NOTICE OF MEETING
East Pallant House East Pallant Chichester West Sussex PO19 1TY Telephone: 01243 785166 Website: www.chichester.gov.uk
MEETING PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE/TIME Wednesday 23 July 2014 at 10.00am
VENUE The Council Chamber, East Pallant House, East Pallant, Chichester
CONTACT Katherine Jeram – Member Services Officer Direct line: 01243 534674 E-mail: [email protected]
14 July 2014 JOHN WARD Head of Finance & Governance Services
AGENDA This agenda should be retained for future reference with the minutes of this meeting
PART I
1 Chairman’s Announcements
Any apologies for absence which have been received will be noted at this point
The committee will be informed at this point of any items in the schedule of planning applications (agenda item 5) which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting
2 Approval of Minutes
The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 25 June 2014 will be circulated separately subsequent to the despatch of this agenda
3 Urgent Items
The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 10 (b)
4 Declarations of Interests
For details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies, please refer to the notes at the end of this agenda.
Such interests are hereby disclosed by each member in respect of agenda items on the schedule of planning applications where the Council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular item or application
Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are to be made by members of the Planning Committee in respect of matters on the agenda for this meeting
5 Schedule of Planning Applications (pages 1 to 154)
The Planning Committee will consider the schedule of planning applications
6 Update on Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works and Wastewater Position Statement (pages 155 to 164)
The Development Plan Panel at its meeting on 17 July 2014 will be asked to consider the attached report and recommend that it is forwarded to the Planning Committee for information and endorsement before consideration by Cabinet at its meeting on 9 September 2014.
7 Review of Planning Enforcement Strategy (pages 165 to 175)
The Committee is asked to note and recommend the draft revised Planning Enforcement Strategy to Cabinet at its meeting on 9 September 2014.
8 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions (pages 176 to 199)
The Planning Committee will consider the schedule of outstanding contraventions
9 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters (pages 200 to 219)
The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements
10 Late Items
The Planning Committee will consider any late items as follows:
(a) Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection
(b) Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting
PART II Items for which the press and public are likely to be excluded
NONE
The press and public may be excluded from the meeting during any item of business whenever it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in section 100I of and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972
Members of the Planning Committee
Mr A R H Smith (Chairman) Mrs P A Hardwick (Vice Chairman)
Mr G A F Barrett Mr D J Myers Mr M J Bell Mr S J Oakley Mr Q J R Cox Mr H C Potter Mrs J E Duncton Mr J Ridd Mr J F Elliott Mr F Robertson Mr R J Hayes Mrs J A E Tassell Mr G V McAra Mrs P M Tull Mr J A P Montyn Mr M Woolley
Personal Interests - Membership of Parish Councils
The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of the parish councils stated below in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where their respective parish councils have been consulted:
• Mr M J Bell - Chichester City Council (CC)
• Mr R J Hayes - Southbourne Parish Council (SB)
• Mr G V McAra - Midhurst Town Council (MI)
• Mr S J Oakley - Tangmere Parish Council (TG)
• Mr H C Potter - Boxgrove Parish Council (BX)
• Mr J Ridd - Donnington Parish Council (D)
• Mr A R H Smith - Chichester City Council (CC)
• Mrs P M Tull - Sidlesham Parish Council (SI)
• Mr M Woolley - Chichester City Council (CC)
Personal Interests - Membership of West Sussex County Council
The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of West Sussex County Council in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where that local authority has been consulted:
• Mrs J E Duncton - West Sussex County Council Member for the Petworth Division
• Mr G V McAra - West Sussex County Council Member for the Midhurst Division
• Mr J A P Montyn - West Sussex County Council Member for The Witterings Division
• Mr S J Oakley - West Sussex County Council Member for the Chichester East Division
Personal Interests – Membership on Outside Organisations and Public Bodies
The following member of the Planning Committee declares a personal interest as a member of the outside organisation stated below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where that organisation has been consulted:
• Mr M Woolley - Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee
Personal Interests - Chichester District Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies
The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest as Chichester District Council appointees to the outside organisations or as members of the public bodies below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where such organisations or bodies have been consulted:
• Mr G A F Barrett - Chichester Harbour Conservancy
• Mr Q J R Cox - Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee
• Mr D J Myers - Chichester Harbour Conservancy
Personal Interests – West Sussex County Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies
The following member of the committee declares a personal interest as a West Sussex County Council appointee to the outside organisation stated below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where that organisation has been consulted:
• Mr J A P Montyn - Chichester Harbour Conservancy
CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
23rd July 2014
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
THE BACKGROUND PAPERS RELATING TO THIS REPORT CONSIST OF REPRESENTATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES, REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND OBSERVATIONS FROM STATUTORY AND OTHER CONSULTEES
RECOMMENDATIONS APPEAR IN CODED FORM. THE FULL TEXT OF CONDITIONS OR REASONS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST AT THE COUNCIL OFFICES OR CAN BE VIEWED ONLINE AT WWW.CHICHESTER.GOV.UK QUOTING THE APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER.
Planning Committee 1 How Applications are referenced:
a) First 2 Digits = Parish b) Next 2 Digits = Year c) Next 5 Digits = Application Number d) Final Letters = Application Type
Application Type Committee report changes appear in bold text. Application Status
ADV Advert Application AGR Agricultural Application (following PNO) ALLOW Appeal Allowed CMA County Matter Application (eg Minerals) APP Appeal in Progress CAC Conservation Area Consent APPRET Invalid Application Returned COU Change of Use APPWDN Appeal Withdrawn CPO Consultation with County Planning (REG3) BCO Building Work Complete DEM Demolition Application BST Building Work Started DOM Domestic Application (Householder) CLOSED Case Closed ELD Existing Lawful Development CRTACT Court Action Agreed FUL Full Application CRTDEC Hearing Decision Made GVT Government Department Application CSS Called in by Secretary of State HSC Hazardous Substance Consent DEC Decided LBC Listed Building Consent DECDET Decline to determine OHL Overhead Electricity Line DEFCH Defer – Chairman OUT Outline Application DISMIS Appeal Dismissed PLD Proposed Lawful Development HOLD Application Clock Stopped PNO Prior Notification (Agr, Dem, Tel) INV Application Invalid on Receipt REG3 District Application – Reg 3 LEG Defer – Legal Agreement REG4 District Application – Reg 4 LIC Licence Issued REM Approval of Reserved Matters NFA No Further Action REN Renewal (of Temporary Permission) NODEC No Decision TCA Tree in Conservation Area NONDET Never to be determined TEL Telecommunication Application (After PNO) NOOBJ No Objection TPA Works to tree subject of a TPO NOTICE Notice Issued NOTPRO Not to Prepare a Tree Preservation Order CONACC Accesses OBJ Objection CONADV Adverts PCNENF PCN Served, Enforcement Pending CONAGR Agricultural PCO Pending Consideration CONBC Breach of Conditions PD Permitted Development CONCD Coastal PDE Pending Decision CONCMA County matters PER Application Permitted CONCOM Commercial/Industrial/Business PLNREC DC Application Submitted CONDWE Unauthorised dwellings PPNR Planning Permission Required S64 CONENG Engineering operations PPNREQ Planning Permission Not Required CONHDG Hedgerows REC Application Received CONHH Householders REF Application Refused CONLB Listed Buildings REVOKE Permission Revoked CONMHC Mobile homes / caravans S32 Section 32 Notice CONREC Recreation / sports SPLIT Split Decision CONSH Stables / horses STPSRV Stop Notice Served CONT Trees STPWTH Stop Notice Withdrawn CONTEM Temporary uses – markets/shooting/ VAL Valid Application Received motorbikes WDN Application Withdrawn CONTRV Travellers YESTPO Prepare a Tree CONWST Wasteland Preservation Order
Planning Committee 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Application No. Site Address / Proposal Page No. No. 1. WR/14/00748/OUT Land South Of Meadowbank Petworth 6 Road Wisborough Green West Sussex
Outline planning application for 25 no. residential dwellings with new access, associated parking and attenuation pond. 2. WE/14/01217/FUL Land West Of Harwood Cemetery Lane 25 Woodmancote Westbourne West Sussex
The re-design of an existing pitch including the removal of stables granted in permission WE/13/03867/FUL, and the additional use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 4 no. gypsy pitches together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/ dayrooms ancillary to that use. 3. TG/14/00860/FUL Tangmere Cottage Tangmere Road 40 Tangmere Chichester West Sussex PO20 2HW
Erection of dwelling on site of the redundant tennis court. 4. SB/14/01678/FUL Land South Of Green Orchards Inlands 53 Road Nutbourne West Sussex
Full application for demolition of existing stable / store and proposed change of use of land to provide two additional mobile homes pitches and one additional utility building for settled gypsy accommodation (total 5 pitch site) revised application further to permission granted under SB/13/03608/FUL for proposed change of use of land to three pitch site comprising the stationing of three mobile homes for settled gypsy accommodation and the construction of three associated utility buildings.
