized tree close to built structures. The species is well known to have a particularly low incidence of windthrow, and in this case has an excellent height/trunk breadth ratio. Lonsdale (Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management, DETR, 1999) rates it as the conifer with the lowest propensity to fail due to decay; it is also rated very highly in regard to propensity for developing weak forks, and for fork failure overall. As the tree is showing no evidence of pathogenic invasion, nor other disturbance to its rooting function or structural integrity, it cannot be held that it has any more likelihood of failure than any other similarly sized tree.

5.8 Its recent lack of maintenance is, however, causing a problem. There is evidence that some of the longer, heavier limbs have fallen in storms, and indeed the longest branches are close to fouling both the war memorial and pedestrian access along the footpath – particularly when the tree is snow-covered, as last winter. However, it is not considered necessary to remove the tree to abate this nuisance. It would be good practice to lift the lower limbs, by selective surgery, and at the same time trim back the longest branches to appropriate growth points to improve the ratio between branch length and breadth of limb. It would also be prudent to thin the canopy, decreasing wind resistance, and to remove any deadwood. The confirmation of the Preservation Order upon the tree in no way restricts the opportunity to carry out such works, save the need to submit an application to the Council. Such applications are free of charge, and contrary decisions open to appeal.

5.9 Such works as suggested above would also dramatically reduce the other problem noted, that of needle and detritus drop. While this clearly cannot be eliminated, especially in regard to an evergreen tree, it is not considered to be inappropriately onerous to sweep clear light needle drop from the path, an action which would need to be undertaken whatever tree overhung it, in line with health and safety practice. Similarly, the regular cleaning of gutters and drains of needles and other detritus is generally accepted to be prudent building maintenance, and would no doubt need completing whether the tree was present or not, especially in autumn.

5.10 It has been stated that the size of this tree, something considered to be a problem by a number of correspondents, could only be “tamed by mutilation”. However, this is disputed, as the species in general responds well to correct pruning, and in this particular case, where overly-long lateral limbs protrude beyond an internal APPENDIX A/ 19 - 5.

‘secondary crown’, that is, a tighter crown profile, the specimen appears especially well-suited to such work. If undertaken correctly, in accordance with BS 3998 'Recommendations for Tree Work' (2010), it is assessed that the result could be a tree with a very much smaller overall profile, more regular and compact, with greater space above the pathway and war memorial, and yet retaining its landscape amenity merit. As the tree continues to grow, there is no reason why such works cannot be carried out again in future times.

5.11 Comment has been made in regard to the unsuitability of the species for retention within a Conservation Area, given that the tree is non-native. However, it is considered prudent to assess trees on their contribution to the character and amenities of such areas, rather than to make assessments on generic grounds. Introduced into the UK in 1843, this species has become distributed throughout the country, and is quite commonly seen gracing the landscape, particularly in parks, gardens, and public places.

5.12 In regard to comments made in respect of the tree having been planted as a memorial, it is not considered that this is a matter material to this report. However, for clarity it should be reported that local information has been provided indicating that the daughter of the widow who planted the tree apparently still visits the site. Her father, in memory of whom the tree was planted, is buried in the churchyard.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Order is confirmed.

Background Papers:  Tree Preservation Order: No. 1435.  Notification of intent to fell tree: DC/11/0333.

Contact Officer: Will Jones. APPENDIX A/ 20 - 1. DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 20th September, 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Surgery to 1 ash tree.

SITE: Land west of 62 Arun Road, Billingshurst.

WARD: Billingshurst & Shipley.

APPLICATION: DC/11/1405

APPLICANT: Horsham District Council.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by Horsham District Council.

RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application proposes surgery to an ash tree.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The tree is sited in the southerly section of retained amenity land to the west of Arun Road, adjacent to Holders Close. The tree is just to the west of the property 85 Holders Close.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 The tree in question is protected by Tree Preservation Order number 1226, confirmed on 21st February 2005.

1.4 The land on which the tree is growing is owned and managed by Horsham District Council Leisure Services.

1.5 The tree was previously lightly pruned under DC/06/2518.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 20 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 As a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

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

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Billingshurst Parish Council has stated no objection to this proposal.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.

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

Not applicable in this case.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

6.2 It is considered that these works will improve the aesthetic appearance of the tree, and constitute best practice.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. TR3 Treeworks limits:  Undertake works exactly as set out in schedule as submitted with application. 3. TR4 Surgery standards INF7 Works limitations. INF8 Wildlife protection.

APPENDIX A/ 20 - 3.

8. REASONS

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

Background Papers: DC/11/1405 Contact Officer: Will Jones.