Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 5TH FEBRUARY 2013 at 6.30P.M

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

Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

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

Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 5TH FEBRUARY 2013 AT 6.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman) Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey Ian Howard Andrew Baldwin David Jenkins Peter Burgess Christian Mitchell John Chidlow Josh Murphy Christine Costin Godfrey Newman Helena Croft Jim Rae Leonard Crosbie Stuart Ritchie Malcolm Curnock David Sheldon Laurence Deakins David Skipp Duncan England Simon Torn Frances Haigh Claire Vickers David Holmes Tricia Youtan

You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 4th December 2012 and 15th January 2013 (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 reports of the following officers and to take such action thereon as may be necessary:

Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals 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 Forest DC/12/0197 Tower Court Queensway Horsham

A2 Horsham Park DC/12/0578 Collyers School 82 Hurst Road Horsham

A3 Itchingfield, DC/12/1186 Kingsfold Nursery Dorking Road Kingsfold Slinfold and Warnham

A4 Itchingfield, DC/12/1995 Builders Yard Mead Farm Stane Street Slinfold Slinfold and Warnham

A5 Roffey South DC/12/2149 1 Elgar Way Horsham

A6 Holbrook West DC/12/1816 Squirrels Old Holbrook Horsham

A7 Denne DC/12/2203 Land Adjacent To 193 Tanbridge Park Horsham

A8 Holbrook East DC/12/2241 Ropeland Way Horsham

A9 Broadbridge S106/1959 Land South of Broadbridge Heath Old Wickhurst Heath Lane Broadbridge Heath

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.

DCN121204

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 4TH DECEMBER 2012

Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Helena Croft, Leonard Crosbie, Laurence Deakins, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, David Holmes, Ian Howard, David Jenkins, Christian Mitchell, Godfrey Newman, Jim Rae, Stuart Ritchie, David Sheldon, David Skipp

Apologies: Councillors: Roy Cornell, Christine Costin, Malcolm Curnock, Josh Murphy, Simon Torn, Claire Vickers, Tricia Youtan

DCN/80 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6th November 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/81 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

There were no declarations of interest.

DCN/82 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCN/83 APPEALS

Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/12/0727 Barnsfold Barn, Barnsfold Lane, Mr and Mrs Trafford Rudgwick

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/12/0701 56 Keats Close, Horsham Mr Michael Allowed Wingate

Development Control (North) Committee 4th December 2012

DCN/84 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0987 - ERECTION OF 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS COMPRISING 16 HOUSES (3 X 4/5 BED, 4 X 4 BED AND 9 X 5 BED) PLUS 12 FLATS (4 X 1 BED, 6 X 2 BED AND 2 X 3 BED) WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES (THE FIRS AND LAND TO THE REAR OF BURLEIGH AND ARCHERS) SITE: THE FIRS, FARTHINGS HILL, HORSHAM APPLICANT: CREST NICHOLSON SOUTH

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of 28 dwellings comprising 16 houses and 12 flats, incorporating a total of 66 parking spaces and the provision of amenity space both to the individual dwellings and the communal areas. During the course of consideration, amended plans had been submitted that reduced the number of units from 29 to 28 and sought to address concerns regarding the scale and positioning of the buildings, landscaping and housing allocation.

The application site was located to the east of the A24 dual carriageway and south of the Farthings Hill interchange roundabout and included the existing property The Firs and associated land, together with part of the front and rear gardens of Archers and Burleigh. Access to the site was from Farthings Hill. The site was in a sustainable location in the built-up area of Horsham which was a Category 1 settlement as identified in the Local Development Framework.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

The site had been the subject of four previous applications that related to an assisted living care home development:

DC/07/1922 Outline permission including Section 106 Granted Agreement 106/1622 relating to transport contributions which are to be paid on commencement of development

DC/08/1275 Reserved matters Refused

2 Development Control (North) Committee 4th December 2012

DCN/84 Planning Application: DC/12/0987 (cont.)

DC/08/2619 Revised application for a further approval of Granted reserved matters. The design and overall scale of the building had been amended from the previous submission in that the overall footprint was reduced and the design simplified and ridgeline varied

DC/11/0404 To renew the unimplemented outline Delegated permission DC/07/1922 for approval

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

In particular the Committee noted that the Landscape Officer, who had identified a need to mitigate the visual impact of the acoustic fence, considered that the amended proposals were now acceptable. The Housing Strategy Development Manager, who had commented that the proposal fell short of the affordable housing targets set out in the Core Strategy, considered that the amended plans met those targets.

The Neighbourhood Council had objected to the application, and Broadbridge Heath Parish Council had also objected to the application. Thirty-three letters of objection had been received and the Horsham Society had objected to the application. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and both the applicant and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

The amended plans included a reduction in the height of the buildings and an improved layout, although it was noted that the affordable housing flats were grouped together adjacent to the acoustic fence. Whilst the improvements to the acoustic fence were noted, Members were concerned at the extent of its use along this significant gateway into Horsham. There would be a total of 66 parking spaces comprising 51 allocated spaces, 14 for the flats and one visitor space. Members were concerned that the provision of one visitor space would be inadequate. The comments of West Sussex County Council Highways Authority were discussed by the Committee and it was noted that the Safety Audit and traffic survey previously submitted for the care home application in 2007 had not been updated. The Highways Authority considered that the proposed development would not be expected to generate any significant increase of peak hour use of the A281, but a Traffic Regulation Order to impose a left turn in /left turn out arrangement could be included.

3 Development Control (North) Committee 4th December 2012

DCN/84 Planning Application: DC/12/0987 (cont.)

Members were concerned that the Highways Authority’s response to the consultation did not take into account other developments in the area, and that the volume of traffic close to the interchange roundabout could have increased since the 2007 traffic survey. Members were also concerned that the access would restrict the flow of traffic on an important access road into town. Members noted that the proposed affordable housing units were comprised solely of flats and were concerned by the lack of compliance with the Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document with respect to affordable homes being indistinguishable from the market housing and having a similar mix of housing types. Members agreed that the amended proposals had gone some way towards mitigating concerns, but on balance and after careful assessment, Members considered that the proposal was unacceptable, particularly with regard to the access point onto Farthings Hill, and the visual impact of the development, including the built form and acoustic fencing, on the character of the locality at one of the principal entrances to Horsham.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0987 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, Local Members and Councillor David Holmes. The view of the Committee was that the application should be refused.

DCN/85 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1610 - VARIATION OF CONDITION 8 (VEHICLE AND CYCLE PARKING, TURNING AND ACCESS FACILITIES) OF PLANNING PERMISSION DC/07/2896 TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE AND CYCLE PARKING SPACES AND ALTERATION TO PARKING LAYOUT SITE: 59 PARK TERRACE EAST, HORSHAM APPLICANT: OLD GROVEWOOD PROPERTIES LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought a variation of Condition 8 of permission DC/07/2896, for the construction of 14 two-bedroom flats, to allow for parking allocation to be reduced and distributed differently. The proposal would reduce the total number of parking spaces from 16 to 12, and the number of cycle spaces would also be reduced. The applicant had advised that the proposal was intended to provide parking in line with current Council standards.

4 Development Control (North) Committee 4th December 2012

DCN/85 Planning Application: DC/12/1610 (cont.)

The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham adjacent to the railway line, with residential properties, including flats to the south and east of the site. The Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses is also adjacent to the site.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP11, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC8, DC9, DC18, DC19 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1 and CC4 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/07/2896 Residential development consisting of 14 x Granted two bedroom flats in a three storey building

DC/12/1974 Minor material amendments to building Decision envelope, elevations, flat layouts and external Pending works (including amending the refuse store to a fenced enclosure) and provision of solar panels (DC/07/2896)

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. In particular, the comments of the Highways Authority regarding the existing demands for parking along Park Terrace East were considered. The Neighbourhood Council objected to the application. Seven letters of objection to the proposals had been received and also an objection from Horsham Society.

The Committee noted the number of objections that had been received on the grounds of parking pressure. There were 52 residential properties in Park Terrace East and 35 on-street parking spaces.

The Highways Department confirmed that the proposed parking provision would be two parking spaces less that required by the Parking Demand Calculator and that a reduction in parking provision would increase the shortage of parking in the Park Terrace East area, to the significant inconvenience of other residential and highway users in the area.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

5 Development Control (North) Committee 4th December 2012

DCN/85 Planning Application DC/12/1610 (cont.)

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/1610 be refused for the following reason:

01 The proposed reduction in parking provision would result in increased demand for on-street parking in an area of limited parking availability, to the inconvenience of other residential and highway users. The proposal fails to accord in particular with policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DCN/86 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1176 - PROVISION OF PRIVATE STABLES AND EXERCISE SCHOOL FOR FOUR HORSES AND RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION FOR A NEW FIELD ENTRANCE SITE: LAND SOUTH OF DOOMSDAY COTTAGE, PINKHURST LANE, SLINFOLD APPLICANT: MR M GILES

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the provision of private stables and exercise school for four horses and retrospective permission for a new field entrance. The development would also provide a tack room, hay room and parking area.

The application site was located off Pinkhurst Lane, a designated public footpath, and comprised a field of four hectares. There were a number of residential properties to the north and west of the site, with a mature hedgerow along the western boundary. There was an article 4 direction on the land which precluded the erection of fencing without prior written permission from the local planning authority.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC9, DC29 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1 and CC4 were relevant to the determination of this application.

There was no relevant planning history to this site.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to the application, and twelve letters of objection had been received.

6 Development Control (North) Committee 4th December 2012

DCN/86 Planning Application DC/12/1176 (cont.)

Whilst a number of objections had been received from adjoining occupiers, it was noted that the hedgerow along the western boundary of the field would restrict the view of the proposed development, which would be 44 metres from the nearest property.

The applicant had added a new field entrance subsequent to lodging the application and Members noted that its visual impact on the amenities of the area was limited, and that the highways authority expressed no concerns with the proposal.

Members noted that there was a similar equine development to the north of the application site, and considered that the proposal was appropriate in scale for this countryside location and would not lead to any significant increase in activity.

The applicant had confirmed that the stables would be for the housing of four horses and not for his own personal use and Members noted that a condition to control the use of the land for private equestrian purposes was proposed.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/1176 be granted subject to the following conditions:

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

02 The stables hereby permitted shall be used for private equestrian purposes and shall not be used as a livery or for commercial purposes or in connection with any form of riding establishment.

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

04 The development hereby permitted shall not be undertaken until precise details of the proposed method for the storage and disposal of used bedding and manure has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

7 Development Control (North) Committee 4th December 2012

DCN/86 Planning Application DC/12/1176 (cont.)

Thereafter the storage and approval of used bedding and manure shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation.

05 No works or development shall take place until full details of all 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.

06 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.

07 No development shall commence unless and until precise details relating to the proposed surface materials for the sandschool are submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority and any such approved materials shall be retained in the development thereafter.

08 Before development commences precise details of the levels of the development (both the stable block and sandschool) in relation to a nearby datum point shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

REASON

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

8 Development Control (North) Committee 4th December 2012

DCN/87 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0131 - REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DWELLING AND AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING (BUILDING D) WITH A NEW AGRICULTURAL DWELLING SITE: ROWARTS FARM NORTH, FIVE OAKS ROAD, SLINFOLD APPLICANT: MR JOHN WALKER-SMITH

Application withdrawn from the agenda.

The meeting closed at 6.58pm having commenced at 5.30pm.

CHAIRMAN

9 DCN130115

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 15TH JANUARY 2013

Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman), Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Duncan England, David Holmes, Ian Howard, Christian Mitchell, Godfrey Newman, Stuart Ritchie, David Skipp, Claire Vickers, Tricia Youtan

Apologies: Councillors: John Bailey, Christine Costin, Helena Croft, Laurence Deakins, Frances Haigh, David Jenkins, Josh Murphy, Jim Rae, David Sheldon, Simon Torn

DCN/92 MINUTES

The minutes of the Committee held on 18th December 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. Members agreed that the minutes of the Committee held of 4th December 2012 should be amended and presented for approval at the next meeting.

DCN/93 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Malcolm DC/12/1651 Personal – he was member of Curnock Broadbridge Heath Parish Council

DCN/94 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCN/95 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1651 – DEVELOPMENT OF 101 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING 20 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (20%), THE CREATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE, INCIDENTAL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS) SITE: LAND SOUTH OF BROADBRIDGE HEATH OLD WICKHURST LANE APPLICANT: COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES PLC

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this reserved matters application sought permission for the delivery of the third residential phase (Parcel 4) of the strategic development of land south of Broadbridge Heath. This phase comprised 101 dwellings, including 20 affordable units, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works. Development Control (North) Committee 15th January 2013

DCN/95 Planning Application: DC/12/1651 (cont.)

The infrastructure and other contributions were linked to the Legal Agreement secured in connection with the Outline planning application DC/09/2101 (Minute No. DCN/117 (18/01/11) refers).

The current application related to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and was supported by a number of technical reports.

The application site comprised part of the 57 hectare strategic development to the south of Broadbridge Heath and was located approximately 2.3 kilometres west of Horsham Town Centre, to the west of the A24, and was bounded by the A264 to the north-west, the River Arun to the south-west and the railway line to the south-east. This parcel of development, referred to as Parcel 4, was situated to the south of the new East-West link road, with Newbridge Nurseries to the west and the River Arun to the south of the site. The eastern site boundary was formed by Mill Lane Bridleway.

