Agenda Item 10 Report PC39/14 Report to Planning Committee Date 8 May 2014 By Director of Planning Local Authority Council Application Number SDNP/13/04910/FUL Applicant Mr A Thompson Application Conversion of redundant farm buildings into a single dwelling, including a proposed new build extension and new outbuildings. Also the demolition of existing sheds and outbuildings. Address Manor Farm, Greatham Lane, Greatham, , RH20 2ES. Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision.

Recommendation: That planning permission be granted subject to: 1. The conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report and 2. Completion of a S106 Agreement for contributions relating to infrastructure improvements, local libraries and fire and rescue services.

Executive Summary The application site is within the hamlet of Greatham approximately 2km east of Coldwaltham. It consists of the western part of a large farmyard which is set back from the road by approximately 150m. The farmyard consists of a large brick building which was formerly used as a milking parlour, other redundant single storey brick outbuildings and two large more modern steel framed barns. The site is within a conservation area which includes an 18th century listed granary, single storey brick outbuildings and two large steel framed barns immediately on the eastern side of the farmyard (see agenda items 8 and 9 Reports PC38/14 and PC37/14). Greatham Manor, a grade II listed dwelling and a grade I listed church are further east. There are fields and the to the west and north respectively. The whole farmyard is in a poor state of repair. The application proposes to convert the milking parlour into a single no.4 bedroom dwelling which includes a new contemporary extension. The modern barns are proposed to be removed and new detached stables and garage are proposed. The application is recommended for approval because the proposals would facilitate the restoration and preservation of the milking parlour and would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, which is on English Heritage’s Heritage at Risk Register. The proposals would also not cause any significant harm to the setting or amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider National Park landscape. The application is reported to the SDNPA Planning Committee because of the number of representations received to the application. 1 Site Description 1.1 The application site is within Greatham which is a hamlet in the countryside approximately 2km east of Coldwaltham and 2km south of Pulborough. It is situated on the northern side of Greatham Lane, which links Greatham to Coldwaltham and the A283 to the east. Greatham consists of the application site, described below, and a small number of dwellings and other buildings. These include Greatham Church, a 12th century grade I listed building, Greatham Manor, a 17th century grade II listed house and Greatham Manor Cottages which are also grade II listed. These buildings lie to the north and east of the site. Manor Farmhouse (unlisted) is south of the site at the site access onto Greatham Lane and next to