Planning Committee 3
5. FU/14/01061/FUL Ratham House Ratham Lane West Ashling 66 Chichester West Sussex PO18 8DL
Change of use to a small scale holiday park for 15 motorhomes/touring unit pitches and the construction of reception building, manager's accommodation and amenity building. 6. FU/14/01267/FUL Land East Of Tower View Nursery West 77 Ashling Road Hambrook Funtington West Sussex
Provision of four mobile home pitches for occupation by gypsy/travellers (as defined in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites) and erection of three timber-clad utility buildings. 7. EWB/13/01977/FUL Martlets Peerley Road East Wittering 90 Chichester PO20 8DW
4 no. dwellings and associated works. 8. EWB/14/01687/FUL Newlands Farm Road Bracklesham Bay 100 Chichester PO20 8JT
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 no. three bed chalet style dwellings and new vehicular access. 9. CC/14/01359/ADV Tesco Stores Ltd Fishbourne Road East 107 Chichester West Sussex PO19 3JT
1no. internally illuminated fascia sign. 10. CC/14/01835/DOM 107 Woodlands Lane Chichester West 113 Sussex PO19 5PF
Replacement guttering as existing. Replacement larger rooflight. 1 no. additional rooflight. Replace timber dormer cladding/bargeboards with upvc to match existing. Enclose dormer rafter feet.
Planning Committee 4 SDNPA Applications
11. SDNP/13/04033/FUL (STED) Minsted Farm Minsted Lane Minsted 119 Stedham Midhurst West Sussex GU29 0JN
Substitute proposals (for extant approvals SJ/05/03673/FUL and SJ/10/02688/FUL) For 4no. dwellings including a live work unit in lieu of holiday cottages, a dwelling in lieu of B1 office floorspace and demolition of existing modern farm buildings and associated landscaping. 12. SDNP/14/ 14/01442/FUL 77 Parsonage Estate Rogate Petersfield 131 (EBER) GU31 5HL
Development of the side garden of No 77 including the demolition of the existing detached garage and expansion of the access and the construction of a pair of semi detached two storey 3 bedroomed dwellings. 13. SDNP/14/01085/FUL (ROG) Wassell Barn Ebernoe 141 Petworth GU28 9LD
Replacement Dwelling
Planning Committee 5
Parish: Ward: Wisborough Green Wisborough Green
1. WR/14/00748/OUT
Proposal Outline planning application for 25 no. residential dwellings with new access, associated parking and attenuation pond.
Site Land South Of Meadowbank Petworth Road Wisborough Green West Sussex
Map Ref (E) 504679 (N) 125781
Applicant Rydon Homes Ltd
RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Parish Objection - Officer Recommends Permit.
Planning Committee 6
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site comprises 1.15 hectares of land on the southwest edge of Wisborough Green village. The site is currently in agricultural use, with vehicular access achieved via a field gate in the northwest corner onto Petworth Road (A272). There is a gentle slope within the site, generally sloping down towards the southwest corner, with the land beyond the southern boundary falling away more steeply. The northwest corner of the site is below road level, but this levels out by the midpoint of the northern boundary.
2.2 The site is generally well contained physically, with a mature, wide tree belt along the west and southern boundaries and a well established hedgerow to the north. A 2-storey detached dwelling, Milland Villa, is located adjacent to the northeast corner of the site, the garden for which follows the first 46m of the eastern boundary of the site and is marked by a brick wall and mature hedge. The remainder of this boundary comprises a post and wire fence.
2.3 Beyond the west boundary is a small pond, close to the private drive serving Little Tanyard and Old Tanyard Farm and Cottage. To the north is a row of mostly detached, 2- storey dwellings - all on higher ground than the application site. Those immediately to the north of the site are well screened from the road (A272) by mature vegetation. There is a continuous pavement running along the northern boundary of the site leading to the village to the east and extending west as well.
2.4 The existing settlement boundary runs adjacent to part of the east boundary and along the opposite edge of the A272 to the north. The Wisborough Green Conservation Area also runs along the eastern boundary. The village shop and Green are located approximately 250m to the east, with other facilities including the primary school, pubs and church beyond.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The application proposal comprises a development of 25 dwellings, all 2-storey and including a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses. 10 of the dwellings will be affordable housing: of these 10, 3 will be shared ownership and 7 will be affordable rented, in line with the Councils guidelines. The housing mix would be as follows: Affordable Housing 2 x 1-bed houses 4 x 2-bed houses 3 x 3-bed houses 1 x 1-bed houses Market Housing 4 x 2-bed houses 7 x 3-bed houses 4 x 4 bed houses.
3.2 The application has been made in Outline form, with matters pertaining to access for consideration at this stage.
Planning Committee 7 3.3 The vehicular access serving the dwellings is approximately midpoint along the northern boundary on to Petworth Road, 60m from the eastern boundary. New pavement is proposed along both sides to join the existing pedestrian facility running east and west. The access will be 15m at the widest point, whilst the new road will maintain a width of 5.5m. This would involve some removal of the existing hedgerow whilst the existing access to the west would be stopped up within the site. It is also proposed to provide an area of open play space (unequipped), an attenuation pond and 64 parking spaces of which 58 would be allocated, leaving 6 for visitors.
4.0 History
No relevant history.
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area Adjacent to Wisborough Green CA Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
6.1 Wisborough Green Parish Council
The Parish Council OBJECTS to this application on the following grounds: Prematurity of Application: As both the applicant and Chichester District Council are aware, the Parish Council is in an advanced stage of an emerging Neighbourhood Plan, having already completed three stages of local community consultation. Wisborough Green Parish Council (WGPC) feels extremely strongly that determining this outline planning application at this time will prematurely compromise the Wisborough Green Neighbourhood Plan from properly considering this site for appropriate capacity and in connection with the other sites under consideration. WGPC objects strongly to the prematurity of this application. Access onto the A272 and Pedestrian Safety: It is already very apparent from observation that once traffic has passed through the centre of the village, the speed increases down the hill. This has been confirmed by the applicant in the Traffic Management Plan; the average traffic speed in the westerly direction (downhill) is 38.4 mph in a 30 mph speed limit. Traffic, particularly heavy vehicles at speed, in close proximity to the existing narrow pavement, makes this an extremely dangerous pedestrian pavement to the village centre. This issue has consistently been a key concern in all the Wisborough Green Neighbourhood Plan consultations. The Parish Council does not support development that increases pedestrian use, especially by young families, without physical traffic calming. Existing property boundaries would prevent the general widening of the pavement, but some diversion of the westerly roadway would be required to force westerly traffic to deviate and slow down past the site. WGPC
Planning Committee 8 considers that there is scope within the site frontage to widen the roadway, diverting the westerly path over a short distance and still retaining the hedge. WGPC considers that a traffic calming scheme that is purely visual, such as speed indicator devices or additional road markings, would be ignored by motorists in the long term and therefore considered unacceptable in addressing this established issue. WGPC would wish to be party to negotiations in traffic calming with the aim of it being effective yet appropriate to a development, and recommends that this is a requirement of any planning approval for this site. We have included a suggestion for traffic calming that seeks to address these safety issues, whilst still being potentially a practical solution. If implemented and effective, this could be an overall benefit to the village, addressing an issue identified in the Neighbourhood Plan consultation process. Site Size: The Parish Council believes that the site is large in relation to the village and does not reflect the character of Wisborough Green or the community's wishes, as identified through the Neighbourhood Planning process. The application acknowledges that the Wisborough Green Neighbourhood Planning process seeks sites of 10-20 max (planning statement 5.13). WGPC is concerned that the site extends too far back, creating a deep development. Layout: The suggested layout is not in the character of the Wisborough Green village, in respect of green and open spaces. It does not have any 'village' character and could be from any suburban estate. Whilst the planning statement (6.36) implies consideration of 'significant gaps', this site could be more sympathetic to the character of the nearby Conservation Area; for example with an effective larger open space. The small open space at the rear of the site plan proposed by the applicant is not useful to the new residents, nor would it be an effective asset for the village as a whole. The site layout is also dominated by roadways and the local play area is too close to the housing. Drainage: The proposal relies on electricity when flooding may occur. The village has recently experienced long periods of flooding and no power. WGPC have a concern that the drainage design should be able to withstand such a scenario. WGPC is aware that neighbours have experienced drainage issues, and have a concern that the system capacity should be thoroughly checked. An additional concern is that neighbours report historical instances of flooding within the site, particularly in the lower corner by the existing entrance gate. Housing Design: The emerging Neighbourhood Plan is developing a design statement and we comment that it is expected this will be a material consideration for any development applications in the village.