Currently, the South East Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England (May 2009) formed part of the development plan and was relevant to the determination of the application. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP7, CP12, CP13 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 were also all relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/08/2446 Mixed use development comprising up to Withdrawn 1,013 residential units (Class C3), a primary school (Class D1); a neighbourhood centre including doctors surgery (Class D1), 6 No.flexible business/retail units (Class B1/A2/A1), a parish office (Class B1), a public house/restaurant (Class A4/A3) and associated car parking; open space including sports pitches and changing facilities (Class D2); allotments; and associated landscaping and infrastructure works.(Outline) DC/08/2447 Highway infrastructure work incorporating Withdrawn new grade separated junction on A24 south of Farthings Hill; new east-west link road between Five Oaks Road and the A24; and realignment and downgrading of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass (Outline) 2 Development Control (North) Committee 15th January 2013

DCN/95 Planning Application: DC/12/1651 (cont.)

DC/09/2101 Erection of 963 residential units, Granted community facility including land for a primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to Five- Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (Outline) DC/11/0079 Application to construct 3 No. ponds for Granted Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site in connection with application DC/09/2101 DC/11/2059 Details of the first phase infrastructure Granted works pursuant to outline DC/09/2101, comprising details of new roundabout on Five Oaks Road, western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from Five Oaks Road to the new A24 junction, on site development roads to serve the first residential phases, Pegasus crossing and pedestrian/cycle crossings, new access to Newbridge Nurseries, access to Heath Barn Farm site, bus stops, foul pumping station and surface water drainage (Approval of Reserved Matters) DC/11/2074 Development of 105 residential units, Granted including 21 affordable housing units, open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works pursuant to outline permission DC/09/2101 (Approval of Reserved Matters) DC/11/2538 Erection of one temporary freestanding Granted advertising board (Location 1) and two temporary freestanding advertising boards (Location 2) DC/11/2561 Removal of Condition 7 (European Granted Protected Species Licence) of DC/11/0079 (Construction of 3 No. ponds for Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site)

3 Development Control (North) Committee 15th January 2013

DCN/95 Planning Application: DC/12/1651 (cont.)

DC/12/0798 Erection of 2 No. temporary freestanding Granted advertising boards flanked by 3 No. flags DC/12/0814 Part A - Reserved Matters approval for Granted residential development of 135 houses (consisting of 37 x 2-bed, 36 x- 3-bed and 62 x 4-bed) and landscaping and Part B - Temporary approval for sales and marketing suite comprising plots 1, 2 and 3 DC/12/0996 Erect temporary sales and marketing suite Granted office building with lay out parking and amenity areas and associated hard and soft landscaping DC/12/1134 Erection of 2 x permanent freestanding Granted advertising boards each flanked by 2 x banner flags DC/12/1255 Details of second phase infrastructure Pending works pursuant to outline application Decision DC/09/2101 comprising the eastern section of the 40mph dual carriageway from a point east of the traffic light junction (i.e. the boundary of the first phase infrastructure application) to the new A24 junction to include footpaths, grass verges, acoustic treatment and planting in part of the central; refuge; the western section of the new A24 junction; on site development roads needed to serve the remaining residential phases; surface water drainage system including balancing attenuation features and below ground storage; associated foul drainage recreational open spaces, earthworks and services DC/12/2010 Retention of hoarding signage boards at Granted 19th the temporary construction access December alongside A264. 2012

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. In particular, the comments of the Housing Strategy and Development Officer were noted.

4 Development Control (North) Committee 15th January 2013

DCN/95 Planning Application: DC/12/1651 (cont.)

Broadbridge Heath Parish Council commented on the application and objected to certain aspects of the application. One letter of objection had been received. Amendments had been submitted that sought to address concerns raised by Officers and consultees.

Members noted that the agreed Outline planning application for this phase of development did not include areas of public open space. Whilst the area was adjacent to Mill Lane bridleway and the countryside, Members were concerned that there was no play area available within the application site. Officers advised Members that the location of formal play areas had been secured by the S106 attached to the Outline Planning Permission (DC/09/2101).

Members noted that the proportion of larger houses, including five and six bedroom houses, within this phase of the development was greater than the agreed residential mix across the entire strategic development. Other phases of the development would be designed with a higher density of housing and therefore the density proposed for this phase was considered appropriate and would not put pressure on later phases to ensure that the 963 units approved as a whole would be delivered.

Members were concerned that the proposed tenure mix of affordable housing, which had been set at 50% rented accommodation and 50% shared ownership, was inadequate and did not reflect the preferred percentage of rented accommodation outlined in the Legal Agreement of 62.5%/37.5% in favour of rented accommodation. There was a significant and evident need for smaller rented units, which were in short supply. Members considered that the proposed tenure split was unsatisfactory and that the applicant should be required to revisit the tenure split with Moat Housing Association.

Members also raised the possibility of using a proportion of the £7.73 million commuted sum for off-site affordable housing provision to subsidise the Housing Association. It was noted that this would require a formal variation to the Legal Agreement agreed by all parties and could set a precedent for future developments.

The drainage strategy submitted by the applicant had not adequately demonstrated to the Environment Agency and the Council’s drainage specialist that the current proposal complied with condition 7 of the Outline planning permission DC/09/2101. Members noted that further information had been requested from the applicant to ensure an acceptable drainage strategy.

5 Development Control (North) Committee 15th January 2013

DCN/95 Planning Application: DC/12/1651 (cont.)

The design of house type 4.10 had been considered inappropriately ornate and an amended design had been submitted. The design was still considered to be out of keeping with the rest of the development and Members noted that further amendments had been requested. It was noted that amended plans removed the northern footpath along the primary street to accommodate changes to the number of parking spaces and introduce further street planting. The southern footpath along the primary street had been retained. Whilst the Highway Authority had been consulted on these amendments and raised no highway safety objections, Members were concerned that they would inconvenience residents and considered that the removal of the footpath could have safety implications.

Members considered that parking provision for residents was satisfactory but were concerned that the allocation of eight visitor parking spaces was insufficient.

Members considered that a number of issues required reappraisal, most particularly the affordable housing tenure split, and it was noted that the resolution of the drainage strategy and amendments to the design of house type 4.10 were required. Concerns regarding the northern footpath and visitor parking provision were also noted.

Members agreed that, on balance and after careful consideration, the proposal for the delivery of the 101 dwellings included in Parcel 4 of the development adhered to the key principles established by the Outline parameter plans. The proposal was therefore considered acceptable in principle. RESOLVED

That planning application DC/12/1651 be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and Local Members, to allow for the development of a drainage strategy, the affordable housing tenure split to be amended to increase the percentage of affordable rented units, for the redesign of house type 4.10, and parking provision and the removal of the northern footpath to be reassessed. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The meeting closed at 7.33pm having commenced at 6.30pm.

CHAIRMAN

6 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 5TH FEBRUARY 2013

REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS LODGED

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

1. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/12/0453 Stables and sand school Upper Swaynes Barn, Guildford Road, Rudgwick, Horsham, RH12 3JD For: Mr J Haswell

DC/12/0743 Conversion of coach house to 1 x 2-bed dwelling and provision of parking for 2 vehicles Storries, Plumtree Cross Lane, Itchingfield, Horsham, RH13 0NN For: Mr A Wilder

DC/12/1474 Proposed extension and alterations to convert the existing bungalow into a 2-storey house, which will involve increasing the roof height 141 Comptons Lane, Horsham, RH13 6BH For: Mr & Mrs A C Johnson

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 5th February 2013 Change of use and external alterations of vacant offices into 14 (12 x 2- DEVELOPMENT: bedroom and 2 x 1-bedroom) self contained residential units SITE: Tower Court Queensway Horsham West Sussex WARD: Forest APPLICATION: DC/12/0197 APPLICANT: Trustees of The P N Kirch Trust Fund

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for approval subject to the receipt of amended plans relating to balcony details, completion of a satisfactory S106 agreement and subject to the following conditions:

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the conversion and external alteration of a vacant office building to provide 14 (12x2 bed and 2 x 1 bed) self contained residential units together with refuse store, 17 car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site is located on the east side of Queensway, off Brighton Road (A281). The site is a regular square shape and approximately 0.2 hectares in size. The site is occupied by a vacant two storey 1960’s building which was previously used for office (B1) use. The building which is of no particular architectural merit is set back from the road frontage with ramped pedestrian and vehicular access’s that lead to large hard standing’s and parking bays set out to both the front and rear of the site. There is a small retaining wall to the front perimeter of the site and a number of garages which abut the rear boundary of the site.

1.3 The application site faces east towards the car parking area associated with the commercial building at 36-48 Queensway. To the west of the site (the rear) lies the railway line. To the south of the site the area is generally characterised by residential development comprising a mix of detached properties and semi detached houses and maisonettes.

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.

Additionally there is a store / workshop building located immediately to the south of the application site to the rear of the maisonettes. To the north, the rear elevations of the commercial properties with residential flats above back onto the application site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC1, DC2, DC9, DC18, DC19 and DC40.

2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 The following history is considered to be relevant to the application;

Reference Decision Date Proposal HU/83/60 PER 2nd May 1060 Proposed erection of government offices: Outline HU/286/60 PER 23rd Sept 1960 Proposed erection of government offices HU/83/62 PER 4th May 1962 Proposed erection of block of offices HU/121/93 PER 23rd June 1993 Alterations to access, provision of ramp & handrail, new sign & front wall (circular 18/84 consultation)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Public Health and Licensing – No objections subject to imposition of conditions

Comments received 16th May 2012

Thank you for the copies of the Environmental Noise Survey prepared by Adnitt Acoustics and the Ground Investigation Report prepared by Soils Limited.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.

Following consideration of the reports it is recommended that the flowing conditions are applied should consent be granted:

Land contamination

Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:  all previous uses  potential contaminants associated with those uses  a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors  potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this planning permission the applicant shall commission the inspection of the building to identify the presence of asbestos containing materials. The inspection shall be undertaken by competent persons and shall comply with relevant guidance and best practice. The inspection report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Where asbestos containing materials are found to be present a written method statement that details the measures to be taken to safely remove any asbestos containing materials and to confirm the building is free from asbestos contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Any works of asbestos removal and decontamination shall only be undertaken by competent persons acting in accordance with relevant guidance and best practice.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4.

Environmental Noise The Environmental Noise report has identified potential impacts form the nearby railway line and has proposed a design criterion for windows to reduce the intrusion of railway related noise.

The internal layout of the development should be arranged so as to minimise as far as is practicable the number of bedrooms with windows overlooking the railway.

In respect of the proposed noise mitigation measures the following condition should be applied:

A scheme of works to reduce the intrusion of noise shall be drawn up. The scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme as approved by the local planning authority shall be fully installed before the development is occupied.

General Amenity issues

Any works of demolition or construction and any associated ancillary activities shall only take place between 07:30 hours and 17:30 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 07:30 hours and 13:00 hours on Saturdays, and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Deliveries to or from construction the site shall be restricted to 08:00-17.30 hours on Monday to Friday and Fridays and between 07:30 hours and 13:00 hours on Saturdays, and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

No burning shall be undertaken on the site

Windows: In addition to those comments offered by the police; windows should be fitted with integral trickle ventilation and be capable of being left in a secure 'ajar' position to allow for controlled additional ventilation to allow for control of humidity and limit condensation.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

West Sussex County Council: No objections

This planning application proposes the change of use of an existing office building, known as Tower Court and comprising some 21,500sq.ft of floor space, into 14 self-contained flats.

In terms of transport, the development site is considered to be in a very sustainable location being within a short walking distance of Horsham town centre. It is also relatively close to the railway station and the regular bus services that operate along the Brighton Road.

According to the application, there would be 17 parking spaces to serve the 14 new flats together with a cycle store. The location of the access to the site would be retained in its existing position onto Queensway as a right of access is shown along the access road within the site to serve a further 11 spaces. It is not clear who owns this parking and this needs to be clarified. The access road itself is of concrete construction and would benefit from resurfacing, as would the vehicle crossover onto Queensway.

From a traffic generation point of view, the proposed development is unlikely to result in an increase in traffic as the current offices have around 36 parking spaces and the use would have generated traffic during the peak hours. The proposed car parking arrangements APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5. would provide one space per flat plus three visitor spaces which is probably adequate for this location. There is some concern though that parking could overspill into Queensway, although this road falls within the Horsham Controlled Parking Zone (Zone E) where permits are required. I understand that residents of the proposed flats would not be eligible to obtain parking permits as such, but could be eligible for visitor permits.

In summary, there are no highway or transport objections to this development of flats subject to the following conditions :

Access The vehicular access from the site to Queensway shall be designed, laid out and constructed to a specification to be submitted and approved by the LPA. Reason : In the interest of road safety

Access Road and Parking Spaces The access road and parking spaces serving the development shall be designed, laid out and constructed to the satisfaction of the LPA with one parking space being allocated to each dwelling and clearly marked out prior to the occupation of any dwelling. Reason : To ensure that adequate parking is available to serve the development.