37 it is Greatham Manor Lodge (unlisted) where there is a separate access leading to Greatham Manor. The Greatham Conservation Area boundary is tightly defined around the grounds of these buildings including the application site. 1.2 The site forms the western part of a large redundant farmyard, which is laid with concrete where there is a range of large steel framed open sided barns, brick buildings and a large 1.5 storey rectangular brick building with a half hipped clay tiled roof. This building dates from the early 20th century and was previously used as a milking parlour and is sited at the entrance into the yard at the top of the access track. There are two large open sided steel framed barns, with cement fibre roofs, and a silo immediately next to its western side. There is also a single storey extension on its southern end made out of concrete blocks with a mono-pitched roof. The open concrete yard area extends westwards and northwards up to hedgerow field boundaries. 1.3 The site is separated by Greatham Manor and church to the east by buildings on the eastern side of the farmyard. These consist of a rectangular listed granary barn with large open sided steel frame barns either side of it. There is also a range of outbuildings sited on the western and southern sides of these barns in a courtyard arrangement. The largest L shaped outbuilding is parallel with the redundant milking parlour. The southern end of this outbuilding has partially collapsed. 1.4 The site is accessed via a track from Greatham Lane to the south and is approximately 150m from the road. The track runs between a field to the west and a hedgerow along the garden boundaries of Manor Farmhouse and Greatham Manor Lodge. 1.5 The site is identified within the Arun and Lower Rother Floodplain Landscape Character Area in the South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment (SDILCA). It is a pastoral landscape with small and irregular fields with dispersed patches of floodplain woodland and gentle valley sides of mixed farmland. The River Arun runs east to west approximately 250m north of the site. Hedgerows along the northern side of Greatham Lane largely screen the site from view. There are views through the access towards the site but it is not prominent from this location. Apart from a short footpath between Greatham Lane and the church further east of the site wider public views of the site are limited. Approximately 1km to the east is Pulborough Brooks which is a site managed by the RSPB and is a protected Ramsar site. 2 Relevant Planning History 2.1 DC/07/2496: Conversion of redundant farm buildings to 5 dwellings (to include 2 x no.4 bedroom, 2 x no.3 bedroom, and 1 x no.2 dwelling). Withdrawn. 2.2 DC/10/0192: Conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to 3 residential dwellings (to include 1 x no.4 bed, 1 x no.3 bed and 1 no.2 bedroom dwellings). Withdrawn. 2.3 SDNP/13/04908/FUL: Conversion of redundant farm buildings, including a grade II listed granary ban into a single dwelling. Demolition of sheds, outbuildings and the re-instatement of collapsed structures. Pending consideration Report PC37/14 at item 8 of the agenda. 2.4 SDNP/13/04909/LIS: Conversion of redundant farm buildings, including a grade II listed granary ban into a single dwelling. Demolition of sheds, outbuildings and the re-instatement of collapsed structures. Pending consideration Report PC38/14 at item 9 of the agenda. 2.5 SDNP13/04911/LIS: Conversion of redundant farm buildings into a single dwelling, including a proposed new build extension and new outbuildings. Also the demolition of existing sheds and outbuildings. Pending consideration Report PC40/14 at item 11 of the agenda.

3 Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the conversion of the former milking parlour into a no.4 bedroom dwelling. The existing openings in the east elevation would be used for new windows and doors and there would be a small area of new timber cladding. Further new glazing and timber cladding is proposed on the west elevation. Conservation rooflights are proposed on the east and west elevations. Openings in the north and south elevations would be retained with a further ground floor window on each elevation.

38 3.2 An extension is proposed on the north west side of the building comprising a single storey glazed flat roof link 2.2m long, with a dark grey aluminium frame, between the parlour and a timber clad extension measuring 4.8m x 7.2m. This extension would have a mono-pitched green roof 3.8m high which would slope towards the parlour. Its west elevation would also be glazed. 3.3 A new detached garage and store is proposed 3m north of the milking parlour. It would be 12.3m (including an open sided lean-to) x 5.3m and 4m high. It would be timber framed with a brick plinth and timber cladding on the sides and rear elevations. It would have a hipped tiled roof with a catslide roof on the rear elevation. 3.4 A detached stable building is proposed 5.5m west of the parlour extension. It would be L shaped and measure 18m x 8m. It would face northwards and be constructed out of brick with a hipped tiled roof 4.5m high. It would consist of no.4 loose boxes and a store room. A small yard area is proposed in front of it. 3.5 A new driveway leading past the western side of the milking parlour, across the existing concrete area, is proposed. The remainder of the site would be retained as paddock for the stables, following the removal of the existing concrete yard. New boundary landscaping is also proposed. 3.6 In addition to the submitted plans, the application is accompanied by the following:  Design and Access Statement  Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment  Bat Survey Report and ecological information (eg bat tile information)  Structural Survey Report  Drainage information  Sustainability Statement  Heritage Significance and Planning Justification Statement  Viability Report.