Further comments received 30 May and 12 June 2014
The Parish Council has already submitted a letter of objection to this application, but wishes to draw your attention to new information.
As you may be aware, there is currently an application for an oil and gas exploration site (WSCC/083/13/KD) just over the Parish boundary in Kirdford Parish, with traffic movement through the centre of Wisborough Green. Information has now been provided by the applicant to WSCC which identifies the traffic route for heavy vehicles as being along the A272 directly past this proposed development site.
The Parish Council has already highlighted strong concerns relating to the speed of traffic and the narrow pedestrian access to the village. Should WSCC permit this oil and gas site, the Parish Council strongly believes that the safety of pedestrians and those using the new access, for the number of vehicle movements to/from the site based on the proposed number of properties and without any traffic calming, would be seriously affected. The
Planning Committee 9 Council would therefore request that this concern is discussed further with WSCC Highways, as the cumulative impact does need to be assessed.
For the past two years, the Wisborough Green Neighbourhood Plan Group (WGNPG), comprising of Parish Council members and village residents, has been consulting with the community in the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan. The WGNPG has completed the sustainability testing of all sites and reviewed the 2014 SHLAA with the District Council. This has allowed the Group to now confirm the site strategy for the requirement of 60 dwellings in the Neighbourhood Plan, which is being prepared for formal consultation this summer, and has now been formally agreed by the Parish Council. Given that a clear strategy has emerged from this detailed testing, the Parish Council can now engage meaningfully with developers in a way that was not possible until this point in the process.
The Parish Council believes the application by Rydon Homes is premature and is not in line with the agreed spatial strategy for the village. Members considered the revised site layout illustrative plan at its meeting on 10th June 2014 and concluded that the minor changes do not alter the Parish Council's objections to the original proposal.
The Parish Council would therefore request that the application be withdrawn so that full discussions with the developer and District Council can take place so that a revised scheme can be prepared that is compliant with the emerging Plan. The Parish Council believes that an approval of the current scheme by the District Council would risk prejudicing the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan in its entirety by pre-determining decisions about the scale, location and phasing of new development within the area, especially given the nature of the agreed spatial strategy which is based on small scale additions to the 'stretch' the existing village envelope in a number of discrete locations. This approach has been strongly supported by the community in extensive consultations. It is clear in current planning guidance that an emerging neighbourhood plan may be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application. See Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 41-007-20140306 and Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 21b-014-20140306. Chichester District Council There is a duty on the planning authority to engage fully with the local community in preparing the planning application to comply with advice in the Localism Act to allow neighbourhoods to determine their own future. We therefore look forward to a positive dialogue at the earliest possible opportunity.
6.2 Environment Agency (summarised)
The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is defined in the NPPF as having a low probability for flooding. Therefore no bespoke comments will be provided.
6.3 Southern Water Services (summarised)
The exact position of foul sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.
6.4 Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal and water supply to service the proposed development.
Planning Committee 10
6.5 WSCC - Highways
Given the high level of concern raised by the Parish Council in respect of highway safety, the comments from WSCC as Highway Authority are provided in full:
The site is situated immediately to the west of Wisborough Green village. The site will be accessed off the Petworth Road (A272) via a new access point. High Street is subject to a 30 mph speed limit. In order assess the required level of visibility an Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) was positioned on Petworth Road in close proximity to the proposed site access. The speed limits were recorded as 38.4 mph west bound and 35.4 mph east bound. It is stated that visibility splays of 70 metres can be achieved in both directions onto Petworth Road. Current highway guidance uses Manual for Streets for urban locations where the speed is typically under 40 mph. Noting the 85th percentile speed it is against this guidance that the adequacies of the High Street junction to this development should be assessed. The applicant has demonstrated that sightlines and visibility splays of 2.4 by 70 metres can be achieved in each direction onto Petworth Road. Therefore the submitted splays are considered to be acceptable.
The TS provided in support of this application does estimate potential vehicular trip generation arising from this proposal. These estimates are based upon TRICS data. The Highway Authority acknowledges that TRICS is based upon developments of a larger scale compared with the current development. However the sites used are still considered to be comparable in terms of planning use class and location to that proposed. As such the trip rate generated still provides a useful indication likely trip generation from the new dwellings. The peak hour trips will not exceed the thresholds set out in the WSCC Transport Assessment Methodology that would require junction capacity assessment. This proposal is not anticipated to result in any highway capacity concerns.
The access arrangements have been the subject of a Stage One Road Safety Audit, with three problems identified. The first problem relates to visibility splays at the junction. The Audit was undertaken prior to the speed survey which accumulated data of the 85 percentile speed. Visibility splays in accordance with the speed survey have been shown on a revised plan number 0518-GA-01B.
The second problem relates to the gradient of the access road. The Designer has accepted the recommended changes and has indicated the provision on drawing 0518-GA-01B and this will be incorporated at the detailed design stage.
The third problem relates to the lack of provisions for pedestrians to cross the new road. The Auditor recommends at the Detailed Design stage dropped kerbs and tactile paving at the new access junction. The Designer has accepted these changes and has incorporated them into the drawings.
It is proposed to install a footpath to link onto the site to link to the existing Petworth Road footway. The footways should have minimum widths of 1.8 metres in line with Manual for Streets guidance.
A total of 69 car parking spaces will be provided on site. This provision has been considered against the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator. The proposed provision does exceed the requirement generated by way of the PDC. However further consideration to the parking arrangement will need to be considered at the Reserved Matters stage.
Planning Committee 11 Refuse collection will take place from within the site. The waste collection authority should be consulted to obtain their views on the suitability of this arrangement and a swept path analysis diagram would need to be submitted showing a refuse vehicle turning within the site at the Reserved Matters stage.
Although the layout is not being considered at this stage the LHA would like to indicate that consideration should be given to the proximity of the first internal access junctions to the main site access which could result in vehicle conflict. The LHA would suggest that these are re-positioned further from the point of access when layout is being finalised.
In respect of sustainability; with it acknowledged Wisborough Green has an established bus route, which operates along the Petworth Road (A272) lying to the west. The transport statement does consider access to services by other non-car modes. There are a limited range of services within Wisborough Green Village but those services that are available are within reasonable walking distance. As a result of this proposal there will be enhancement with footway links. Residents would need to travel outside of the village to access any significant range of services however. Whilst future residents would be dependent upon the private car there are sustainable travel choices available to future resident. While the sites location results in a higher trip generation than a site in a more sustainable location it is not considered that this would result in a severe impact on the network; the access has been demonstrated to be safe and there are no capacity constraints.
WSCC Highways comments in response to Parish Council comments
There is currently an application for an oil and gas exploration site (WSCC/083/13/KD) which is in the Kirdford Parish, with traffic movement through the centre of Wisborough Green using the A272. The Parish Council have raised concern that the safety of pedestrians and those using the new access of the proposal could be affected through the exploration site development.
WSCC considers that is not the responsibility of the residential development to manage the traffic impact the undetermined Kirdford drilling application could have as this is outside of the Applicant's control. The responsibility would fall to the promoters of the proposed oil and gas exploration to ensure that it does not cause a detrimental impact on highway safety. WSCC has indicated that a Traffic Management Plan would be required as part of the exploration site should permission be granted; a draft has been requested as part of the application, with final approval of detailed plans being required prior to commencement of the development. In the event that development on this site is permitted then mitigation, if required, would be sought through the management plan.