Drainage The development shall not commence unless and until provision has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the LPA to prevent surface water discharging onto the public highway. Reason : In the interests of road safety.

A copy of the access specification can be obtained from West Sussex County Council at County Hall North, Horsham

Contributions are required pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal with the provision of additional County Council service infrastructure, highways and public transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development.

The calculations have been done on the basis of an increase in 14 Net dwellings.

The calculations have been done on the basis of an decrease of 1377 sqm of Class B1(a) floor area and 19 car parking spaces.

Further to the monetary contributions The County Fire Officer advises that the proposed development may need to include the provision of a fire hydrant connected to adequate supplies of water for fire fighting (Contact: David Boarer – Fire Services 01243 813667). It should also include suitable access for fire brigade vehicles and equipment.

Southern Water: Commented that:

Please find attached a plan of the water main records showing the approximate position of a public water distribution main in the immediate vicinity of the site. The exact position of the public water main must be determined on the site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.

All existing infrastructure including protective coatings and cathodic protection should be protected during the course of the construction works. No excavation, mounding or tree planting should be carried out within 3 metres of the public water main without consent from Southern Water.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6.

The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688). Or www.southernwater.co.uk

Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public seer to be made by the applicant or developer.

Southern Water current sewerage records do not show any public sewers to be crossing the site. However due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found to during construction works an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served and potential means of access before any further works commence on site.

The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688). Or www.southernwater.co.uk

Informative required:

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, SO23 9EH (01962 858688).

Sussex Police: Noted that the design and Access Statement failed to mention the crime prevention measures.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

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 there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development in this location; the impact of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area, the amenities of neighbour and future occupiers, parking and highway safety issues, together with sustainability and loss of office / employment use.

Principle of the development

6.2 The site is situated within the built-up area boundary of Horsham. The Local Development Framework policies encourage new development to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas. It is considered that the site is situated within a sustainable location with good access to local facilities and the range of services locally in Roffey and within the town centre, with good links to public transport. As such the scheme APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7.

should be assessed against the usual development control policy criteria contained within the current adopted Local Development Framework and to the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.3 With regard to the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes, the site is located within a sustainable location within the Horsham Town which is identified as a category 1 settlement area.

6.4 The site has a history of commercial use, and the original building which has a floor area of approximately 1,167sqm has been vacant for more than eighteen months following the vacation of the premises by the former tenants for Government purposes at the end of 2010.

6.5 The site does not fall within an identified employment protection zone, as set out by the Head of Strategic and Community Planning. In accordance with Policy DC19 of the LDF General Development Framework, evidence of marketing strategies for alternative commercial use is normally required, and as such the applicants have submitted marketing evidence from Crickmays to support their application.

6.6 The supporting information submitted by the applicant’s states that the property has been actively marketed since January 2011 via a V board on the premises, as well as being circulated to agents locally and nationally. In order to ensure maximum exposure the property has also been marketed via other online property listings including P1 Property, Commercial Property Database and The Gatwick Diamond Commercial Property. Estate Agents Clearing House and EG property Link without success.

6.7 Crickmays Chartered Surveyors advise that building is of a very basic standard stating that ‘the specification of the office accommodation offered at Tower Court is quite simply out of date. Internally, although the offices are clean and recently decorated they show their age. The offices do not benefit from a passenger lift, raised floors, air conditioning and in terms of layout do not provide meeting/break out areas and desirable kitchen and staff areas, all of which are features most modern schemes offering this amount of space provide’. They further advise that ‘the main issue however is the perception of the building. There is no doubt that it’s 1960’s appearance is off putting to potential tenants and this is the buildings fundamental disability. This problem extends beyond the exterior of the property and encompasses the common parts including the stairs and entrance hall/lobbies which are almost industrial in appearance. The building is located behind a fairly tatty parade of shops and the garages and railway line to the rear of the site are not ideal. Whilst I appreciate these aspects will not change, if permission is granted for our proposal, the landscaping proposed will go a long way to nullifying these disadvantages that currently have a negative effect on the site’.

6.8 Crickmays advise that despite extensive marketing, there was no interest from office occupiers received on either a freehold or leasehold basis. Local Market conditions are described as fragile with little demand for larger and older office stock.

Policies

6.9 In respect of the housing mix of development, CP12 states that development should provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of the District communities and provision should be made for smaller homes to meet the needs of new and existing households. The requirements of this policy are amplified by Policy DC18 which relates to smaller homes and housing mix and states that for development of 5 or more, planning permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets an identified need for smaller homes (1 and 2 bed properties). Policy DC18 also states that all proposals will be expected to make efficient use of land APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8.

(over 50 dwellings per hectare for town and village centres, in some cases) however, it also states that development must respect the local character into which it is placed.

6.10 Having regard to the character and nature of development in the surrounding area, the impact of the proposed dwellings on the character of the surrounding area is considered acceptable. The application is for a conversion and as such there are no amendments to the footprint of the development or to the size of the existing building envelope. The conversion involves some external alterations to the elevations in order to approve the visual appearance of the building and also includes the addition of rear and front balconies.

6.11 With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework document, this states in paragraph 51 that Local Planning Authorities should normally approve planning applications for buildings (currently in B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

6.12 In view of the local and national policy context as set out above, it is considered in this case that the loss of the B1 office use (which last occurred approximately two years ago), given the marketing activity carried out and as set out in the supporting that the continued use of the application building for office use is no longer considered appropriate given its location within a predominantly residential area away from the town centre itself and established business parks.

Details of Proposal

6.13 With regards to the details of the scheme, the proposal is for 14 flats comprising 12 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed flats, with associated bin store, the reuse of the existing access and 17 car parking spaces to the rear and associated landscaping.

6.14 The proposal involves the conversion of the building comprising four 2 bed flats to the ground floor, four 2 bed flats and one 1 bed flat to the first floor; and four 2 bed flats and one 1 bed flat to the second floor. Internal stacking arrangements are considered to be acceptable. The flats range from 45.7sqm for a typical one bed flat increasing to between 60sqm to 86sqm for a larger two bed flat.

6.15 The proposal involves some minor alterations to the elevations including timber cladding, composite window and door units. Effectively the existing levels of glazing to the buildings would be reduced and the windows to the southern elevation in-filled. The proposals include the addition of balconies which have a glazed finish and add to the domestic appearance of the converted building. In all other respects the building remains unchanged in its physical appearance. Landscaping measures are to be introduced to soften the overall appearance of the site.

Residential Amenities

6.16 It is considered that there is an adequate relationship between the proposed residential accommodation and the existing residential units surrounding the site. There would be no overlooking between the existing and proposed residential units although it is considered that balcony screening measures may be necessary given the proximity to the residential flats above the commercial propertied in Queens Street. Such screening measures could be controlled through the imposition of a suitable condition requiring mitigating measures to prevent loss of amenity through potential overlooking.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9.

6.17 The four ground floor flats would have the benefit of individual private gardens.

Highways

6.18 It is proposed that the 17 car parking space provided will be set out to the rear of the building and accessed via the existing access off of Queensway. The change of use of the current offices to residential use would result in a reduction in the level of car parking spaces on site. Currently the existing 36 spaces are rented out on licence agreements whilst the site has been vacant.

6.19 West Sussex County Council highways have confirmed that the proposed change of use from B1 office to residential is unlikely to result in an increase in traffic as compared to the level of traffic generated by the previous office use of the site. It is noted that the application site would provided one space per flat plus there visitors parking spaces and as such this meets with required standards. The site falls within the Horsham Controlled Parking Zone (Zone E) where permits are required. The Council’s Parking Services Department have been asked to confirm that residents of the proposed flats would not be eligible to obtain parking permits as such, but could be eligible for visitor permits. Clarification of this will be reported verbally at committee.

Contributions

6.20 West Sussex County Council contributions of £17,685 are sought and comprise Education Contributions of £7,161 (Primary) and £7,707 (Secondary), Libraries £1,917, Fire and Rescue £900 with the level and need for Hydrants to be confirmed.

6.21 Horsham District Council would require contributions of £19,232 comprising Community Centres and Halls £3,240 and Open Space and Recreation £14,372, and Refuse and Recycling £1,620.

6.22 The applicants have confirmed that they agree in principal to enter into a legal agreement. At the time of writing this report there is no S106 agreement in place but this could be resolved during the delegation period.

Conclusion

6.23 The principle of residential use is considered to be acceptable. With regards to the details of the proposal, satisfactory measures in respect of potential overlooking from the first and second floor balconies being submitted, it is considered that the proposed residential use of the property would complement the existing character of the area which is predominantly residential in nature. Thus the proposal complies with the adopted policies within the Local Development Framework 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That the application be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for approval, subject to the receipt of plans relating to balcony details, completion of a satisfactory S106 agreement and subject to the following conditions:

1. A2 Full Permission (3 years)

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 2. M1 Approval of Materials APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10.

3. E3 Fencing

4. G2 Parking Provision 4.8 x 2.4m

5. G6 Recycling

6. No work shall be carried out on site until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include details of the arrangements for the timing of and location of unloading of deliveries, together with the proposals for the parking of construction vehicles and cars associated with the building works. Details shall be provided of the provision within the site (or other adjacent land within the applicant’s control) for all temporary contractors’ buildings, plant or stacks of materials associated with the development. Such provision shall be retained for these purposes throughout the period of work on the site. Implementation of the development shall be in accordance with the management plan unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

7 H10 Cycling Provision

8. L1 Hard and soft landscaping

9. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:  all previous uses  potential contaminants associated with those uses  a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors  potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

ii) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11.

10. If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11. Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this planning permission the applicant shall commission the inspection of the building to identify the presence of asbestos containing materials. The inspection shall be undertaken by competent persons and shall comply with relevant guidance and best practice. The inspection report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

12. Where asbestos containing materials are found to be present a written method statement that details the measures to be taken to safely remove any asbestos containing materials and to confirm the building is free from asbestos contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

13. Any works of asbestos removal and decontamination shall only be undertaken by competent persons acting in accordance with relevant guidance and best practice.

Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

14. A scheme of works to reduce the intrusion of noise shall be drawn up. The scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme as approved by the local planning authority shall be fully installed before the development is occupied.

Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

15. O1 Hours of Working

16. S4 Surface water details

17 O1 Hours of Working

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12.

18 The exact position of the public water main must be determined on the site by the applicant before the development commences. All existing infrastructure including protective coatings and cathodic protection should be protected during the course of the construction works. No excavation, mounding or tree planting should be carried out within 3 metres of the public water main without consent from the Local Planning Authority following consultation with Southern Water.

Reason: To ensure protection of the water mains in the vicinity of the development and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Note to Applicant

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

INF15 - Application Approved Following Revisions

Statement pursuant to Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Background Papers: DC/12/0197 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 5th February 2013 Demolition of existing single storey buildings and erection of 2-storey DEVELOPMENT: building comprising classrooms, offices, areas and ancillary accommodation SITE: Collyers School 82 Hurst Road Horsham West Sussex WARD: Horsham Park APPLICATION: DC/12/0578 APPLICANT: Collyers

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two a storey ‘U’ shaped building to the rear of the Rimbault Duckering Hall Link and to the north of the Sports Hall. The building is designed around a central courtyard and has a central walkway at ground floor level within the north east elevation through to the playing fields.

1.2 The building is for the purposes of providing teaching and support facilities.

1.3 The proposed layout on the ground and first floor mirrors one another and includes 6 class rooms, a resource room office facilities and WC’s on both floors.

1.4 The north western elevation of the proposed building would be located approximately 6.7 metres to 9.1 metres and then increasing to 12.04 metres from the rear south / south east facing garden boundaries of numbers 1&2 Angus Close. The north eastern elevation is approximately 11.8 metres from the garden boundary of 3 Angus Close. The south eastern elevation of the building follows a similar building line to the existing sports hall.

1.5 The application has been supported by a design and access statement which amongst other matters sets out the provision for disabled access and explains the sustainable building measures that would be used in the construction of the building.

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The application site is located on the edge of the College playing fields in an area which is currently occupied by a collection of six single storey buildings. The current proposal would necessitate the removal of four of these buildings to accommodate the new development.

1.7 The main college campus including the Grade II listed former school building, is located to the south and west of the site.

1.8 The four building’s to be demolished include three buildings currently used for purposes of an on site nursery which are run independently from the College and one other used as a sports pavilion to house multi gym equipment. The equipment has been re-sited to a purpose built facility within the Sports Hall Annexe completed in 2006. Two buildings would remain in situ including the grounds man’s hut under the canopy of the oak tree on the north eastern boundary of the site.

1.9 Two of the existing single storey buildings abut the boundary of 2 Angus Close. A 1.8 high panel fence separates the rear garden area of this property from the school grounds with tree and shrub planting within the garden providing screening.

1.10 The existing pedestrian access that currently serves the nursery buildings and runs from the car park area between the Sports Hall and Science Building will be retained. The main access to the building would be via the ‘quad’ area via an extension to the existing pedestrian access route which includes a ramped approach from the car park.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP3, CP5, CP14 and CP16.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC9, DC13 and DC21

2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 The planning history of the site reveals that the most rapid period of expansion and development of the college occurred during the 1990’s. During this period existing buildings were repaired and upgraded and/or extended, a new sports hall and teaching accommodation was constructed and a new car parking area provided. The most relevant planning application related to the application site is DC/07/1304 for the demolition of existing single storey buildings and the erection of 2-storey building comprising APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

classrooms, offices, theatre, toilets together with new access road from existing car parking area.