4 Consultations 4.1 English Heritage: The conservation area is at risk, in part due to the poor and deteriorating condition of vacant agricultural buildings which make up good part of the conservation area; listed granary barn and ancillary buildings make a positive contribution to the conservation area; small size of conservation area means any change within likely to have an impact on its character; impact must be assessed against NPPF; net effect of development would be harmful to the conservation area but less than substantially so; proposals would to some extent reinstate the plan of the historic farmstead by removing later functional structures; returning buildings to good state of repair desirable; residential conversion represents one (but not only) way of achieving this; proposals would result in very intensive use of the buildings; query compatibility of some of the structures for the uses proposed; cumulative effect of proliferation of openings, rooflights, glazing, partitions within modest buildings would harm the understanding of their historic form and function and may have wider implications on the character and appearance of the conservation area; proposals should be scrutinised for their impact on the significance of the designated and undesignated heritage assets and affect on the character and appearance of the conservation area. 4.2 Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB): Objection. Character and appearance of the conservation area would be substantially harmed and setting of the group of the buildings would be compromised; documentation does not set out the significance of the site in sufficient detail; subdividing the site into two substantial properties would be over development of the site; insufficient infrastructure in place to support development of this scale; proposals would impact upon the site’s special qualities of remoteness and tranquillity; historic relationship between farm buildings would be diminished and damage their rural quality.

39 4.3 Historic Buildings Advisor: Support. Main issues are (1) impact on the listed building (2) impact on the conservation area (3) impact on the setting of other listed buildings in vicinity. Scheme represents the best chance of survival and would create a number of benefits for the various conservation interests in the vicinity. Historic farm group makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area and main listed barn at the core of this; it forms part of a wider historic group with the Manor House; loss of any historic part of the group would weaken its collective significance and character of the wider conservation area; modern steel framed farm buildings undermine the historic qualities of the conservation area and setting of listed buildings; buildings unlikely to return to agricultural use; new use needed to halt decay; the eventual loss of the traditional farm buildings would be detrimental to conservation area; residential scheme has a low impact on the appearance of the main barn group and wider conservation interests, whilst removing negative modern farm structures; proposals represent the best option to secure the future of the buildings and retain and enhance their contribution to the wider historic environment. Details of all new windows and joinery will be required via condition. Pre-commencement condition required for a method statement to agree repair of timber frame and for all brick repairs. 4.4 Environment Agency: No objection. 4.5 Natural England: No objection. 4.6 Highways Agency: No objection. 4.7 Highways Authority: Accident records show no personal injury accidents in vicinity of existing point of access; low risk of highway safety issues; proposals would have an overall reduction in vehicular movements compared to agricultural use; recommend pre- commencement condition to provide visibility splays; visibility is restricted to the west by the field boundary hedge; site not in a sustainable location; occupiers will be reliant on private car however previous application has indicated commercial or business use are not viable; infrastructure contribution of £3,500 required. 4.8 Horsham District Council (Planning Policy): Site located in countryside; NPPF outlines a presumption in favour of sustainable development; concern raised on whether the proposals could be considered as a sustainable form of development; Council’s policies direct development to more sustainable locations in defined built up areas and previously developed land within towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities; Core Strategy policies require landscape character to be maintained and enhanced; development outside of built up areas must be considered essential to a countryside location and not lead to an increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside; new isolated homes should be avoided unless necessary for agricultural or forestry workers; converted buildings should be in sustainable locations and commercial uses favoured in first instance. 4.9 Landscape Advice: Clarification of how the land to the west of the barns required; assurance to be given to retain meadow character for majority of land rather than as ornamental garden; consideration to be given to additional planting in north west of the paddock; consideration be given to a shared access between the 2 developments to avoid separate access extending into field; assurance needed that no intrusive lighting would be used; avoid subdivision of paddock for horsiculture purposes; clarification of future use of the access route to the north west of the site; plan showing how trees will be retained and appropriate too protection zones. 4.10 County Council: Financial contribution totalling £563 required for local libraries, fire and rescue service. 4.11 Ecologist (West Sussex County Council): No objection. Plans detail suitable mitigation measures; only require condition that development proceeds in accordance with submitted plans; recommend informative relating to European Protected Species Licence. 4.12 Council: Objection. Not against principle of sympathetic conversion of farm buildings; allowing the buildings to decay further is unattractive; concerned proposed zinc

40 roof of the contemporary link would be out of character in rural setting; natural slate roof preferable.