With regards to the width of the footway, the 1.8 metre minimum is considered acceptable and in accordance Manual for Streets (MfS) and Inclusive Mobility guidance. A minimum of 1.8 metres should be secured where the applicant has control over the land and if there is the opportunity to widen the footway further, this would be considered a benefit to pedestrians by increasing the effective usable width and enabling greater separation between vehicles and pedestrians in the event that a pedestrian feels intimidated by the presence of vehicles in the adjacent carriageway.
Planning Committee 12
6.6 WSCC - Infrastructure
The following financial contributions would be sought by WSCC as part of a Section 106 Agreement: TAD Education Libraries Fire and Rescue
The amounts for these would be calculated using a formula based on the housing mix and parking provision within the site.
6.7 CDC - Historic Buildings Adviser
No Objection
This scheme abuts the Wisborough Green Conservation Area and can be considered to be within the setting of a number of listed buildings which are situated to the east of the site.
In principle, a scheme should be able to be supported here which respects the setting of the heritage assets both in terms of its layout, but also the building design and build quality. Other important considerations here will be landscaping and surface treatments which should soften the impact of the development here and pick up on the informal quality of historic development to the east.
A more detailed scheme should also seek to maintain the qualities and characteristics of the neighbouring houses and would do well to refer to the Conservation Area Character appraisal for this purpose. It is important that any development here does not read as simply infill, but a natural extension to the village and its built qualities. This includes avoiding an overly suburbanized aesthetic.
6.8 CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Noise) (summarised)
No Objection
6.9 CDC - Housing Enabling Officer
With the proposed mix we would require that the following units to be delivered as affordable to reflect the local housing need;
Affordable rented (70%) 2 x 1 bed 2 x 2 bed 2 x 3 bed 1 x 4 bed
Shared ownership (30%) 2 x 2 bed 1 x 3 bed
The remaining 15 units would be delivered as market, this would mean that 33% would be delivered as 4 beds.
Planning Committee 13
The Council's Economic Development Strategy (EDS) states; "Chichester needs to be more attractive to working age households. The structure of its economy and its resident population means that intermediate, support service jobs in the social care, retail, tourism and leisure sectors are likely to continue to be an important part of the District's economy. Its housing stock should start to reflect this."
The NPPF commits the Government to "securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity" through the planning system. It sets out the Government's economic, environmental and social planning policies. The social dimension is defined as: "…supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being".
The Chichester District Housing Strategy 2013-18 also seeks: "Delivery of new homes in line with the SHMA recommendations resulting in a better match of homes to meet local need, enabling newly forming households to remain in the district and older people to downsize to appropriate accommodation" and "Delivery of increased smaller family housing to retain and attract young working families and support economic growth".
The SHMA does recognises a higher requirement for 4 bed properties in the North of the district, however the 2011 census information highlights that 40% of all housing stock in the parish has 4 or more bedrooms. We would require 1 less 4 bedroom in place of an additional 3 bed unit. Therefore we would require the following overall mix;
- 2 x 1 bed - 8 x 2 bed - 10 x 3 bed - 5 x 4 bed
6.10 CDC - Planning Policy (summarised)
The District has a five year housing land supply shortfall and therefore there is a general presumption in favour of granting permission for new residential development. The outline application under consideration is generally consistent with the development strategy in the emerging Local Plan. Subject to any detailed development management considerations, There is no policy objection to the outline proposal.
6.11 CDC - Archaeological Officer (summarised)
No objection, subject to a desk-based assessment and field evaluation being undertaken prior to development, which can be secured by condition.
6.12 CDC - Drainage Officer
Surface water drainage proposals include underground storage, attenuation pond and pumped system to a rising main along A272 until a suitable new gravity sewer discharges to the nearest watercourse. Percolation testing suggests that soakage structures are not suitable for this site.
Planning Committee 14 Micro Drainage calculations for the surface water system show it is suitable for storing the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30%. Groundwater monitoring should inform whether the pond requires lining or not. Groundwater must not be allowed to take up storage required for surface water.
Pumped surface water systems are not sustainable. Gravity solutions should be investigated as a failure in the system as proposed could lead to overtopping of the pond and subsequent flooding of the site in storm conditions.
These matters can be addressed by suitably worded conditions.
6.13 CDC - Environmental Strategy (summarised)
Due to the presence of slow worms on the site, a full mitigation strategy report is requested prior to the determination of the application.
A further badger survey and the lighting scheme are requested to be conditioned. Biodiversity enhancements are also requested.
Further comments received 03 July 2014
Having looked through the other sections of the reports on joint newt / reptile mitigation I am content that there is sufficient information in the submitted report to determine the application.
6.14 CDC - Community Facilties (summarised)
A financial contribution of £43,975 is sought to refurbish the existing village hall, sports pavilion or public toilets on the Green.
6.15 CDC - Sport and Leisure (summarised)
A financial contribution of £20,856 is sought to enhance existing sports facilities or provide additional facilities in the area.
6.16 CDC - Contract Services
The planning application only mentions a mix of units with varying allocations of bedrooms, on the assumption that these must be houses and not flats that are being built. Then the allocation or requirement of bins would be a set of 240ltr bins (1x Waste Bin + 1x Recycling Bin) per household.
The allocated collection point for these bins on the plan are all road facing so that would not pose an immediate problem but in the Design & Access statement chapter 12 they list that " the layout has been designed to accommodate a refuse vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is within the maximum 30meter collection at the front or rear of the property". Chichester District Council uses a guideline of 20meters dragging distance for collection crews to take the bins to the back of a refuse HGV.
The site access, states it has been tracked. So if the road is wide enough and suitable for a refuse HGV then there should be no further complications with collections, other than the potential for access to be blocked by street parking caused by having visitor parking spaces at the North and South of the site.
Planning Committee 15
6.17 CDC - Public Art (summarised)
A financial contribution of £9,065 is sought to provide public art.
6.18 17 Third Party Objection
The main planning considerations raised by third parties can be summarised as follows: - Additional access will create further hazard to already dangerous stretch of road - Impact on neighbouring property (Milland Villa) - Further traffic calming measures required - Increase in traffic - Existing pedestrian footpath too narrow - Density of proposed houses too high - Impact on village character - Conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan - premature application - Alternative sites are available (and preferred) - Opposed to development of greenfield sites - Impact on wildlife - Sewer system is unreliable - Light pollution - Too large to built at one time - Loss of views from neighbouring properties - Layout unsuited to location - Open space proposed inadequate - Local primary school almost at capacity - extreme pressure on secondary and 6th form places - Limited public transport available - Strain on village infrastructure - Impact on River Kird
6.19 Applicant's Supporting Information
In addition to the Design and Access Statement the applicant's agent has submitted the following suite of documents in support of the application which can be read in detail on the Council's website: Planning Statement, Affordable Housing Statement, Statement of Community Involvement, Environmental Performance Statement, Phase 1 Walkover Habitat Survey, Tree Survey, Flood Risk Assessment, Transport Assessment (including Stage 1 Road Safety Audit), Utilities Statement and Noise Assessment.
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
Planning Committee 16
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
BE3 Archaeology BE6 Conservation Areas BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE1 Rural Area Generally RE5 North-eastern Part of the District RE8 Nature Conservation (Non-designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H5 Open Space Requirements H6 Maintenance of Open Space
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013
Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 25: Development in the North of the Plan area Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 47: Heritage Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation
Neighbourhood Plan
7.4 Wisborough Green has had an area designated under the Neighbourhood Plan legislation. Wisborough Green Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan Working Group has confirmed they are aiming to go out to pre-submission consultation in September 2014.
National Policy and Guidance
7.5 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states:
Planning Committee 17 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.6 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), as well as Section 4 (Promoting Sustainable Transport), Section 6 (Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes), Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) and Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment).
7.7 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application.
Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.8 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:
The Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development in Chichester District (Parts 1 and 2) Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing
7.9 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
B1 - Managing a changing environment
B2 - Greener living
D1 - Increasing housing supply
D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods
Planning Committee 18 D3 - Housing fit for purpose
D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 As well as the consideration of the principle of development in this location, the main issues arising from this development are: - Highway safety - Landscape - Ecology - Drainage - Impact on neighbours
Assessment
8.2 The required starting point for the Committee's consideration of this application is established in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications 'should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. The development plan comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. The Local Plan only supports the principle of housing development taking place within Settlement Policy Areas through policies RE1, BE1 and H1. The site adjoins but is outside of the settlement boundary for Wisborough Green so there is an automatic policy presumption against new housing. However, the current Local Plan is not up to date in terms of its housing policies because the District cannot demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply (5YHLS) as it is required to do so by paragraph 49 of the NPPF.
8.3 In the absence of a 5YHLS, the NPPF's central golden thread is that there should be a presumption in favour of allowing sustainable new development. This clearly can include new housing and potentially significant new housing outside of established settlement boundaries. The Committee will be aware that there have been a number of recent housing developments permitted across the District to address the supply issue which have been brought forward under the Interim Housing Statement (FAD) but there remains a shortfall of approximately 463 dwellings which is equivalent to the Council having a 4.4 year supply. The Council cannot rely on its saved housing policies and must continue to consider some new housing development on appropriate greenfield sites. With the submission to the Secretary of State for examination of what will be the statutory new Local Plan, the FAD document, which has no statutory weight, has been withdrawn.
8.4 The government's policy basis therefore starts with the NPPF presumption in favour of allowing the proposed development unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Policies from the extant Local Plan cannot be relied on unless they are consistent with the NPPF and in terms of the RE1, BE1 and H1 they are not. NPPF paragraph 216 advises that the weight in terms of decision making that may be given to policies in the new Local Plan is also dependent on their degree of consistency with the NPPF, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies.
8.5 Wisborough Green has been identified in the draft Local Plan as a Service Village, where there is a reasonable range of facilities to meet every day needs and where some housing growth is acceptable in sustainability. Policy 5 suggests a figure of 60 dwellings to be
Planning Committee 19 provided within Wisborough Green throughout the plan period. There are areas of concentrated residential development at Carters Way and Butts Meadow, and smaller areas around School Road and Glebe Way. The majority of the remaining housing provision within the village is characterised by ribbons of residential development along several roads all leading towards the village Green (Newpound Lane, Petworth Road, Durbans Road and Kirdford Road). Given this character, any further housing development would have to be proportionate to the scale of the settlement. The provision of 25 dwellings on the 1.15 hectare site would have a density of 21.4 dwellings per hectare, which balances the lower density of the ribbon of development along the northern edge of Petworth Road (11 dph) and the higher density estate of Carters Way/Butts Meadow (30 dph).
8.6 The indicative mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4-bedroom dwellings will have the ability to better response to the housing need identified in the SHMA, and can be conditioned accordingly. Within this housing mix, it is proposed to provide 40% affordable housing, of which there will be a 70:30 split between affordable rented and intermediate housing. The Council's Assistant Rural Housing Enabler has confirmed the mix of affordable housing, which will be secured in the Section 106 Agreement, should permission be granted.
8.7 An illustrative site layout has been provided, which clearly demonstrates that the site can adequately provide the appropriate amount of open space alongside the 25 dwellings. There are concerns regarding the indicative layout along the northern boundary of the site, however these would be addressed at reserved matters stage.
8.8 The site is in close proximity to the village shop, which is just over 200m to the east of the site entrance and accessible along an existing pedestrian footpath. Access to further facilities north of the site is also possible via an existing controlled crossing leading to the Green, playground, pubs and school. It is noted that there is likely to be a reliance on the private car to access further services, located at Petworth, Billingshurst and Horsham (all easily accessible from the A272). In the appeal decision for Maudlin Nursery, the Inspector comments that "The Framework promotes sustainable transport generally, and refers to minimising the need to travel and maximising the use of sustainable transport modes". This does not mean that it would be expected that residents of a new development would be able to reach all of their facilities on foot. On balance, it is considered the principle of development of this scale in this location is acceptable.
Highway Safety
8.9 A new access is proposed at the approximate midpoint of the northern boundary, on to Petworth Road, in order to serve this development. This access has been considered by WSCC Highways, who have confirmed that this will provide adequate visibility splays, is of an appropriate width to serve the development and represents a safe and suitable access for the development. The detailed design of the internal road layout is a matter for consideration at Reserved Matters stage, although the illustrative layout plan has demonstrated that the width of the internal road can be satisfactorily achieved.
8.10 Based on the findings within the Transport Statement that accompanies the application, further junction capacity analysis is not considered to be necessary. Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and third parties regarding the speed at which vehicles travel on this part of the A272 and the width of the pavement, leaving existing residents feeling unable to safely use the existing footpath to access the village. As part of the development, WSCC Highways has recommended that the developer should widen the existing pavement within their ownership (i.e. along the northern boundary of the site) to increase the width of the footway to 1.8m. Whilst the concerns of the Parish and third parties are noted, land to the
Planning Committee 20 ast of the application site is not within the applicants control and the further footpath improvements would not be achievable through this application. In any case, such improvements are not considered necessary by the Highway Authority. The TAD contribution secured by Section 106 Agreement could be used to help fund additional traffic calming measures within the village, such as improving the pedestrian realm and encourage further journeys on foot.
Landscape
8.11 The Hankinson Duckett Landscape Capacity Study Extension for the Council prepared in 2011 in support of the draft Local Plan identified the site as falling in the River Kird and Southern Setting and having 'substantial' landscape value and 'moderate sensitivity'. However, this is the case for all sites surrounding Wisborough Green yet there is still a requirement for the village to provide additional housing. These broad classifications cover large areas and within them, there would be different pockets of varying impact. On balance, the site is well enclosed by a substantial tree/hedgerow boundary to the west and south and is well contained by Petworth Road to the north and the existing dwellings to the east. The site is outside of the Wisborough Green Conservation Area and it is considered that it will be possible to achieve an appropriate layout and overall appearance that will not compromise the setting of this sensitive area. It is therefore considered that the scheme, whilst having some impact on the surroundings would not have a significant adverse impact within the meaning of NPPF para 14 when weighed against the benefits of delivering new housing to address the 5YHLS shortfall.
8.12 Tree protection measures have been recommended to prevent harm caused during the construction phase of the development as part of the submitted Arboricultural Implications Assessment Report dated March 2014. These measures can be conditioned to ensure they are provided. Many of the trees fall outside of the site boundaries and in these cases, the long term management of these trees will not fall to the developer.
Ecology
8.13 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey has highlighted the potential for reptiles on site. Proposals for how any impact on protected species will be mitigated are included within this report. Such measures include enhancements to the existing habitat, buffer strips and trapping and relocation. A full mitigation strategy is recommended to be secured by condition to ensure the provision of these measures.
Drainage
8.14 In terms of surface water drainage, as the site is currently a green field the run-off rate for the development can be no greater than existing. The applicant has provided a drainage strategy, which includes an attenuation pond within the development. Conditions are recommended to ensure that an appropriate scheme of surface water disposal is achieved, including looking at alternative solutions to a pumped surface water system, which the applicant has already confirmed are being investigated.
8.15 Southern Water has confirmed that there is adequate capacity in the local sewer network for a development of the scale proposed and that it can provide foul sewage disposal and water supply to service the proposed development. There are therefore no surface water or foul sewage concerns relating to the development, subject to conditions.
Planning Committee 21
Impact on Neighbours
8.16 The neighbours to the north of the site on the opposite side of Petworth Road are located on higher ground than the application site and approximately 19m from the site boundary. There is mature screening between the dwellings and Petworth Road, and based on the illustrative site layout, the proposed dwellings would be set back significantly from the north boundary resulting in a gap of over 35m. In terms of the potential for overlooking, this is an acceptable distance. The dwellings to the west of the application site are also considered to be sufficiently well screened and of significant distance from the proposed dwellings. The occupant of Milland Villa, immediately to the east of the application site, has raised concerns about the potential the development could have to cause harm to their residential amenity. The layout and appearance of the proposed development is not a matter for consideration during the course of this application, rather it is a matter to be discussed at reserved matters stage. However officers are satisfied that the site would allow for a layout that would not compromise the residential amenity of this dwelling and would not result in an overbearing or dominant relationship between the existing and proposed development.