2.7 The current application being considered under DC/12/0578 differs from that application previously considered under DC/07/1304 in terms of its design and layout and the distance of the north-west elevation from the boundary of rear gardens to Angus Close as previously approved. Furthermore, the footprint of proposed new building is located around a central courtyard and as such, although the built form projects further south east into the playing fields than the previous application it is no further to the south east than the building line of the existing sports hall.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Access Officer: Please confirm that the accessible toilet will be at least 2.2metres by 1.5metres and all the fittings and features will conform to Part M of the Building regulations. The dimensions in the plans look like a rhomboid room rather than a rectangular. Close attention is needed to the layout to ensure good functionality.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council: Commented that

Highways: It is unclear from the detail submitted in support of the application as to what impact the development will have in terms of traffic generated by the site.

The proposed development will utilise the existing site access; an interrogation of the Road Traffic Collision database shows that this access has a good accident record. Should the development not result in a significant intensification in use of the site access, the Highway Authority would be satisfied that the access arrangements are acceptable. Should the proposed development result in a significant intensification then further consideration would be required as to whether the increase will be to the detriment of Highway safety.

On the assumption that the development does not result in a significant increase in traffic generation then the Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposed development. However, further information is sought from the Applicant in regard to the number of traffic movements generated by the proposed development.

3.3 Southern Water: Commented that (summary)

The exact position of the [public sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.

Due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible a sewer now deemed to be public are crossing the above property. An investigation of the sewer will be requires to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site.

The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688).

Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public foul and surface water sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

Informative required:

Should permission be recommended for approval the following condition should be attached:

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.

3.4 Health and Safety Executive: No Objections (Do Not Advise Against)

3.5 Environment Agency: No Objection

3.6 Horsham Society: Objects

I write on behalf of the Horsham Society to object to this application on the grounds of the quality of design and that it amounts to unneighbourly development.

3.7 Sport England: Objects

Initial consultation response received 20th September 2012

It is understood that the site forms part of, or constitutes a playing field as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No.2184), in that it is on land that has been used as a playing field within the last five years, and the field encompasses at least one playing pitch of 0.2 ha or more, or that it is on land that allocated for the use as a playing field in a development plan or in proposals for such a plan or its alteration or replacement.

Sport England has therefore considered the application in the light of its playing fields policy. The aim of this policy is to ensure that there is an adequate supply of quality pitches to satisfy the current and estimated future demand for pitch sports within the area. The policy seeks to protect all parts of the playing field from development and not just those which, for the time being, are laid out as pitches. The Policy states that:

“Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field in an adopted or draft deposit local plan, unless, in the judgement of Sport England, one of the Specific circumstances applies.”

Reason; Development which would lead to the loss of all or part of a playing field, or which would prejudice its use, should not normally be permitted because it would permanently reduce the opportunities for participation in sporting activities. Government planning policy and the policies of Sport England have recognised the importance of such activities to the social and economic well-being of the country.

The application proposes the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a new two storey extension. Part of the extension will encroach onto usable playing field land. Whilst Sport England acknowledges that the existing playing field is extensive in size, the APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5. proposed development nonetheless results in the loss of playing field contrary to Sport England’s playing field policy. Sport England would suggest that the extension be scaled back to be contained within the current built footprint.

In light of the above, Sport England objects to the proposal because is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s playing fields policy.

Should your Council be minded to grant planning permission for the development then in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, and the DCLG letter of 10 March 2011, the application should be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit.

If this application is to be presented to a Planning Committee, we would like to be notified in advance of the publication of any committee agendas, report(s) and committee date(s). We would be grateful if you would advise us of the outcome of the application by sending us a copy of the decision notice.

Further consultation response received 1st October 2012

Thank you for providing the additional plans.

Sport England relates to the loss of usable playing field, and whilst the plans indicate how pitches could be marked out in the future, this does not resolve the loss of playing field issue. I have considered the previously consented scheme in 2007. Sport England has no record of having been consulted on this scheme – possibly because the proposed development, at the time, was confined to the footprint of the existing built form.

Sport England will, oppose development on playing fields in all but exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances are where, in the judgment of Sport England:

E1 - A carefully quantified and documented assessment of current and future needs has demonstrated to the satisfaction of Sport England that there is an excess of playing field provision in the catchment, and the site has no special significance to the interests of sport.

E2 - The proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field or playing fields, and does not affect the quantity or quality of pitches or adversely affect their use.

E3 - The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of, or inability to make use of any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins), a reduction in the size of the playing area of any playing pitch or the loss of any other sporting/ancillary facility on the site.

E4 - The playing field or playing fields which would be lost as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of the development.

E5 - The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing fields.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.

Unfortunately, the current scheme does not meet any of the exceptional circumstances to Sport England’s playing field policy and therefore it is our duty to lodge/ maintain a formal objection.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.8 Neighbour Notifications: 6 letters of objection received (2 from the same address). The reasons for objection are as follows:

 Loss of privacy and light  Loss of private and visual amenities  Obtrusive development  Overlooking  Overshadowing  Over bearing and claustrophobic development  Proximity to rear boundary of residential properties  Noise and disturbance  Parking  Litter

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

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

It is not considered the proposal will have a material impact on crime and disorder

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 Given the location of the building on the edge of the playing fields it is not considered that the proposal would have an impact on the setting of the listed building and the main issues in this case are:

a) The impact of the development upon the grouping of buildings within the college complex;

b) The impact on the amenities of residents within the vicinity of the site;

c) The impact on existing parking and traffic conditions associated with the application site

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.

d) The impact on playing fields

Each issue is addressed below:

The impact of the development upon the grouping of buildings within the college complex

6.2 The proposed new two storey building would replace the existing single storey buildings adjacent to the site boundary of Angus Close. The current scheme would be sited further from the common boundary of Angus Close and therefore represent a better relationship with the residential properties and associated garden areas to Angus Close (particularly No 2) than the scheme previously approved scheme under DC/07/1304. The revised location of the proposed building would enable additional planting to be undertaken to reinforce the existing hedgerow. It is recommended that protective fencing is erected during construction work to safeguard the existing hedgerow.

6.3 The applicants have confirmed that with regards to the nursery, it is initially intended to build Phase 1 only being the element furthest away from the nursery up to the bridge link section, thereby allowing the nursery to continue operating. If and when funds become available for Phase 2, the nursery will be given a 12 month notification period in order to enable them to find alternative accommodation. The proposals have been discussed with the nurseries direct and they are aware of the situation.

The impact on the amenities of residents within the vicinity of the site

6.4 With regards to the private amenities of local residents, it is considered that whilst the proposed new building is of a greater scale and mass than the existing single storey buildings it is generally comparable to that of the scheme previously approved under DC/07/1304.

6.5 The length of the north west elevation facing Angus Close has effectively been reduced from the scheme previously approved under DC/07/1304, and the elevation has been set further back from the common boundary of Angus Close by between 6.7m and 9.1m rising to 12m at its furthest point. For comparison, the separation distance between the north west elevation and rear garden boundaries of Angus Close relating to the previously approved scheme was between 7m – 8.5m in respect of the two storey element and 3 metres in respect of the single element as approved under DC/07/1304).

6.6 The entire length of the proposed two storey north west elevation has been reduced from 7.5 metres and 8 metres as originally proposed to 6.7 metres. The north west flank of the north east elevation is set back between 6.7 metres rising to 8.5 metres high. The proposed height of the north west elevation is therefore lower than the two storey element of the previously approved scheme.

6.7 In effect, the revised plans indicate that the relationship of the north west elevation with the common boundaries to Angus Close would effectively be improved when compared to the previously approved scheme given that it would be set further away, have a reduced height and have less built form adjacent to it.

6.8 Windows facing the rear gardens of Angus Close will be obscure glazed and as such there are no concerns regarding loss of private amenity. In the event of approval a condition is recommended to ensure that details of the proposed obscure glazing is submitted for approval, that the glazing is permanently retained and the method of opening is agreed.

6.9 With regards to visual amenities it is considered that the design of the proposed building would be acceptable within the context of the surrounding buildings (Rimbault and APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.

Duckering Hall link and the Sports Hall) and from potential views across from Hurst Avenue to the east. There would be very limited views from the Hurst Road frontage.

6.10 Consideration has previously been given to the impact of this development, on the increase in activity on the site and the associated noise and disturbance. It was not considered at the time of the previous approval for a two storey building in this location that this would lead to a measurable impact in terms of noise and disturbance to a level which, when compared to existing, that would have a negative impact on the amenity of those within the vicinity of the site. Your officers consider that in this respect this situation remains the same as when previously considered.

The impact on existing parking and traffic conditions associated with the application site

6.11 As part to the continuing improvements to the facilities and site at Collyers, the main access to the building at the far end of the quad area would be via an extension to the existing pedestrian access routes which includes a ramped area from the car park.

6.12 No additional to car parking is provided to serve the development. The main car parking area is located to the south eastern corner of the site frontage and is primarily for staff with 70 chargeable spaces available for students. Given its sustainable location, the College is well served by local transport with the train station and bus stops within close walking distance of the College.

6.13 The provision of increased car parking would be contrary to the strategy of encouraging the use of modes transport other than the private car and the operation of the Green Travel Plan on this site. Subject to the continued operation of the Green Travel Plan, the increase in student would be assimilated as the plan bites and there is a modal shift in transport.

6.14 Furthermore, the college has upgraded its bicycle security arrangements and has further encouraged students to use bicycles through providing an enclosed area only accessible by computer-coded swipe card to those who have registered with the college.

6.15 Given the on going policy to reduce car use on this site, it is considered that the development would not adversely affect existing parking and traffic conditions.

The impact on playing fields

6.16 The existing playing fields at Collyers are considered to be extensive in size, totalling approximately 4 hectares, and in regular use. The proposed new building is located within the site such that the eastern side of the building encroaches onto part of the usable playing fields, albeit by a small amount in relation to the total area of usable playing fields.

6.17 Council policy states that any development proposals that would result in the loss of sites and premises currently used for the provision of community facilities or services, leisure or cultural activities for the community will be resisted. The proposal as it stands, therefore, is considered contrary to policy.

6.18 In addition, Sport England has raised an objection to the proposal due to the fact that the development would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of the playing field the proposal is, therefore, contrary to its playing fields policy.

6.19 Although the applicant has endeavoured to overcome this issue by indicating on the plans how the playing pitches could be marked out in the future Sport England maintain their objection stating that this does not resolve the issues of the loss of playing field.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9.

Conclusion

6.16 The design of the proposed new accommodation to provide teaching and support facilities is considered acceptable and the proposed two storey building by virtue of its position which is set further away from the rear garden boundaries of the dwellings in Angus Close than as previously approved under DC/07/1304 results in a less significant impact on private amenities.

6.17 With regards to objections raised to the proposed development by Sport England, despite plans submitted by the applicants that indicate how pitches could be marked out in the future, Sport England maintain that this does not resolve the loss of playing field issue.

6.18 Therefore, in view of the strong and continued objections held by Sport England in the light of its playing fields policy, on balance, it is recommended that the application be refused.

Members are advised that any decision contrary to this recommendation will result in the application being referred to the National Planning Casework Unit for determination in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, and the DCLG letter of 10 March 2011.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Refuse Planning Permission for the following reason

1. Sport England oppose the granting of planning permission for this development which in their opinion would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, part of the playing field. It is considered that the proposed development does not accord with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s playing fields policy. The proposal is therefore considered as contrary to LDF policy CP14 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy document 2007 and DC21 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies document 2007.

INF16 - Application Refused Following Discussion – Where there is no Way Forward

Statement pursuant to Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Background Papers: DC/12/0578 and DC/07/1304 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 5th February 2013 DEVELOPMENT: Change of use of part of the nursery for the storage of building materials and erection of warehouse building, parking and turning area SITE: Kingsfold Nursery, Dorking Road, Kingsfold. WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham APPLICATION: DC/12/1186 APPLICANT: Mr Robert Nye

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: Permission be delegated for approval, subject to (i) satisfactory completion of all necessary ecological surveys, and (ii) approval of an outline ecological mitigation / enhancement plan, together with framing of appropriate conditions.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for a change of use of a section of Kingsfold Nursery, measuring approximately 7000sq.m, for the storage of buildings materials and the erection of a warehouse building, together with a parking and turning area.

1.2 Initially, the applicant did not provide specific details of the proposed use, however; subsequent further information submissions have clarified that the land would be used for storage of materials in connection with the operation of an adjoining Builders Merchant business, D.W. Nye Ltd.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The site is currently comprised of the largely disused Kingsfold Nursery business. There are a large number of polytunnels and glasshouse buildings, together with external storage areas and container units, around the site. At the time of inspection, the site was in a neglected, dilapidated state, with remnants of the former business, including large plastic coverings, clay and plastic pots, broken slates, etc, dominating the view. 1.4 The site is in a rural area, adjacent to the A24 Dorking Road. There are a number of designated sites adjoining the property, in particular Ancient Woodland sites to the southeast and northwest, together with a Site of Nature Conservation Importance to the northwest. Blackberrymead Copse, to the southeast, comprises

Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2.