5 Representations 5.1 94 objections and 82 letters of support have been received which raise the following points: Objections  Unsustainable location  Impact on cultural heritage (listed buildings and conservation area)  Harm link between the site with manor and the church  Impact on National Park landscape  Strain on local infrastructure  Two large dwellings out of keeping  Impact on additional traffic and highway safety  Inappropriate scale and design proposed  Two large dwellings out of keeping with the area  Buildings could be put to other uses  No community consultation from Developers or SDNP  Concern relating to application process  Protection of conservation area  Additional traffic  Impact on tranquil character of conservation area and Greatham  Impact on amenities of neighbouring dwellings  Precedent  Impact on ecology  Impact from flooding Support  Re-use of a brownfield site  Buildings in unsightly condition and of no valuable agricultural use  Site derelict and underused  Allowing buildings to fall into disrepair has detrimental impact  No harm caused to neighbouring properties  Benefit to countryside and local community  Improve appearance of the area  Make better use of redundant buildings  Substantial investment required to conserve them  Reduce noise/activity from being a farm  Sympathetic conversion and appropriate design proposed  Reinstating historical layout  No impact on views  No traffic impact 5.2 CPRE: Objection. Scale and character of the proposed development inappropriate to the Conservation Area and its setting; development would not make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; proposals would not make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the conservation area and listed buildings; setting of listed buildings would be harmed; inappropriate overdevelopment which would harm the unique conservation area, cultural heritage and visitor’s experience of the SDNP.

41 5.3 South Downs Society: Objection. Proposals out of scale and of an inappropriate design; over intensive approach which would have adverse impact on the setting of listed buildings and conservation area, Greatham and SDNP. Farm buildings make a positive contribution to the landscape and merit retention and re-use; removal of more modern farm buildings welcomed; essential to establish any future need for farming purposes or other business use before accepting residential; occupation would generate domestic paraphernalia; additional vehicular traffic detrimental to tranquil character; significant intensification of activity should not be encouraged; unsustainable location; restoration increasingly urgent, any development should be appropriate and sensitive. 5.4 The Amberley Society: Objection. Proposals would cause harmful change to the conservation area; scale of development overpowering and inappropriate for the SDNP; dominate the adjacent historic buildings; residential conversion best way to conserve the listed building; unsympathetic conversion and poor design; proposals would harm special qualities of the area; would not accord with National Park purposes; would set a precedent; development would be subdivided into multiple occupation. Large areas of reflective glass would have a landscape impact. 5.5 The Wiggonholt Association: Objection. Farmyard and adjacent land forms a substantial part of the conservation area; the buildings have deteriorated considerably; previous English Heritage Advice relevant; unsympathetic conversion of buildings; courtyard arrangement insensitive to the rural and conservation area setting; no compelling case to retain the milking parlour and its proposed residential use; development goes against English Heritage advice on heritage assets; concern about further ancillary structures being built to the west; unsympathetic extension proposed; Partnership Management Plan is a material consideration.

6 Planning Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Horsham Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and General Development Control Policies (2007). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010 6.2 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. 6.3 Paragraphs 55 and 131-135 of the NPPF are relevant in the consideration of this application. Paragraph 55 promotes sustainable development in rural areas and outlines that housing should be resisted unless there are special circumstances such as “ where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets.” 6.4 Paragraphs 131-135 outline national policy on the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Paragraph 131 states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:  The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and  The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

42 6.5 Paragraph 132 outlines that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraphs 133-135 outline that the harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefit of the proposals. National Park Purposes 6.3 The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:  To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas;  To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. 6.4 If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010 6.5 The saved Development Plan policies listed below have been assessed. It is considered that they are in general conformity. Policy DC24, however, may only be partially compliant because criterion (a) requires development not to be in an isolated locations, but paragraph 55 of the NPPF allows dwellings in countryside locations provided the development accords with one of its 4 provisos, including to secure the optimal viable use of a heritage asset. South Downs Partnership Management Plan 6.6 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a vision and long term outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending the adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following policies are relevant: Policy 9: Protection of the significance of the historic environment Policy 10: Improve the management of heritage assets. Policy 50: Housing and other development in the National Park.