Other Matters
8.17 It is noted that there are concerns that the proposed development would prejudice the on-going preparation of the Wisborough Green Neighbourhood Plan. Officers are aware that the Parish are close to submitting a Pre-submission Consultation, which will include housing site allocations. In accordance with the National Planning Practice Guidance, refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. Wisborough Green is still in the early stages of preparing and developing a Neighbourhood Plan and therefore little weight can currently be afforded to this consideration.
Significant Conditions
8.18 Conditions are proposed in relation to materials, highway safety, surface and foul water drainage, reptile mitigation, tree protection and street lighting. The time limit for the submission of the reserved matters application is reduced to 2 years, as the applicant has indicated that the application has been submitted to address the Council's 5-year housing land supply shortfall. A condition is also included requiring the existing pavement along the northern edge of the site boundary to be increased in width to 1.8 metres.
Section 106 Agreement
8.19 A legal agreement is proposed to address the following, to mitigate the effects of the development on local infrastructure and the environment. The content is advised by the Council's SPG, Interim Statements and the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan. The following is proposed:
Planning Committee 22
10 units of affordable housing on site in perpetuity £43,975 for community facilities £20,856 for sport and leisure development £9,065 for public art or provision of public art to that value Management and maintenance plan for the area of public open space, amenity land, attenuation pond and landscape buffers.
Amounts for education, libraries, fire and rescue and TAD have not yet been confirmed, as this will be based on the final housing mix and car parking provision.
Conclusion
8.20 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would provide much needed housing to address the Council's 5-year housing land supply shortfall, in a sustainable location with robust links to local facilities. The development would also provide affordable housing in accordance with the Council's Interim Statement, whilst the housing mix is broadly reflective of the SHMA. The Local Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposed access to the development would be acceptable and has raised no highway safety concerns. Details of layout, scale and appearance would be considered at reserved matters stage. Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies highlighted in section 7 of this report and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Human Rights
8.21 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT
1 U86587 U86587 - Time Limit - Outline 2 A04F Time Limit - Reserved Matters 3 U86588 U86588 - Approved Plans 4 U86589 U86589 - Housing Mix 5 U86590 U86590 - Materials 6 U86591 U86591 - Access 7 U86696 U86696 - Pavement width 8 U86697 U86697 - Safety Audit Recommendations 9 U86698 U86698 - Visibility 10 U86695 U86695 - Highway Drainage 11 U86592 U86592 - Surface Water Drainage Scheme 12 U86593 U86593 - SUDS Maintenance Manual 13 U86594 U86594 - Foul Drainage 14 U86597 U86597 - Sewer Location 15 U86595 U86595 - Site Levels and Sections 16 U86596 U86596 - Archaeology 17 U86598 U86598 - Badger Survey 18 U86599 U86599 - Bird Boxes 19 U86600 U86600 - External Lighting
Planning Committee 23 20 U86601 U86601 - Walls/Fences 21 U86602 U86602 - Bin Storage/Collection 22 U86603 U86603 - Construction Management Plan 23 U86604 U86604 - Hours of Operation 24 U86705 U86705 - Wheel Cleaning 25 U86608 U86608 - Tree Protection 26 U86609 U86609 - Climate Change - Renewable Energy 27 U86731 U86731 - Climate Change - CSH Level 4 28 U86610 U86610 - Reptile Mitigation
INFORMATIVES
29 U86606 U86606 - INF: Southern Water 30 U86605 U86605 - INF: S278 Agreement 31 U86607 U86607 - INF: External Lighting Guidance 32 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions 33 W02F S.106 Agreement
For further information on this application please contact Vicki Colwell on 01243 534734.
Planning Committee 24
Parish: Ward: Westbourne Westbourne
2. WE/14/01217/FUL
Proposal The re-design of an existing pitch including the removal of stables granted in permission WE/13/03867/FUL, and the additional use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 4 no. gypsy pitches together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/ dayrooms ancillary to that use.
Site Land West Of Harwood Cemetery Lane Woodmancote Westbourne West Suss
Map Ref (E) 476686 (N) 107393
Applicant Mrs E Barney
RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH S106
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
Planning Committee 25
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The site is located on the northern side of Cemetery Lane, which comprises a part metalled, part unmade road connecting Westbourne to Woodmancote. The Lane is principally bounded by open farmland, although there is a ribbon of residential development along the northern side towards Woodmancote (eastern end), and a cemetery along the southern side towards Westbourne (western end). There is an established residential caravan site located along the northern side of Cemetery Lane, adjacent to which is the former Old Army Camp.
2.2 The application site is bounded by the Old Army Camp to the west, Cemetery Lane to the south and open arable farmland to the north and east. The southern boundary comprises a tall (+3m) mixed hawthorn hedgerow with a metal five bar gate to the road, with a further timber gate and screen fencing set within the site. The western boundary, with the Old Army Camp, comprises a line of mature leylandii, in excess of 5m tall. There is a large, overhead power line traversing the site from the southeast corner, passing over the leylandii hedge on the western boundary.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The application proposes to expand upon an extant planning permission for the creation of 1no. permanent gypsy pitch (WE/13/03867/FUL) permitted at the Planning Committee in March 2014. The proposal now seeks permission for a 4no. additional pitches to the north of the permitted scheme within an area presently used as arable farmland. The site, measuring 190m by 33m would be subject to the provision of 5no. separate pitches (including the re-siting of the extant scheme) together with a large area of communal amenity space towards the southern part of the site. Each of the pitches would comprise the siting of 1no. static mobile home together with the erection of a day room, and space for the storage of a touring caravan and car parking space. A mini package treatment plant would be sited within the amenity area, and a significant level of boundary planting is proposed to the northern and eastern boundaries. Each pitch would be bounded by timber post and rail fencing.
3.2 The proposed 5no. day rooms would be constructed with stained timber clad elevations and panelled roofing, characteristic of low level agricultural buildings in the area, with the remainder of the site laid to a hardstanding, the details of which would be subject to condition. The day room would measure 6.5m by 3.5m, with a ridge height of 3.8m (2.5m to eaves).
3.3 The existing access arrangements would be altered to enable improved access onto Cemetery Lane.
Planning Committee 26
5.0 History
12/00910/FUL REF Siting of seven mobile chalets and use of site for tourism purposes.
13/03867/FUL PER The use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 1 no. gypsy pitch together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/ dayrooms ancillary to that use and stable block for the stabling of horses.
12/00059/REF DISMIS Siting of seven mobile chalets and use of site for tourism purposes.
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
6.1 Parish Council
Westbourne Parish Council raises an objection to the application. When considered in conjunction with the gypsy/traveller sites already in existence to the west of the application site, the cumulative effect of this proposal is having a dominating effect on this part of Westbourne to the detriment of the rural character of the area and the respective views into the National Park. Westbourne has had 18 additional gypsy/traveller pitches allocated in the parish within the last few months and it would be disproportionate to expect one parish to accept an increasing percentage of such sites in order to accommodate the Chichester District shortfall in numbers. These sites, their occupants and vehicles impact on the local infrastructure in the same way as a housing development would and for Westbourne it is not sustainable. Cemetery Lane itself and the surrounding roads and lanes through the village are narrow and congested and not suitable to take additional vehicles and their substantial size. The proposal will compromise the setting of Westbourne Cemetery in Cemetery Lane - an identified Heritage Asset. Interments in the cemetery often result in the lane being blocked. Drivers of through vehicles can display an impatience and by attempting to push
Planning Committee 27 through show a lack of regard for mourners. A site visit by Committee members should be recommended.
6.2 WSCC: Highways
A similar application (ref WE/14/01132/FUL) was considered recently on the adjacent site. The current application is for fewer pitches and the highway authority considers that the traffic from the current proposal will not add significantly to traffic on Cemetery Lane. It is important however that the applicant takes into account the comments made previously by the authority's Public Rights of Way Officer (appended below) and that any consent is carried out in accordance with the Officer's requirements.
8 parking spaces have been proposed. This appears to be adequate for the nature of the proposed use and taking into account the location. The provision of two spaces per pitch is consistent with guidance for transit sites in 'Designing Gypsy & Traveller Sites - Good Practice Guide' (May 2008 Department for Communities and Local Government), where at least two spaces per pitch are recommended.