Ancient Woodland in its entirety, whilst Tickfold Ghyll, to the northwest, comprises both Ancient Woodland and a Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

1.5 A number of areas surrounding the site have also been identified as potential Great Crested Newt and reptile habitats.

1.6 The application site is also adjoined to the east and northeast by two residential properties, which are owned by the applicant and by another family member, with the adjoining Builders Merchant business situated on the eastern side of Wattlehurst Drive.

1.7 The access lane, Wattlehurst Drive, is also classed as a Public Footpath.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy (2007) are: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP11, CP15, CP19

2.4 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) are: DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC9, DC25, DC40.

2.5 The relevant South East Plan (2009) policies are: GAT1, GAT2, CC1.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/11/2404 Use of mobile home as a permanent independent dwelling (Lawful Development Certificate - Existing) – Granted with amended description. DC/12/0677 Continued use of mobile home as a separate unit of accommodation at Kingsfold Nursery for more than 10 years (Certificate of Lawful Development - Existing) – Refused.

ADJOINING LAND

WN/42/90 Continued use of buildings and yard as a builders merchants Site: Hewells Farm, Kingsfold – Granted. WN/28/98 Demolish existing building erection of a 2-storey extension to form builders merchant retail area office and toilets - Granted WN/14/02 Continued use of land for staff car parking and storage of building materials – Granted APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3.

WN/75/02 Erection of storage building and retention of existing concrete hardstanding – Granted

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Warnham Parish Council – No objection.

3.2 Arboricultural Officer – No comments received at the time of writing. Comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.6 Environment Agency – No adverse comments

3.7 West Sussex Highways – Initial comments received 22/8/12 - Due to the level of traffic which could be generation by a change in use of this kind, insufficient information has been provided for the Highway Authority to comment on this application as this stage.

The following information is required:

 Transport Assessment – Scope to be agreed with WSCC  Speed Surveys  Clarification of Site Lines (existing extent and achievable)  Road Safety Audit  Further details of existing traffic movements to and from the site

Please reconsult.

Further comments received 24/1/13 - The County Council has re-examined this application in the light of further information received from the applicant. The application is for in the region of 7000m2 storage, intended specifically for storage of building materials. The applicant states that the fully operational plant nursery (the existing use) would have two lorry movements per day and 100 visitor movements in the peak spring period, compared with the proposed use which would have 2 lorry movements per day, 6-10 visitor movements and 5 staff movements. It is assumed that these figures refer to one-way trips. There would be no retail use associated with the proposal.

While an application of this size would normally require a transport assessment (this was previously requested by the County Council), it is understood from Horsham District Council that any consent would be conditioned to the specific proposed type of use. In addition, it is assumed that the previous use of the site as a farm would have generated levels of vehicle trips comparable to those being proposed. Provided that a condition to restrict the use of the site to the storage of building materials can be attached to any consent, the County Council would not object to the granting of consent on the basis of traffic generation.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4.

Access to the site from the adjacent A24 would be via an existing concrete- surfaced bell mouth T-junction measuring approximately 17.5m at its widest extent and 7.5m at its narrowest. The junction provides access to the adjacent builder’s yard as well as the current nursery and appears to be adequate for any foreseeable vehicle movement, including movement of large goods vehicles. The A24 at this point is subject to a 40mph speed limit and the applicant states that visibility of 138m is available to the north and 122m to the south. While it appears from the sketch provided that this is from 2.4m into the bell mouth, this is not confirmed by the applicant. The junction is on the outside of a bend and appears to have been specifically designed to comply with all applicable highway standards, though this is not confirmed by the applicant. The two road crashes recorded near the junction do not appear to be associated with existing uses on the site, being outside normal operating hours.

A road safety audit has been provided for the site access junction. This highlights a problem with the possible limited space for opposing long vehicles at the entrance. The applicant proposes to implement a lay-by within the entrance to accommodate passing long vehicles; however, the County Council considers that all that may be required is a vehicle tracking analysis to demonstrate whether long vehicles may pass. The safety audit observes that vegetation obstructs visibility to the south, although this appears to be a combination of horticultural plants and private sign clutter near the entrance. While the applicant proposes to remove vegetation over a large swath of the southern highway verge, there are ecological concerns about this course of action. Again, the County Council considers that all that may be required is for the applicant to remove planting and sign clutter. The applicant should note that the County Council REQUIRES that Appendix B of the road safety audit (Designer’s Response) be completed and signed BEFORE planning consent is given. This is in addition to the confirmation of agreement to the recommendations of the audit already received from the applicant’s agent.

Public footpath 1425/1 runs through the application site. The applicant should note that access should be maintained to the path at all times and that no damage should be done or alterations carried out to the path.

Overall, it appears that traffic generated by the existing and proposed uses on and near the site can be accommodated adequately by the existing junction. The County Council would therefore have no objection to the proposed development provided that the use is restricted to the storage of building materials and that the Designer’s Response is completed as required.

3.8 West Sussex Ecology – Ecological objection, there is not enough information to allow a suitable determination. This pertains in particular to great crested newts and possible impacts on the ancient woodland arising from access improvements required by the highway authority.

Whilst the site may appear unattractive and neglected, biologically it continues to improve. Its overall heterogeneity has resulted in a diverse mix of habitats and micro-climates of increasing value to biodiversity.

There is likely to be harm to great crested newts in contravention of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994 as amended and consolidated for 2010); relevant ecological surveys must accompany the application APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5. and mitigation must be presented to the satisfaction of the LPA. The development and mitigation must satisfy the three tests under Habitats Regulations 2010.

A question also remains as to the impact of any highway or access improvements that may be required to facilitate the COU. Significant damage to the Blackberrymead copse and the GCN pond within could not be supported.

A number of other details remain outstanding but due to the particular site situation here it may be possible to impose conditions to manage these issues which include:

 Impacts on ancient woodland and a site of nature conservation importance from drainage,  Boundary treatments and proximity of the development to the ancient woodland  Reptile surveys  Impact of lighting on commuting and roosting bats  Exploration of other ecological enhancements in accordance with NPPF paragraph 118

Despite the above there is unlikely to be an ecological objection to principle of development subject to impacts on the ancient woodland being addressed and the submission and approval of complete surveys for the GCNs, identification of the potential impacts and submission of appropriate mitigation / compensation as required.

Further comments received 5/12/12 - The previous ecological objection must remain for the time being. There is no ecological objection to HDC Planning Committee delegating ‘approval’ back to the case officer subject to the implications of the highway improvements being known, great crested newt surveys being completed and an outline ecological mitigation/enhancement plan being submitted.

Further comments received 17/1/13 - Since the previous response a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has been undertaken and submitted to the LPA. There has not yet been a response from the Local Highway Authority so my comments are made in their absence.

To attain the required visibility a 131m sight line was recommended. An accompanying hand annotated plan indicates a proposed ‘lay by’. It appears that at least approximately 500m2 will be removed (possibly changed to black-top lay-by). The vegetation is outside the boundary of the designated woodland and will have no direct impact on the pond. The vegetation is however, within 50m of the pond and there is a ‘reasonable’ (Circ. 06/2005) chance of great crested newt presence. This will technically require a population class assessment to be made and submitted with the application. The consultant ecologist will advise further.

The required vegetation clearance to facilitate the visibility will have a potential impact on reptiles and breeding birds and these issues will need to be managed as part of the application. Ideally, through the submission of a reptile survey to support the application and certainly with an outline mitigation strategy.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6.

As trees will be affected by any proposed lay-by a tree assessment will be required under BS5837:2012; The LPA Tree and Woodland Officer will advise further.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 No comments received.

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 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the proposed development in this location, its effect on the character of the surrounding area and the visual amenities of the locality, the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties, the adjoining Great Crested Newt habitat, the adjoining Ancient Woodland and highway safety.

Principle

6.2 The application site is situated outside of any defined built-up area. As such, development proposals are subject, primarily, to compliance with the Council’s countryside policy, DC1, which states; ‘outside built-up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria: (a) supports the needs of agriculture or forestry, (b) enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste, (c) provides for quiet informal recreational use, or, (d) ensures the sustainable development of rural areas’. It continues ‘development in the countryside must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead, either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside’.

6.3 Furthermore, the proposal is subject to compliance with policies CP15 and DC25, which allow for sustainable rural economic development within the district, “where it meets the needs of local rural economy”. Of particular relevance to the current application, policy DC25 sets out the criteria for intensification of uses outside the defined built-up areas.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7.

6.4 Of the criteria set out within the policy, the proposal conflicts with item IV, which requires any such proposals to be accommodated satisfactorily within the existing employment site boundary. However, although the business expansion involves the uptake of additional lands on the south side of Wattlehurst Drive, which are outside of the existing commercial premises, these lands have themselves been used as a commercial property, as part of the now defunct Kingsfold Nursery business. Indeed, the area of land in question is entirely previously ‘developed’.

6.5 Furthermore, having inspected the Builders Merchant premises and the associated planning history of the site, it is apparent the site is now relatively constrained by the A24 to the south and east, and by Hewells House to the northwest. Future expansion of this property would require uptake of further agricultural land to the north, adjacent to the site’s existing boundary.

6.6 Where the use of the adjoining lands as a Builders Merchant business has been well established over the past 20 years, where the application site has been used in its entirety as a commercial property, where the Kingsfold Nursery business is no longer in operation and the premises is now essentially derelict, and where limited development works would be required in order to allow the proposed use, it is considered, on balance, the proposal accords with the requirements of policies DC1, DC25 and CP15 and is acceptable.

Amenities

6.7 There are a number of residential properties in close proximity to both the application site and the adjoining Builders Merchant. Ordinarily there would be concerns for the impact of the proposed change of use on those dwellings abutting the application site boundary, however; the agent has confirmed that Nos. 1 and 2 Wattlehurst Drive are owned by the applicant and another family member. Both residential properties have co-existed with the adjoining Nursery business for a substantial period of time and this relationship does not appear to have given rise to any history of unneighbourly behaviour.

6.8 The submitted planning statement draws attention to the historical operation of Kingsfold Nursery, which is not subject to planning control, neither in terms of hours of operation nor movement of vehicles. In the circumstances, where the Wattlehurst Drive area has a history of business / commercial activity, where the proposed change of use would not give rise any additional retail function, and where both the proposed hours of operation and the future level of vehicular traffic can be controlled through condition, it is not considered the proposal would impact on the amenities of these residential properties, over and above the current situation.

6.9 Although no details have been provided, the applicant has indicated a willingness to landscape the boundaries of the application. In the event permission is granted, a suitable condition can be imposed to ensure satisfactory improvements to the boundary relationship between the application site and these residential properties.

6.10 With regard to the proposed warehouse building, this would undoubtedly be taller than the existing glasshouse and polytunnels on the site. However, it is considered, by virtue of the shear scale of the glasshouse and polytunnel structures to be removed to facilitate the proposal, its impact would be no greater than the current APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8.

situation. Indeed, the building would be of a similar design to a number of other steel framed buildings sited on the adjacent Builders Merchant site.

6.11 In terms of the impact of this building on the adjoining residential properties, it is not considered the proposal would give rise to any unneighbourly issues, as the building would strictly for storage purposes, and would be sited an appropriate distance from the common boundaries.

Highway Safety

6.12 West Sussex Highways has provided detailed comments, which consider the proposed storage use would not give rise to any significant increase in vehicular traffic, to the extent that traffic generation would justify a reason for refusal. It is suggested that a condition to restrict the use of the site be attached to any consent, as a transport assessment would be required for any development over and above that currently proposed.

6.13 The Highways Department has also provided comments in relation to the bell mouth T-junction, which is considered adequate for any foreseeable vehicle movement. In this respect, with modest visibility improvements, Highways are of the view the junction can provide adequate visibility, and a condition is suggested to ensure appropriate design and construction.

6.14 Further comments have been provided in relation to the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit findings, which highlighted limited space for opposing long vehicles at the junction with the A24 as a possible impact on highway safety. The Highways Department considers further information should be submitted, in particular vehicle tracking plans, in order to demonstrate the capability of the junction to handle opposing long vehicles. This can be secured via condition, in the event that permission is granted.

6.15 Both the Highways Department and County Ecology have provided comments on the proposed visibility clearing, as set out on the plan submitted on 7th December 2012, and consider the extent of the proposal is potentially unnecessary. It is considered appropriate that further plans are sought in relation to the provision and maintenance of the required visibility splays (138m to the north and 122m to the south), as part of any approval.

Ancient Woodland and adjoining habitats

6.16 As stated, Kingsfold Nursery is adjoined to both the northwest and southeast by Ancient Woodland, with Tickfold Ghyll (northwest) also partly comprising a Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

6.17 In conducting a preliminary desktop assessment of the proposal, prior to inspection, the County Ecologist researched a number of historical ecological surveys relating to upgrading of the adjacent A24. These surveys noted the presence of a population of Great Crested Newts, both in the area of the application site and in the surrounding environment. Following this, and having carried out a subsequent inspection of the property, the consultation comments dated 8/10/12 included the following; ‘There is likely to be harm to great crested newts in contravention of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994 as amended and consolidated for 2010); relevant ecological surveys must accompany the APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9.

application and mitigation must be presented to the satisfaction of the LPA. The development and mitigation must satisfy the three tests under Habitats Regulations 2010’.