7 Development Plan Policies 7.1 The Horsham Local Development Framework Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies were adopted in February and December 2007 respectively. The following policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007 are relevant to this application: CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development DC1: Protection and enhancement of the countryside DC9: Development Principles DC5: Biodiversity and Geology DC12: Conservation Areas DC13: Listed Buildings DC24: Conversion of agricultural and rural buildings DC40: Transport and access

8 Planning Assessment 8.1 Key issues in the assessment of this application are the principle of the proposed residential conversion of the milking parlour and the impact of the conversion works on Greatham Conservation Area and the listed buildings. In respect of the conservation area, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 requires that “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.”

43 8.2 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF outlines that in determining planning applications Local Planning Authorities should take account of “the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.” Paragraph 132 of the NPPF outlines that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, ‘great weight’ should be given to the asset’s conservation. Furthermore, paragraphs 133 and 134 outline that the harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighted against the public benefits of the proposals. 8.3 Policy DC24 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007 permits the conversion of rural buildings for commercial or residential use provided proposals meet each of its five criteria. These relate to (a) the building not being in an isolated location (b) it is of a suitable scale for the level of activity proposed and it is capable of conversion without substantial reconstruction, (c) it has been in use for 10 years or more, (d) the proposals will maintain or enhance the architectural character of the buildings and the character of their settings, (e) the proposed uses can be accommodated in the existing buildings and car parking requirements can be satisfactorily accommodated within the immediate surrounds of the buildings. 8.4 Policy DC 12 addresses development in conservation areas. Its criteria relate to development being of a design and or scale that preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the area and is compatible with neighbouring buildings and spaces; uses appropriate materials and building techniques; retains historic features and historic value; restores traditional features and improves the condition of structures worthy of retention; impact on views; protects significant landscape features, proposes appropriate landscaping, and facilitates the removal of unsympathetic features and the reinstatement of missing features. 8.5 The site is 2km from Coldwaltham where there is a range of services and facilities, but the site is in a relatively isolated rural location whereby any future occupiers would be reliant on the private car. In this regard, the proposals do not meet criterion (a) of Policy DC24. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF promotes sustainable development in rural areas and advocates that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided. It does, however, include a proviso where there are special circumstances when new homes in the countryside may be acceptable, such as where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. The proposals would accord with criteria (b) and (c) of DC24 in that the scale and use of the building would be acceptable and it is capable of conversion without substantial reconstruction works, as outlined below. Criteria (d) and (e) are also considered below and it is considered that the proposals comply with this policy. 8.6 The Greatham Conservation Area was included on English heritage’s ‘Heritage at Risk’ Register in 2010. The milking parlour is in a poor condition and contributes to the status of the conservation area, in addition to the adjacent granary barn and outbuildings. It is important to conserve and enhance this site because it forms part of the conservation area and the historic farm group which makes a positive contribution to its character and appearance, which is recognised by English Heritage and SPAB. The loss of any part of this historic group would therefore weaken the collective significance of these buildings and their association with the neighbouring listed buildings. 8.7 The milking parlour dates from the early 20th century. It is not listed in its own right and does not have as high an architectural or historic interest as the listed barn. It nonetheless is an important building to retain because it has a historical link with the overall site and Greatham, at a time when the farm’s evolution into dairy farming and the when the listed barn became a grain store. Its simple form and siting form part of and complement the historic farmstead layout and setting of the granary barn within the conservation area. Its loss would therefore weaken the significance of the conservation area. 8.8 SPAB acknowledges that this group of buildings need to be protected, but outlines that any new use needs to be carefully considered and of a scale which does not detract from the