The authority considers that, provided the access is implemented in line with the consent granted under reference WE/13/03867/FUL and in line with good practice the highway access would be acceptable because: - Cemetery Lane is a private street with public pedestrian rights and the proposed access should therefore take account of the need to preserve pedestrian and equestrian safety; - There are no reported road crash or safety problems at the junction of Cemetery and Foxbury Lanes and therefore there is no need to carry out works to the junction, especially given the low level of traffic expected to be generated by the development.
The site does appear to be within safe walking distance of approximately 1km via Cemetery Lane and pavements on Foxbury Lane of a primary school, bus stops and a convenience store. Emsworth railway station is 3km walk away. By the nature of the proposed use of the site it is also considered likely that residents' preference would be for use of the private car. The authority therefore considers that the site is sustainable given its rural location and pedestrian links.
No mention is made in the Design and Access Statement of vehicle access along the east of Cemetery Lane towards Woodmancote. It is not clear whether the applicant expects residents to use Cemetery Lane east of the site for vehicle access. However, the road improves to the west within 200 metres of the site entrance it would be anticipated that most users would travel along that section of the lane.
It should be noted that, in line with Chichester District Council's approach to gypsy and traveller sites, West Sussex County Council will not be requesting Section 106 contributions from the applicant.
Detailed WSCC public rights of way officer's comments Based on the information supplied an increased volume of traffic which could be a cause for concern with regard to the footpath is not felt to be an issue and that the surrounding highway infrastructure can support the additional traffic movement. The footpath does cross the access to the site so ensuring there is good visibility on exiting the proposed site onto the Cemetery Lane by regular maintenance of the hedges bounding the entrance will be required. Signs both inside the development and along Cemetery Lane advising of both traffic and footpath users of each other's presence would be required. There are some
Planning Committee 28 sections of the footpath which do not have a dedicated footpath area separate from the road, which is shared usage; control of speed would be beneficial that said some of Cemetery Lane is a potholed condition which serves to restrict speed.
The applicant should be aware of the following points: - Safe and convenient public access is to be available at all times across the full width of the right of way, this may be wider than the available route - advice on the width can be provided by WSCC Rights of Way Team. The path is not to be obstructed by vehicles, plant, scaffolding or the temporary storage of materials and/or chemicals. - Any down pipes or soakaways associated with the development should discharge into an existing or new drainage system and away from the surface of the Public Right of Way (PROW). No drainage system is to be installed through the surface of the path without the prior consent of WSCC's PROW team. - Any alteration to, or replacement of, the existing boundary with the PROW or the erection of new fence lines, must be done in consultation with WSCC's PROW team to ensure the legal width of the path is maintained and there is no unlawful encroachment. - Access along the PROW by contractor's vehicles, deliveries or plant is only lawful if the applicant can prove they have a vehicular right. If the path surface is considered damaged as a result of the development, then the applicant will be required to make good the surface to a standard satisfactory to WSCC's RoW team. - Some properties may have private rights over them for the benefit of a particular individual or property, for example, a landowner may have the right to drive a vehicle over a track which belongs to a neighbour to gain access to property. This right of access is granted to individuals and/or properties only, and does not extend to the public. The County Council does not have records of private rights of access. - The Developer/landowner should ensure that public use of the PROW takes precedence over private and development vehicular traffic. It is a criminal offence to damage the surface of a PROW and the consent/prior approval of any specification of the County Council must be sought for the route to be resurfaced even if the surface is to be improved. The applicant would be liable for any damage to the surface arising from his exercise of private access rights.
6.3 Environment Agency
The proposed means of foul drainage is a package treatment plant. However, the site is outside of a Source Protection Zone 1, does not involve trade effluent, is for non-major development and outside the catchment of Apuldram, Lavant or Tangmere WwTW.
As this development proposal falls outside our current working arrangements we have no comments to make on the proposal as submitted.
6.4 CDC Planning Policy
First Consultation - 7 June 2014 The proposal is to redesign the existing pitch and to provide an additional 4 pitches together with hardstanding etc. The main consideration is whether there is a need for the development and potential impact on the adjacent settled community.
Planning Committee 29
The Development Plan
The Development Plan currently comprises saved policies in the Chichester District Local Plan 1999. There is not a saved policy which relates specifically to gypsies and travellers.
The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document was submitted on the 30th May. It has been subject to consultation and is therefore a material planning consideration, it currently carries some weight. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight (paragraph 216 of the NPPF).
The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document contains Policy 36 Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The policy sets out a criteria based approach to identifying sites within the plan area as part of a forthcoming Site Allocation DPD and for determining planning applications. This is consistent with paragraph 10 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPfTS) which says 'Criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need...'
Following the Pre-submission consultation a couple of comments have been received on Policy 36, one of which suggests that the 'policy criteria has been framed in vague terms and provides maximum opportunity to reject proposals rather than accept them'. The comments will be discussed at the forthcoming examination.
Therefore the application should be judged against the criterion within Policy 36, other relevant policies include: 22, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51.
Coastal West Sussex Authorities Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA)
As part of the Council's assessment of need, the Council in partnership with the Coastal West Sussex Authorities (Arun, Adur and Worthing) and the South Downs National Park Planning Authority with support from West Sussex County Council, commissioned a Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment (GTAA) (2012/13).
The GTAA identifies a total need for 59 pitches for gypsies and travellers and 18 plots for travelling showpeople within the Plan area during the plan period. With a specific need for 37 gypsy and traveller sites before 2017.
Since September 2012 permission has been granted for 22 units to date, there is therefore a need for 14 pitches prior to 2017. Based on this the five year supply gives an identified supply of 2.4 years.
It is acknowledged therefore that there is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the plan area, particularly in the period up to 2017. In the long term the Council intends to allocate sites in the Site Allocations DPD and work has started on this.
Conclusion
There is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the plan area, particularly up to 2017. Given the government guidance above and there not being a five-year supply of deliverable sites there is not a policy objection to the proposal, providing you are satisfied in terms of development management principles.
Planning Committee 30
Second Consultation - 4 July 2014 (update) Further to my previous consultation response, there have been a number of permissions for G&T pitches recently granted. This has meant the Five Year Supply has changed as follows:
The identified need for pitches based on the Five Year Supply assessment is for 40 pitches (2012-19). Since September 2012 permission has been granted for 29 units to date, there is therefore a need for 11 pitches prior to 2019. Based on this the current supply gives an identified supply of 3.3 years.
6.5 CDC Environmental Health
No objections with respect to contaminated Land. The adjacent land was in military use in the 1950-60s therefore there is potential for land contamination near the site. It is suggested that Informative W39F is applied if this development is granted permission. It is noted that foul drainage is to be provided by a mini packaged treatment plant. This must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
If any fuel or oil is to be stored at the site, Condition L09F should be applied.
6.6 WSCC Gypsy and Traveller Team Manager
First Consultation - 16 June 2014: Although I am pleased that there are more sites being granted permission I am concerned about the number in Cemetery Lane area. Should this be granted there will be 35 pitches [including application WE/14/01132/FUL for 12no. pitches at The Old Army Camp] in a very small area. This is contrary to government guidance on site design. It will make a ghetto type area and will have a detrimental affect not only on the current gypsies living in the area but also on the settled community.
The current site at Westbourne although by no means perfect, has integrated very well into the area and local community. The majority of the children attend the local school.
The addition of further pitches, as with any additional housing, will have a serious impact on the local services.
I do appreciate that fact that CDC are having to provide more pitches but very careful consideration needs to be given to this application.
Second Consultation - 16 June 2014
There are currently 17 on Westbourne, which in itself is a very large site. As I understand it as well the access road to these sites is a private road and is in a very poor state of repair as it is. I believe the road was surfaced to accommodate the Cemetery traffic and is really not suitable for the increased amount of traffic that it will then be taking.
6.7 Third Parties
12no. third party objection letter received from nearby residents, including the Woodmancote Residents Association and the Westbourne and Southbourne Joint Burial Committee (Westbourne Cemetery). Principle concerns relate to the impact on Cemetery Lane as an unmade road, and the use of a greenfield site for residential accommodation. Additional
Planning Committee 31 concern raised regarding the impact of Westbourne Cemetery as a designated Heritage Asset.
6.6 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information
The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement setting out the reasons behind the layout, location, access arrangements and appearance of the proposal on the wider area. In addition, the applicant has agreed to enter into a S.106 Legal Agreement to provide the adequate mitigation to the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project against recreational disturbance on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area, and therefore the application is recommended for approval, deferred for a S106 Agreement.