6.18 Having received an initial ecological appraisal of the site, which concluded it was ‘probable’ that Great Crested Newts could be encountered as a result of any clearance, the County Ecologist provided further comments on 5/12/12, which maintained an objection, until such time as the necessary ecological surveys are completed, an outline ecological mitigation / enhancement plan is submitted, and the implication of any proposed highways improvements are known.

6.19 It is important to note, the comments received on 5/12/12 make it clear there is no objection to the application being presented to Committee seeking delegation, with a view to approval, subject to satisfactory submission and approval of completed surveys for the Great Crested Newts, identification of the potential impacts and submission of appropriate mitigation / compensation. Members are advised this particular course of action is considered reasonable as the applicant cannot undertake such survey work until March, at the earliest, and the survey activities will take place over an extended period of time.

6.20 With regard to the impact on Ancient Woodland, the initial ecological appraisal noted the close relationship between the application site and this protected area, and considered that a ‘wide buffer zone (usually 15m)’ is maintained between the proposed development and the surrounding woodland, any impact thereon would be negligible.

Other considerations

6.21 The proposal also involves the creation of a small wooded area, to the west of the main nursery site. The applicant has included modest details in relation to the nature and extent of planting, however; having regard to the level of ecological mitigation and enhancement likely to be required prior to commencement of development, it is considered the finer details of this proposal should be agreed as part of landscaping and ecological enhancement discussions.

6.22 The proposal also involves the use of palisade fencing around the site boundary. For the same reasons set out in para 6.21, and given the close proximity of the ancient woodland to the southeastern boundary, it is considered this aspect of the proposal should be part of landscaping and ecological enhancement discussions.

Conclusion

6.23 The principle of a change of use of a substantial portion of the Kingsfold Nursery site, for use as storage in association with the adjacent Builders Merchant business is considered acceptable, subject to restriction of the potential use beyond this purpose.

6.24 However, the County Ecologist’s objection cannot be lifted until such time as the applicant has completed all the necessary ecological surveys, and been approved for an outline ecological mitigation / enhancement plan. In the circumstances it is considered appropriate to seek delegation for approval, subject to the applicant satisfactorily addressing each of the above mentioned preliminary works. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that permission be delegated for approval, subject to (i) satisfactory completion of all necessary ecological surveys, and (ii) approval of an outline ecological mitigation / enhancement plan, together with framing of appropriate conditions.

Background Papers: DC/12/1186 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 5th February 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Redevelopment of existing builders yard and erection of 1 detached (4-bed) dwelling

SITE: Builders Yard, Mead Farm, Stane Street, Slinfold.

WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

APPLICATION: DC/12/1995

APPLICANT: Slinfold LLP

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Request from Cllrs Youtan and Ritchie.

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 planning permission for redevelopment of the site, used for the storage of builders materials, comprising the erection of 1x 4-bedroom dwelling and a detached garage. The application also proposes stopping up of the existing vehicular access to the site from Stane Street and use of a secondary vehicular access from Maydwell Avenue.

1.2 The application is a resubmission following previous refusal of a similar applications DC/10/2688 and DC/12/0784.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is situated on the eastern side of the A29 Stane Street and to the south-west of Slinfold village. The site has an access from Maydwell Avenue, which was approved under application DC/10/2690 (Erection of 2 stable buildings and 4 field shelters together with the creation of new access from Maydwell Avenue)

Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2.

1.4 The site is adjoined to the south and west by residential properties, agricultural land to the east and a business site to the north.

1.5 The applicant has been granted a Certificate of Lawful Use (existing) relating to the use of the site for the storage of builders materials (DC/11/1631).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the South East Plan (2009) are: CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, H1, NRM7, C4.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy (2007) are: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP13 and CP19.

2.5 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) are: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/10/2688 Change of use of builders yard and erection of 1 x 4-bed dwelling – refused. DC/10/2690 Erection of 2 stable buildings and 4 field shelters together with the creation of new access from Maydwell Avenue – permitted. DC/11/1631 Use of the land as a builders yard for the storage of plant, machinery and building materials (Certificate of Lawful Development - Existing) - granted with modified description. DC/12/0784 Redevelopment of existing builders yard and erection of one detached 4-bed dwelling – refused (currently at appeal).

Maydwell Avenue There is an extensive planning history for this site relating to the commercial and industrial uses. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Public Health and Licensing – The submitted desk study and site walkover has confirmed the presence of waste materials including asbestos and stockpiles of construction and demolition wastes. Accordingly it is considered that there is a need for a more detailed investigation to be undertaken to determine the suitability of the site for residential use. This investigation should be provided prior to the consideration of any decision in respect of the submitted application.

Further verbal consultation 23/1/13 – Please refer to consultation comments provided on 31/5/12 in regard to application DC/12/0784. The issues raised therein continue to be of relevance. Agreed to follow similar procedure to recently refused application DC/12/0784 and, in the event permission is granted, to request further information through appropriate condition.

3.2 Slinfold Parish Council – No objection to the erection of a dwelling with access from the A29 but does object to the change of use for land and the precedent that it sets if access is from Maydwell Avenue.

Further comments received 7/12/12 - If change of use for access is permitted from equestrian to a house (even if the access is not designed for a house) then under no circumstances should this become the access road for other properties.

3.3 Arboricultural Officer – Verbal consultation, no objection.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 Environment Agency – No comment.

3.5 West Sussex Highways – West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for a similar proposal at this location under planning application reference DC/12/0784, to which no objections was raised.

This proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling on an existing builder’s yard with a new access to replace the existing access onto the A29. The new access to the site will be via Maydwell Avenue, which is a private road, and this road then forms a highly designed junction with A29 Stane Street. WSCC would not be minded to raise any highway safety objections regarding the new access arrangements to serve the new and existing dwellings.

I can confirm that the proposed car and cycle parking facilities are considered to be appropriate for a development of this size in this location. It would also appear that a turn on site is achievable.

Residents of the new dwelling would be mostly reliant on the use of a private car for travel; however there is a bus stop nearby and cycle parking is provided on site.

In summary, WSCC would not raise any safety concerns regarding the application. However, it is recommended that the following conditions be included if the LPA are minded to grant planning consent. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4.

 Cycle Parking  Closure of existing access  Vehicle parking and turning

Summary of Contributions Total £3,796 comprised of £311 Libraries, Fire and Rescue £135, £3,350 TAD (see file for details).

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.6 A total of 5 letters have been received, 4 from residential properties, either in support of the application or expressing no objection.

3.7 1 letter of objection has been received on the following grounds;

 Development would set a precedent  Development does not meet any local need

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development; its effect on the character and amenities of the area; the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers; highway safety, access and parking; together with existing trees, vegetation and ecology.

6.2 As stated in para 1.2 above, the current application is an amended proposal, following refusal of application DC/12/0784 (which is currently under appeal to the Planning Inspectorate). The principal amendments put forward are as follows; (i) removal of first floor covered balcony towards the end of the east elevation, (ii) increase in ridge height along east (front) elevation from 8.8m to 9.2m, (iii) reduction in ridge height and associated bulk along north and south (side) elevations together with the west (rear) elevation.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5.

Principle

6.3 The site is situated outside of a defined built-up area and as such is situated within the countryside. Development plan policies, in particular policy DC1, do not permit residential development within the countryside unless there is an essential need for a countryside location. The policy states; ‘outside built-up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria: (a) supports the needs of agriculture or forestry, (b) enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste, (c) provides for quiet informal recreational use, or, (d) ensures the sustainable development of rural areas’. It continues ‘development in the countryside must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead, either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside’.

6.4 Within the explanatory text of this policy, it is mentioned there may be certain circumstances where development is necessary to ensure the continued sustainable development of rural areas. Such development might include that which is required to sustain the countryside as a place of varied and productive social and economic activity, such as subsidised housing, business uses, community facilities and services or leisure, cultural and tourism facilities. These will be assessed on the basis that development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

6.5 As part of the original application DC/12/0784, the applicant presented the view that there were a number of material considerations that relate specifically to the site, these being; (i) the cessation of an undesirable use, (ii) environmental improvements, (iii) improved access to Stane Street, together with, (iv) an improved relationship with adjacent residential properties, which outweigh the policy presumption against the development.

6.6 In terms of these material considerations, officers have previously set out their consideration these do not justify the residential redevelopment of this rural site, for a number of reasons.

6.7 The site is in a countryside location, where residential development is strictly controlled in order to comply with (a) the principles of sustainable development, and, (b) the aims of the Council’s Local Development Framework which is to direct residential development to the larger towns and villages where there is good access to facilities and services and public transport links.

6.8 The loss of a commercial use and the substitution of a residential use which may create a more harmonious relationship with the other two residential properties site is considered an insufficient argument to set aside these strong policy objections to the principle of the scheme and does not provide a sufficient or rigorous justification for such development. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the storage of builder’s materials on this site has not given rise to complaints of disturbance and there is no history of any unneighbourly relationship occurring between the site and the adjacent residential properties.

6.9 Neither does the ‘ improvement’ of a potentially untidy appearance of such a commercial site provide an overriding argument, particularly as planning permission APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6.

is not required to tidy a site and if necessary, S215 action can be used to deal with cases where visual amenities are significantly harmed.

6.10 Officers are concerned that to accept such arguments for residential redevelopment would set an unfortunate precedent, which could be used on a number of occasions elsewhere in the district, where there are commercial sites, contrary to planning policies.

Further supporting information

6.11 The applicant has reiterated the contention that there are material considerations, which set aside the normal policy objection to residential development of this nature. The Planning, Design and Access Statement sets out their position, following the refusal of application DC/12/0784, in relation to these material considerations.

6.12 The applicant has drawn attention to what is considered a precedent for similar development, DC/12/0788, under which Local Members approved residential redevelopment of a rural site. Notwithstanding this assertion, it is considered the current application and that approved under application DC/12/0788 are not comparable in any way. Members will recall this particular site, Ghyll House Farm, presented a number of significant issues for both neighbouring occupiers and the rural character of the area in terms of both the permitted agricultural and commercial uses of a number of large buildings. In this particular instance, an on- balance view was taken that, despite the fact that the proposal was a departure from policy, the individual circumstances of the particular site lent themselves to residential redevelopment.

6.13 The applicant does not consider due weight has been given to the lawful use of the site as a builder’s yard. The previous Committee report drew attention to the limited lawful commercial use of the site, which was granted under application DC/11/1631. There is no contention regarding the use of the site, but, it should be noted that the lawful use of the land is for ‘Storage of builders’ materials’ rather than a ‘builders yard’. There is a clear distinction between the two because, for example, the Certificate of Lawful Use specifically excludes storage of plant and machinery on the site, which might otherwise be found in a builders yard, from this lawful use. Attention has also been drawn to the fact that the site area associated with the current application is significantly larger than that to which the Certificate of Lawful Use enures. At present, the area of the proposed dwelling and the detached garage extend beyond the ‘lawful use’ site, allowing the applicant to retain a reasonable separation distance from both adjoining properties, Mead Cottage and Mead Farm.

6.14 Indeed, with specific regard to the ‘weight’ attached to the lawful use of the property, having reviewed the Council’s records, it was established the storage of builder’s materials on this site has not given rise to any complaints of disturbance and there is no history of any unneighbourly relationship occurring between the site and the adjacent residential properties.

6.15 The applicant has also drawn attention to the stopping-up of an existing ‘dangerous’ access onto the A29 Stane Street, and removal of associated traffic movements, as an improvement associated with the proposal. The stopping up of the existing APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7.

vehicular access is not objected to in principle, as confirmed by West Sussex Highways. However, the applicant has already constructed the secondary access from Maydwell Avenue, as approved under application Ref. DC/10/2690. This is a particularly important point to make, as the applicant does not need further planning permission to use this entrance, should they wish to do so, rather than the access directly off the A29 Stane Street.

6.16 In conclusion, whilst a residential use with its associated activities may create a more harmonious relationship with the two adjacent residential properties, Mead Farm and Mead Cottage, officers remain of the view this alone does not justify setting aside strong policy objections to development of the nature proposed in this sensitive rural location. The storage of builder’s materials has not given rise to complaints of disturbance and, in any case, planning permission is not required to tidy the site. It is therefore considered that the scheme remains contrary to the overarching aims of policy DC1, to prevent non-essential housing development in countryside locations, and that no convincing arguments have been put forward to justify a change of recommendation.

Design and amenities

6.17 The applicant has amended the design of the proposed dwelling, incorporating modest reductions to the bulk of the side and rear elevations, together with an increase in ridge height to the front elevation. The first floor covered balcony towards the end of the east elevation has also been omitted.

6.18 Notwithstanding these amendments, the proposal remains a large gable-fronted, two-storey dwelling. Whilst there are no concerns in terms of either overlooking or loss of privacy, given the adequate separation distances to adjoining properties, it is considered the proposed dwelling would be out of character with the adjoining properties, providing a dwelling of disproportionate scale and design. Therefore, resulting in an increase in built form in this countryside location, the proposal would thus fail to accord with policies DC1 and DC9.