44 character and interest of the site and conservation area. A suitable use is therefore required to ensure the long term survival of this building. A submitted viability report details that a residential use is the only viable option. In addition to the potential impact on the building, the location is relatively rural and a commercial use would be less favourable because of the rural location, its impact on the setting and amenities of neighbouring properties and impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. 8.9 SPAB also raise concerns that the subdivision of the farmyard into two substantial properties would overdevelop Manor Farm and place its special qualities at severe risk. The overdevelopment of the site would not occur with a residential use of the building, or cumulatively with the conversion of the granary barn as both buildings would be converted into single dwellings as opposed to any further subdivision and development. This would be a suitably low key scale and use in keeping with the special qualities of the conservation area. Furthermore, the proposed extension to the milking parlour would not significantly extend its built form. 8.10 English Heritage raises concern that the proposals would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. The conversion of the milking parlour would facilitate the needed repairs and restoration of the building. Its character and the conservation area would be preserved by virtue of the proposed design. The proposals would retain the agricultural character of the building and therefore its understanding of its original form and function. The proposals would also facilitate the removal of large steel framed barns and hard standing. These aspects would also enhance the wider landscape. 8.11 English Heritage also raise concern about the proliferation of openings, however, the majority of the doors and windows on the proposed elevations use existing openings. Rooflights are also proposed on either side of the roof. These openings would be the minimum necessary to make the building a habitable dwelling. The main changes to the building are on the western side where new timber cladding is proposed, which would retain the rural appearance of the building, and an extension. The new extension would be an obvious addition given its contrasting architecture, but it would not significantly detract from the rural character of the building and the conservation area given its design and a more traditional extension could appear as pastiche form of development. This impact is considered to be less than substantial harm to the building, which is outweighed by the public benefit of restoring it and enhancing the conservation area. The proposals therefore accord with policies DC12 and criteria (d) and (e) of policy DC24 and NPPF. 8.12 The proposed garage and stable buildings would be appropriately sited in relation to the milking parlour. Their siting would also continue the irregular or organic development of the farmstead. They are also of a scale which would be subservient to the milking parlour. Their siting and design would be in keeping with the rural surroundings and conservation area, as well as the separate proposals for the listed granary barn and its outbuildings on the eastern side of the farmyard. Appropriate parking would be provided in the proposed garage, in accordance with criterion (e) of Policy DC24. Also, the proposed new driveway leading from the shared access and into a new parking and turning area in front of the proposed garage would not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area or wider National Park landscape, within which there are limited views of the site. It would also separate an area of new residential garden for the milking parlour and the wider paddock. 8.13 Proposed condition no.10 would restrict permitted development rights for new outbuildings so as to avoid an over domestication of the site through a proliferation of additional outbuildings, which may harm the qualities of the conservation area. This condition also restricts new fencing on site which is proposed to avoid the subdivision of the paddock for equestrian purposes, in response to the landscape advice. A condition requiring further details on the proposed landscaping needing to be approved is also proposed. For the above reasons, the enhancement of the site and conservation area would consequently enhance the National Park landscape. 8.14 The proposed residential use of the site would not harm the amenities of surrounding existing dwellings. There would be no significant impact on the properties to the east

45 because of the intervening granary barn and outbuildings and distance to these dwellings. There is also a significant distance between the site and Manor Farm House and Greatham Manor Lodge to the south, in between which are hedgerows and trees, which would limit any harm to the amenities of these dwellings to the south. Furthermore, the orientation and fenestration of the milking parlour would further limit any loss of privacy to the residential use of the adjacent barn and outbuildings, as well as surrounding existing dwellings. 8.15 The proposals include suitable bat and barn owl mitigation measures. No objection has been raised to using the existing access subject to a condition requiring adequate visibility splays. The proposed garaging would provide suitable parking provision. New landscaping has been proposed around the site boundaries and further details are required to be sought via a condition. Further conditions regarding the management of the land are proposed

9 Conclusion 9.1 For the reasons above, bringing the building back into optimal viable use could secure the preservation of the heritage assets which, on balance, outweighs the harm of a new dwelling in this rural location. The proposals could conserve and enhance the conservation area and setting of adjacent listed buildings through the removal of the open steel framed barns, removal of the large area of concrete hardstanding and the proposed design, which retains the simple rural character of the milking parlour and historic farmstead group.