6.19 The applicant has substantially amended the proposed detached garage, now proposing a single-storey, two-bay car port, together with a garden equipment storage shed. This shed is significantly smaller than that associated with application DC/12/0784, which proposed a two-storey building. It is considered the large-scale revisions and reductions alleviate officer concerns in relation to the garage part of the proposal.

Sustainability

6.20 Slinfold village is classed within the Local Development Framework as a Category 2 settlement. This is to say it is a village with a more limited level of services. As such, policy CP5 clearly outlines that any new residential development within the built-up area boundary of Slinfold should be to address a specific identified local need. In addition, to accord with policy, the development should be suitably located and not in an isolated position in relation to infrastructure, amenities and services.

6.21 Although not directly subject to the provisions of this policy, it is considered overarching aims of this policy are of relevance to the current application. The site, whilst on the periphery of Slinfold, itself a Category 2 settlement and therefore APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8.

considered to be relatively isolated from services and public transport, and whilst within close proximity to a bus stop, is considered to be in a relatively isolated location both in relation to the village of Slinfold itself and from other services which it is acknowledged Slinfold lacks, by way of its Category 2 status. Given the nature of the roads, without footpaths or lighting, it is considered that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on the car for access purposes and would reinforce unsustainable patterns of development.

6.22 The applicant contends that the site does not occupy an isolated location, given its close proximity to both public transport along the A29 Stane Street and the Downs Link public footpath. However, as neither Maydwell Avenue nor A29 Stane Street is served by footpaths or appropriate street lighting, and as both roads are heavily trafficked, it is considered unreasonable to claim they are easily and safely accessible to prospective residential occupiers of the application site.

Infrastructure contributions

6.23 With regard to infrastructure requirements, the proposal would generate County and District contributions towards infrastructure development as follows; West Sussex County Council has requested £3,796, comprising £3,350 Total Access Demand (TAD) contribution, £135 Fire and Rescue contribution and £311 libraries contribution, while District Council contributions would amount to £2,930, comprising £2,201 towards open space, sport and recreation, £486 towards community facilities and £243 towards local recycling.

6.24 The applicant has indicated they are willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure payment of these contributions, however, no draft agreement has been submitted at the time of writing.

Other considerations

6.25 West Sussex Highways has provided comments, which express no objection to the development, subject to imposition of conditions.

6.26 Public Health and Licensing has drawn attention to the comments provided as part of application DC/12/0784, which did not consider sufficient information had been provided in relation to possible land contamination. Conditions are again suggested; in the case that planning permission is granted, in order to ensure a safe and orderly development.

6.27 Public Health and Licensing has also drawn attention to previous comments in relation to possible noise impacts at the application site, arising from its proximity to a number of business premises. It is recommended that, in the event permission is granted, a noise survey is carried out in order to ensure the application site would be an appropriate location for residential development.

6.28 The Arboricultural Officer has verbal comments which do not object to the proposal.

6.29 There is a legal agreement S106/0240 on the site which states “no development whatsoever whether or not planning permission is required therefore shall be commenced or carried out on the Land shown coloured pink and coloured pink hatched green on Plan B annexed hereto unless otherwise agreed in writing by APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9.

the Council...”. Members are advised that the application site falls within the pink land. The current proposal would therefore require works in contravention of the obligations outlined in the legal agreement. However, the legal agreement allows for written approval to be given by the Council for development contrary to the obligation and if written approval is given there will be no requirement to formally vary the legal agreement.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that permission be refused for the following reasons

1. The proposed development which is situated outside of any built-up area boundary would represent an unacceptable intensification of residential development in this countryside location to the detriment of the rural character and visual amenities of the area. Furthermore, it has not been shown to require an essential countryside location or that it meets an identified local need and therefore would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development having particular regard to the poor access to services and facilities reinforcing unsustainable patterns of development. The proposed development would thus be contrary in particular to policies CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC9 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

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

Background Papers: DC/12/1995 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 5th February 2013

DEVELOPMENT: Proposed 2-storey rear extension

SITE: 1 Elgar Way Horsham

WARD: Roffey South

APPLICATION: DC/12/2149

APPLICANT: Mrs Suzanne Dodd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: 5 or more contrary letters received

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 removal of an existing conservatory to the rear of the house and the erection of a two-storey extension

1.2 The proposed second-storey element of the extension would be set in from both side walls of the house, by 1.3metres on the northern side and 3.2metres on the southern side. On the northern side it is proposed to erect a single storey glazed roof mono pitch roof extension that would infill the area to the rear of the main house and the side (north) wall of the new extension

1.3 The proposal would provide a similar arrangement of accommodation at ground floor level to the existing and a master en-suite bedroom at first floor level.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site comprises a relatively modern (mid-1990’s) detached dwellinghouse that lies on the east side of Elgar Way at the corner of Fenby Close, situated in the built up area of Horsham.

Contact Officer: Pauline Ollive Tel: 01403 215424 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.

1.5 The house sits towards the rear of a rectangular plot with a larger garden at the front than at the rear. As a result of the layout of development in the locality, there is no regular building line between the properties.

1.6 Fenby Close (a cul-de-sac), runs west to east and to the north of the site, serving some 5 houses situated to the east and south of the site. No 10 Fenby Close is to the rear of the application site, on the other side of a vehicular access, with its flank elevation facing the application site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the LDF Core Strategy are CP1 and CP3

2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Polices (2007), are policies DC3, DC9

2.5 South East Plan 2009 CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 There is no previous or relevant planning history for the site

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 North Horsham Parish Council – No objection

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Neighbours were notified by letter on the 20/11/12. Following the site assessment (carried out on the 12/12/12) it was considered that No10 Fenby Close should also be notified and a letter was duly sent out to this property on the 12/12/12. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.

3.3 Objection letters have been received from;  No1 Fenby Close - received on the 17/12/12 and 9/01/13  No2 Fenby Close – received on the 17-18/12/12 and 9/01/13  No 5 Fenby Close – received on the 9/12/12 and 10/01/13  No7 Fenby Close – received on the 31/12/13  No9 Fenby Close – received on the 19/12/12  No10 Fenby Close – received on the 15 - 17/12/12 and 12/01/13

They object to the proposal on the grounds of;  Design  Loss of light,  Loss of privacy  Noise disruption  Overdevelopment  Parking and highway access

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

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of s 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 that the proposal gives rise to any crime and disorder implications.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues include the principle of development, impact on the visual amenities and character of the area and the impact on neighbouring occupier’s amenities

6.2 Policies state amongst other criteria that extensions should have regard to their natural and built surroundings in terms of design, scale and character. An extension should be of a scale which is sympathetic to and does not overpower the original building.

6.3 The application would involve the replacement of an existing conservatory to the rear of the house that is 2.9metres by 3.5metres in floor area with a pitched roof of approximately 3.4metres high. The proposed extension would be built up to the side (north) elevation of the house at ground floor level, however, it would be set in from the side wall of the house by 1.3metres at first floor level and the single storey element would be covered by a mono pitch glazed roof. The proposed extension would have dimensions at ground floor level of 6.5metres wide by 3.7metres deep APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.

and at first floor level would be 4.5metres wide by 3.7metres deep with a ridge height of 7.6metres (0.6metres lower than the main roof ridge).

6.4 Although the proposal represents an increase in the size of the building, it is considered to be in scale and proportion to the existing dwelling and would not dominate or overwhelm the character of the existing house and as such represents a sympathetic and subordinate addition. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of its impact on the character of the area and the visual amenities of the streetscene

6.5 In view of the existing relationship between the application property and the adjoining neighbours, the access road intervening between the neighbours to the north and the vehicular access to the east between the application site and No10, it is not considered that there would be a material worsening of the existing relationship between the neighbouring properties.

6.6 No10 Fenby Close is the nearest neighbour to the site some 16metres distant, and has objected on the grounds of loss of privacy, loss of sunlight and overpowering. Whilst there are narrow windows in the flank elevation of No10 at ground floor level, it is not considered that the existing relationship between these two properties would alter significantly, in terms of any overlooking. There are already rear windows at first level which face No10 and this situation would not increase as a result of the proposal.

6.7 The rear garden of No10 Fenby Close faces south, it is therefore doubtful that there would be any significant or material loss of sunlight to the rear garden as a result of the erection of a two-storey extension in the proposed location. Furthermore, in view of the separation by the rear garden of the application site together with the access road (a distance of approximately 16metres), it is not considered the occupiers of No10 would suffer an overbearing impact as a result of the proposal.

6.8 Other neighbours in the immediate area have also written in objecting to the proposal and letters have been received from, No’s 1, 5, 7 and 9 Fenby Close. These properties are situated on the opposite side of the public highway to the north of the application site. The concerns that have been raised by the occupiers of these properties are; design; overdevelopment; overshadowing; loss of privacy; light and noise disruption. There are also concerns in respect of parking and access

6.9 Whilst the comments from the occupiers of the aforementioned properties are noted, they are as mentioned previously, situated on the opposite side of the public highway and are set back from the road. It is difficult to understand how these properties could be materially adversely affected in the manner that is claimed, as the elevations that are discussed in the letters, are the front elevations of the properties, which are considered to be the more public parts and as such are already affected, not only by pedestrian footfall, but also as a result of the houses on the opposite side of the road.

6.10 It is also noted that neighbours have commented on access and parking issues. These issues are a principally a private matter, however a note to applicant could be attached to any permission given to require that building materials are confined APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5.

to land within the applicant’s ownership and construction vehicles are sensibly parked during the duration of the building works.

6.11 It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbour amenity and would not result in any loss of light, privacy or outlook or have an overbearing impact. Conclusion

6.7 In conclusion, and for the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed single and two-storey rear extension; would not materially affect the character of the existing house, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the visual amenities of the streetscene and is therefore considered acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Permit 1) A2 Full Permission 2) M4 Matching Materials

Note to applicant

The applicant is advised in the interests of neighbourliness during the construction of the extension that all building materials should be confined within the site and construction vehicles should be parked in a position so as not to inconvenience or cause obstruction to other road users.

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

INF14 Application Approved without Amendment

Background Papers: DC/12/2149 Contact Officer Pauline Ollive APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 5Th February 2013 Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new 3 bedroom DEVELOPMENT: bungalow SITE: Squirrels Old Holbrook Horsham West Sussex WARD: Holbrook West APPLICATION: DC/12/1816 APPLICANT: Mrs Sally Leith-Smith

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA:

Member’s requests Cllr Peter Burgess

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new 3 bedroom bungalow. The shape of the current proposal is an irregular shaped design which would be 3.4m high a maximum of 11m wide reducing to 5.5m.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The application site is located on the west side of Old Holbrook and is located within the Countryside and thus lies outside of any identified built up areas. The site is relatively flat with a garden area that is mostly laid to lawn. There are a number of trees located along Old Holbrook itself, whilst the site has a two metre close boarded fence along the eastern boundary, the frontage is relatively open and exposed to views. The site area is approximately 0.34 hectares. Access is directly off of Old Holbrook which is itself a narrow lane. The surroundings of the application site are predominantly rural in nature.

Contact Officer: Ravi Rehal Tel: 01403 215167 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS7.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4 and CP19.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC1, DC2, DC9, DC28 and DC40.

2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 HR/152/64 - Outline application for erection of service cottage or bungalow. Superseded by HR/195/64

HR/195/64 - Proposed service bungalow with vehicular access – permitted 11th December 1964

HR/19/65 – Proposed service bungalow – permitted 12th January 1965

HR/101/69 - Three bed roomed service bungalow – permitted 19th November 1969

2.17 More recent planning applications include the following:

DC/08/2316 - demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of a new 5 bed dwelling -refused 8th Jan 2009.

DC/09/0738 - Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement with new 4-bed dwelling refused 17th June 2009. Appeal dismissed 8th December 2009 – Appeal Decision attached

DC/10/2448 - Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement REF with three-bedroom chalet bungalow

DC/11/1030 - Single storey rear extension and two single storey PER side extensions (Lawful Development Certificate - Proposed)

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 West Sussex Highways – The proposed dwelling is unlikely to result in any material increase or any material increase or detrimental impact. The proposed car parking does not exceed the WSCC maximum standards, no highway concerns raised.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 North Horsham Parish Council - No objection

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 None received.

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

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development and the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities, character and appearance of the area.

6.2 The application site is situated outside of any built-up area boundary and as such is within the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies Document concerns countryside protection and enhancement, the main thrust of which is to protect and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the District’s countryside for its own sake. Development should be of a scale appropriate to its location.

6.3 Policy DC28 of the General Development Control Policies Control Document allows for replacement dwellings in the countryside, subject to a number of criteria. Replacement dwellings are not considered appropriate when the existing dwelling is abandoned or derelict. In this case it was evident during the site visit that the existing bungalow is currently inhabited and would not constitute a derelict building.

6.4 The policy also states that replacement dwellings will be permitted if the dwelling can be accommodated within the curtilage of the existing dwelling. Furthermore it must not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling. This is the key issue in respect of this application. Furthermore, any such proposal should not detract from the wider landscape setting and character of the area. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4.