10 Recommendation and Conditions 10.1 The application is recommended to be approved subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement for the payment of £4,063 infrastructure and services contributions and the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and details listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application." Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and policies CP1, CP3, DC9, DC12, DC24 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007 and NPPF. 3. No development shall commence before details including samples of all facing and surfacing materials used have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the SDNPA. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable appearance in accordance with policies CP1, CP3, DC9, DC12, DC24 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007and the NPPF. 4. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, no part of the site shall be first occupied before a revised scheme of soft landscape works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the SDNPA. These details shall include: a. Planting specifications detailing schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes, proposed numbers/densities and soil amelioration where appropriate. A more rural and informal design shall be adopted which should include native hedgerows along site boundaries, a greater number of trees at a variety of planting sizes in a less formal arrangement. The frontage boundary planting shall be designed so as it is ‘passively safe’ in regard to highway safety. b. Tree pit details.

46 c. Retained areas of grassland cover, scrub, hedgerow, trees and woodland; d. A schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Reason: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with policies CP1, CP3, DC9, DC12 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007, National Park purposes, and the NPPF. 5. The landscaping scheme approved under condition 4 shall be implemented within the first planting season following first occupation. Trees, shrubs and hedges planted in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme shall be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme and if any within five years of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the SDNPA. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the local area, in accordance with policies CP1, CP3, DC9, DC12 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007, National Park purposes, and the NPPF. 6. No development shall commence until details and a method statement for works to the restoration of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the SDNP. Reason: To ensure the works are undertaken sensitively, in accordance with policies DC9, DC12, DC13, DC24 and CP3 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007, National Park purposes, and NPPF. 7. Prior to the insertion of the windows and doors hereby permitted, detailed elevation and sectional drawings of the windows at the scale not less than 1:10 shall be submitted to and approved by the SDNP. Reason: To ensure a high quality development, in accordance with policies DC9, DC12, DC13, DC24 and CP3 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007, National Park purposes, and the NPPF. 8. The visibility splays of 2.4m x 75m west and 2.4m x 60m east shall be provided at the site access and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with Plan 1207.02.P3. Reason: in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy DC40 and the NPPF. 9. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the Bat Survey Report dated 25 September 2013. Reason: To ensure the protection of protected species, in accordance with Policy DC5 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007, National Park purposes, and NPPF. 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995(or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no building, shed, greenhouse, other structure or fencing shall be erected anywhere on site other than as shown on the plans hereby approved shall be made or erected without a grant of planning permission from the Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the SDNP to control over the enlargements or alterations of the buildings to preserve their character, in accordance with policies DC3, DC9, DC12 and DC24 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007, National Park purposes and NPPF. 11. The stables hereby approved shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such and for no other purposes whatsoever. Reason: To ensure the stables are used for the private enjoyment of the dwellinghouse only, to protect the amenities and the character and appearance of the conservation

47 area, in accordance with policies DC9, DC12 of the Horsham Local Development Framework 2007, National Park purposes and NPPF.

11 Crime and Disorder Implications 11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not raise any crime and disorder implications 12 Human Rights Implications 12.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual’s human rights is consider to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. 13 Equalities Act 2010 13.1 Due regard, where relevant, has been taken to the South Down National Park Authority’s equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2012 14 Proactive Working 14.1 In reaching this decision the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Contact Officer: Richard Ferguson Tel: 01730 234129 email: [email protected] Appendices 1. Location Map SDNPA Consultees Director of Planning & Legal Services Background Documents Planning Application Documents Consultee Comments

48 Agenda Item 10 Report PC39/14 Appendix 1 Location Map

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)

49