6.5 As is evident from the planning history outlined above, there have been a number of planning applications for a replacement dwelling on the site. Application reference DC/10/2448, which was for demolition of existing dwelling and replacement with three bedroom chalet bungalow this was refused due to its size, siting and design which it is was considered represent a dwelling disproportionate in size compared to the existing dwelling and would visually intrude upon the rural landscape resulting in an inappropriate increase in built form which was considered detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the countryside.

6.6 The current application seeks planning permission for a replacement of single storey design dwelling. The proposed scheme shows single story type bungalow which is of a winged type design.

6.7 The increased size and scale of the property would be encroachment and intensification of residential development within the countryside, having a greater impact on the wider landscape. The increased size, scale and design would be considered intrusive and contribute to a significant increase in urbanisation which is considered harmful to the visual amenity and character of the countryside.

6.8 Whilst the submitted elevations demonstrate an intention to incorporate traditional design elements in the spirit of the West Sussex rural vernacular, the intention of adopted policy is to prevent any significant encroachment and intensification of residential development within the countryside which has an unacceptable impact on the wider landscape.

6.9 The increased size and design of the proposed replacement dwelling is considered visually intrusive and contributes to a significant increase in ‘urbanisation’ which is considered harmful to the visual amenity and character of the countryside.

6.10 The proposal is considered to represent a disproportionate scale of dwelling compared to the existing in terms of its overall footprint of if not its overall height and is not considered appropriate or compliant with relevant planning policies. The proposal therefore is considered contrary to policies DC1, DC9 and DC28.

6.11 Whilst the replacement of the existing dwelling is considered acceptable in principle under policy DC28, the proposed dwelling is considered to represent an inappropriate replacement given the increased scale, size and bulk compared to the existing property which is a modest style bungalow.

6.12 It is noted that the development is sufficiently distanced from neighbouring properties and would not compromise the established levels of residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. This fact however, does not overcome the concern that the proposal directly conflicts with adopted policy and is therefore recommended for refusal.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Refuse for the following reason:

1. The proposed replacement dwelling by reason of its size, siting and design would represent a dwelling disproportionate in size compared to the existing dwelling and would visually intrude upon the rural landscape resulting in an inappropriate increase in built form which is considered detrimental to the visual amenity and character of this countryside location. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 and policies CC1 and CC4 of the South East Plan 2008.

Background Papers: DC/10/2448 Contact Officer: Ravi Rehal

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 5th February, 2013

DEVELOPMENT: Surgery to one oak tree.

SITE: Land adjacent to 193 Tanbridge Park, Horsham.

WARD: Denne.

APPLICATION: DC/12/2203

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 works to an oak tree.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The tree is sited on an area of public open space directly to the north of 193 Tanbridge Park.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 The tree is protected under Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 867, confirmed on 7th January 1997, and is designated as T1.

1.4 Minor surgery works have been carried out to the tree under HU/217/02, DC/05/2500, DC/07/2093, and DC/11/1859.

1.5 The land on which the tree is growing is owned and managed by Horsham District Council Leisure Services.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 As a tree subject to a TPO, 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 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

3.1 No representations have been received in respect of this application.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 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 The tree in question is a very large and prominent specimen of very high merit and amenity value. It is visible from a wide area; the top portion of the tree can readily be seen from Enterprise House, on the south side of Worthing Road past the Tan Bridge.

6.2 A mature specimen, this tree has been in slight decline over the last decade or so. Historically, several brackets of the invasive decay fungus Fistulina hepatica, commonly known as ‘Beefsteak fungus’ have been found on old pruning wounds within the canopy. Though F .hepatica can exist in trees (especially oaks) for many decades before necessarily causing structural collapse, the brown cubical rot it causes is of concern as the parts of the tree affected can exhibit significant degradation, leading to a loss of strength.

6.3 Further to the most recent surgery carried out in 2011, the tree has become increasingly stag-headed, and is clearly undertaking a process described as ‘growing downwards’; in other words, the tree clearly no longer has the energy levels needed to support such a large and high crown. As this occurs, it raises safety considerations given the proximity of the tree to the rear gardens of the residential dwellings in Rivermead and that attendant to 193 Tanbridge Park. In the recent high winds a large limb was lost from the western side of the canopy, further illustrating its reduced energy levels (and thereby its ability to resist strong gales). APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3.

6.4 It is therefore proposed to crown reduce the tree overall, by around 25%, in line with best practice set out within BS 3998 'Recommendations for Tree Work' (2010), leaving all pruning cuts at sustainable growth points. This will increase the ratio of stem breadth to height, and reduce wind resistance.

6.5 Given the age of the tree, its position within public open space and its proximity to a number of residential dwellings, as well as the presence of the fungus contributing to its overall decline, the works are considered justified and prudent. Some loss of amenity shall result, as the crown will appear smaller and more compact; but the works are considered essential, and are clearly in the best interests of the tree.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. TR3 Treeworks limit:  Undertake works exactly as set out in works schedule appended to the application as submitted. INF7 Works limitations INF8 Wildlife protection.

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/12/2203 Contact Officer: Will Jones. APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 5th February, 2013

DEVELOPMENT: Surgery to two oak trees.

SITE: Ropeland Way, Horsham.

WARD: Holbrook East.

APPLICATION: DC/12/2241

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 works to two oak trees.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The trees are sited on an area of public open space to the west of 47 Ropeland Way.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 The trees are protected under Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 573, confirmed on 10th October 1989, and are designated as T10 and T11.

1.4 The land on which the trees are growing is owned and managed by Horsham District Council Leisure Services.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 As trees subject to a TPO, 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 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

3.1 No representations have been received in respect of this application.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 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 The two trees in question are prominent specimens growing in an area of public open space. They have high amenity value.

6.2 Though healthy, the trees have expanded greatly in recent times, and as a result of their close proximity to each other have developed somewhat asymmetrical crowns. Consent is being sought to trim back the longest growth by a reduction of up to 25%, decreasing wind resistance and allowing an improvement in shape and profile.

6.3 It is considered that this work is prudent and justified. All works shall be carried out in accordance with BS 3998 ‘Recommendations for Tree Work’ [2010] and will not cause any harm or amenity loss.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

INF7 Works limitations INF8 Wildlife protection.

8. REASONS

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

Background Papers: DC/12/2241 Contact Officer: Will Jones. APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 5th February 2013

DEVELOPMENT: Variation of S106 Agreement to bring forward the trigger to transfer the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre Extension Site to Horsham District Council, as set out in Schedule 7 and to remove a track as shown on Plan F00081-SP-028 Rev B. SITE: Land South of Broadbridge Heath, West Sussex

WARD: Broadbridge Heath

APPLICATION DC/09/2101 REFERENCES: Legal Agreement Section 106/1959

APPLICANT: Countryside Properties

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: To consider the proposed variation of the S106 agreement

RECOMMENDATION: Delegate for approval - variation of S106 Agreement to bring forward the trigger to transfer the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre Extension Site to the District Council, as set out in Schedule 7 and to remove a track as shown on Plan F00081-SP- 028 Rev B.

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 In January 2011 Outline planning permission was granted under reference DC/09/2101 for the development of 963 residential units, community facility including land for a primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to Five-Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works.

 The Outline planning permission was subject to a legal agreement (Section 106/1959 referred to within this report as the Principal Agreement), which secured a number of benefits, including the transfer of the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre Site as shown on Plan 2 in the Principal Agreement, to Horsham District Council.

Contact Officer: Emma Parkes Tel: 01403 215561 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2.

1.2 A Supplemental Agreement was executed in June 2012. This was to ensure the ecology reference was correct and that reserved matters applications linked back to the Principal Agreement. A Second Supplemental is in progress which relates to a change to the ecology bond. The Supplemental and Second Supplemental Agreements did not impact upon the Heads of Terms agreed as part of the Principal Agreement.

1.3 In addition to the planning process Council considered the future of Broadbridge Heath Leisure at a Council meeting in June 2012. The first of eight resolutions made stated ‘that, having taken into account the results of the public consultation, value for money, affordability and accepting that the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre should be replaced with a new build leisure centre; a revised option 7A which is sustainable and affordable be adopted as a basis of the strategy for the future of the Leisure Centre and adjacent facilities. These would be re-provided as replacement facilities on land to the south of the current centre, secured for this purpose under the terms of the section 106 agreement with Countryside Properties.’

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and townscape character; CP2 – Environmental Quality; CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development; CP7 – Strategic Allocation West of Horsham; CP14 – Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services.

The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement ; DC2 – Landscape Character; DC3 – Settlement coalescence; DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology; DC6 – Woodland and Trees; DC9 – Development Principles and DC22 – New Open Space, Sport and Recreation; DC40 -Transport and Access.

The principle of the development has been established by the outline application and the related report carefully considered the proposal in the context of Core Policy CP7 – Strategic Development West of Horsham. Whist Policy CP7 sets the key principles, specific guidance on the ‘visions’ for the development is provided in the Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted October 2008) and the Land West of Horsham Design Principles and APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3.

Character Areas SPD (adopted in April 2009) which provides guidance on design matters for developers, others preparing planning applications and for those considering applications.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/09/2101 Permitted October 2011. Erection of 963 residential units, community facility including land for a primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to Five-Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (Outline).

DC/11/2059 Permitted June 2012. Details of the first phase infrastructure works pursuant to outline DC/09/2101, comprising details of new roundabout on Five Oaks Road, western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from Five Oaks Road to the new A24 junction, on site development roads to serve the first residential phases, Pegasus crossing and pedestrian/cycle crossings, new access to Newbridge Nurseries, access to Heath Barn Farm site, bus stops, foul pumping station and surface water drainage (Approval of Reserved Matters).

DC/11/2074 Permitted June 2012. Development of 105 residential units, including 21 affordable housing units, open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works pursuant to outline permission DC/09/2101 (Approval of Reserved Matters).

DC/12/0814 Permitted November 2012. Part A - Reserved Matters approval for residential development of 135 houses (consisting of 33 x 2-bed, 34 x- 3-bed and 68 x 4-bed) and landscaping and: Part B - temporary approval for sales and marketing suite comprising plots 1, 2 and 3.

DC/12/1255 Resolution to grant at Development Control North Committee December 2012. Pending decision. Details of second phase infrastructure works pursuant to outline application DC/09/2101 comprising the eastern section of the 40mph dual carriageway from a point east of the traffic light junction (i.e. the boundary of the first phase infrastructure application) to the new A24 junction to include footpaths, grass verges, acoustic treatment and planting in part of the central; refuge; the western section of the new A24 junction; on site development roads needed to serve the remaining residential phases; surface water drainage system including balancing attenuation features and below ground storage; associated foul drainage recreational open spaces, earthworks and services.

DC/12/1651 Resolution to grant at Development Control North Committee January 2013. Pending decision. Development of 101 residential units, including 20 affordable housing units (20%), the creation of public and private amenity space, incidental public open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works (Approval of Reserved Matters).

DC/12/2022. Pending decision. Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 320 residential units (256 private and 64 affordable housing units) comprising 101 x 2- APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4.

bed, 165 x 3-bed and 54 x 4-bed houses/flats, landscaping, highways, parking and associated works pursuant to approved outline planning application DC/09/2101

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

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

It is not considered that the proposed development would have any impact on crime and disorder.

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 The need for a variation to the Principal Agreement (S106/1959) secured as part of the Outline planning permission DC/09/2101 has arisen as a result of Council’s recommendation made 27 June 2012. This agreed the provision of a replacement leisure centre on land to the south of the current centre. This 1ha of land to the south was secured as part of the Outline planning permission DC/09/2101 and is known in the Principal Agreement as the Broadbridge Health Leisure Centre Extension Site.

5.2 The Principal Agreement secured the transfer of the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre Extension Site prior to the occupation of the 500th dwelling. Officers are seeking the earlier transfer of the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre Extension Site to facilitate the progression of the Council’s recommendations made 27 June 2012. Early discussions have taken place with Countryside Properties, who agree to the earlier transfer of the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre Extension Site in principle, however no resolution of a fixed trigger have been agreed to date.

5.3 This report therefore seeks delegated authority to continue discussions with Countryside Properties and agree a fixed trigger.

5.4 In addition to the proposal to bring forward the transfer of the Broadbridge Leisure Centre Extension site this report seeks agreement to remove a track from the Principal Agreement. The track sits between the properties of Hairs Hill and Fairview which are located along Old Wickhurst Lane. The properties themselves already fall outside of the scope of the outline planning permission DC/09/2101. The new owners of the track have stated that it was acquired by Countryside Properties as it was considered at that time it may have been needed for access arrangements. However that is not the case and the track has reverted back to its original ownership. No obligations relating to the Principal Agreement are placed on the track and there are no planning conditions which are specific to this area of the APPENDIX A/ 9 - 5.

site. Officers therefore have no objection to the removal of the track from the Principal Agreement and this report seeks agreement in this regard.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 That the variation of the legal agreement as proposed be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, the Chairman, Vice-chairman and local member subject to the resolution of an agreed amended trigger to bring forward the transfer of the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre Extension Site to the District Council.

Background Papers: DC/09/2101, S106/1959 Case Officer: Emma Parkes