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
RE1 Rural Area Generally RE21 Safeguarding Existing Travelling Showpeople's Sites RE23 Safeguarding Existing Gypsy Sites TR6 Highway Safety R4 Public Rights of Way and Other Paths
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013:
Policy 1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure
National Policy and Guidance
7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states:
At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:
Planning Committee 32
For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles).
7.6 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF.
Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Current provision; ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site; iii) Impact on neighbouring properties and the nearest settled community iv) Impact on the character of the area; v) Highway implications and means of access;
Assessment i) Current Provision
8.2 There is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 37no. pitches before 2017. Rolling that figure on to provide a current 5-year supply (2014 - 2019) would increase that requirement for 40no. pitches. This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment. The report was undertaken by Opinion Research Services and Peter Brett Associates and was completed in April 2013. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of gypsy pitches. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 11no. pitches in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2019. This application would provide a further 4no. permanent pitches to
Planning Committee 33 contribute towards meeting this requirement. 29no. permanent pitches have been provided by the grant of planning permission or as a result of appeal decisions since September 2013. ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site
8.3 Policy H of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) documents relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and the planning policy for traveller sites (paragraph 21).
8.4 Paragraph 22 advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites; a) The existing level of local provision and the need for sites b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections
8.5 As set out in paragraph 8.2 above, there is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 40no. pitches before 2019. Whilst the District Council has now permitted 29no. pitches since September 2012, there remains a significant shortfall in provision. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of gypsy pitches. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 11 in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2019.
8.6 Whilst no supporting information has been provided to demonstrate the gypsy status of the applicant, it is clear that there remains a significant shortfall in the supply of this form of accommodation with the Chichester District and given this demand, and the acceptance of the suitability of the site under WE/13/03867/FUL, the slight intensification of the use of the site in this location to contribute towards the identified need is considered acceptable in principle. Any future occupier (including the applicant) will need to meet the terms of the occupancy condition placed on any permission.
8.7 There is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and following submission of the Draft Local Plan, Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 carries an increased degree of weight. Given the relevance of Policy 36 and its general conformity to PPTS, further regard to this policy is set out below.
8.8 Policy 36 specifically sets out 6no. criteria for assessing the suitability of sites, criteria 1, 5 and 6 relate to the principle of development. Considering these in turn; they require that the development should:
1) be well related to existing settlements/close to major roads and/or public transport; 5) avoid areas of Flood Risk; and
Planning Committee 34 6) not dominate the settled community.
8.9 Whilst the site is located outside and away from any defined Settlement Policy Area (as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999), Cemetery Lane is conveniently located within good walking distance to the services and facilities of Westbourne. The site has also been considered previously and accepted by the District Council as an appropriate location for a gypsy site.
8.10 Having regard to the definition of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not meet the requirements set out in paragraph 55 of the NPPF for permanent residential development. However, given the nature of the proposed accommodation and the identified need to be met within the District it is considered to be in a location with sufficient links to local infrastructure to be considered acceptable.
8.11 The site is not located within any known area of flood risk and no objection has been received from the Environment Agency.
8.12 Paragraph 23 of Policy H (of the PPTS) advises that PLAs should strictly limit new traveller sites in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.
8.13 Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside would have the potential to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape and impinge upon the openness of this part of the countryside. The current proposal would seek to provide 5no. gypsy and traveller pitches within a strip of a larger arable field. However, given the extent of the existing boundary treatment, together with the level of additional landscaping proposed, its wider impact would be limited. The proposal allows for the site to be well planned and soft landscaped, with low level fencing in a rural character.
8.14 Paragraph 24 advises that 'considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters, a) Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land b) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness c) Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community
8.15 The criteria listed above should be used in assessing the benefits of one site over another, where this is a significant shortfall of available sites in any given area, it is likely that not all sites will meet these aspirations. The current proposal is generally considered to be in conformity with three of the four above criteria (b, c and d), and given the urgent need for additional permanent accommodation, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable, is well designed, screened by existing mature boundary vegetation whilst also benefitting for additional significant landscaping to the northern and eastern boundaries. Further mitigation could be achieved by the imposition of relevant conditions.
Planning Committee 35
8.16 In conclusion, on this point, the current scheme is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS. It is therefore considered, given the existence of this existing single permanent pitch, and the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional pitches, that the premise of allowing this on a permanent basis is considered acceptable. iii) Impact on neighbouring properties and the nearest settled community
8.17 Turning to Policy C of the PPTS (sites in rural areas and the countryside) this policy seeks to ensure that 'the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community'. The area already comprises existing permitted traveller and travelling showpeoples sites along Cemetery Lane, and is set away from, but not isolated from, the settled community of Woodmancote (to the east). It is considered that the provision of 5no. additional pitches (1no. already permitted), together with the existing 17no. on the WSCC Site (total of 22no.) is unlikely to overly dominate the nearest settled community, and the soft landscaping and proposed low level, agricultural style of the permanent structures (day rooms) would ensure a soft transition between the settled community, open countryside and the gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeoples sites. It is acknowledged however that the additional provision of 12no. pitches proposed on the neighbouring site (WE/14/01132/FUL), together with the current scheme and the existing permitted pitches could lead to an over intensification of pitches within one area, which is considered would over dominate the nearest settled community.
8.18 The scale of the development is low level in nature and the proposed development would be located and orientated so as not to result in an unacceptable level of overlooking or overshadowing of neighbouring properties, which are located a significant distance from the proposed development. iv) Impact on the character of the area
8.19 The application site is located within and presently forms part of a larger, arable field, open to the wider countryside to the north of Cemetery Lane. Development of the site as a tourist facility was refused, and subsequently dismissed at Appeal (Reference: APP/L3815/A/12/2176502) in 2012 in part due to the impact of developing on this open field. However, the current proposals only seeks development on a small, narrow strip of the field, in an area already bounded by mature hedgerows to the south and west, which together with additional boundary planting is unlikely to significantly affect the open character of the remainder of the site or reduce the level of separation from the developments to the east and west along Cemetery Lane.
8.20 The proposal includes the erection of 4no. permanent structures to support the use of the site by gypsy/traveller families, both constructed of materials and in a style sympathetic to the rural character of the area. The other boundary treatment would consist of timber post and rail fencing, with the additional native boundary planting to the northern and eastern boundaries, with clusters of tree planting in the periphery beyond to further soften its visual appearance. This would result in almost 100m of open arable field left between the application site and Harwood, the first residential dwellinghouse to the east. This land would remain in agricultural use, retaining a predominantly rural character to the street scene.
Planning Committee 36
v) Highway implications and means of access
8.21 Cemetery Lane (a private lane) is approximately 1.1km long, and the site entrance is situated 580m from the Woodmandcote end (eastern) and 540m from the Westbourne end (western). A large part of the Lane is unmade, with the metalled surface extending some 410m from the Westbourne site, leaving 130m of unmade track to the entrance of the site. The remainder of the Lane is then unmade between the site and Woodmancote. The lane is lightly trafficked, whilst also forming part of the public right of way network (PROW 2920). The lane is largely used for access and as a public right of way by walkers. The provision of 4no. additional residential units (in addition to the 1no already permitted) is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the quality of the land or have significant highway safety implications.
8.22 WSCC Highways have raised no objection to the increased provision on the site beyond that permitted under 13/03867/FUL, and consider that the increased traffic movements associated with 5no. pitches on the site would not cause a detrimental impact on the existing users of Cemetery Lane.
Significant Conditions
8.23 The application is recommended for permission subject to a number of controlling conditions. Those include restricting the use of the site to a gypsy/traveller family, together with the need to provide materials and samples for the proposed outbuildings and hardstanding, together with details on landscaping and boundary treatment. Details of foul and surface water drainage would also be required. All permitted development rights associated with the residential use of the site would be removed, given the exceptional circumstances for which the application is recommended for approval.
Conclusion
8.24 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that although the proposal conflicts with adopted development plan policies, the unmet need for gypsy and travellers pitches in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal, it complies with draft policy advice and the advice in the NPPF and PPTS and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Human Rights
8.25 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
Equalities
8.26 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal
Planning Committee 37 circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant.
"In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:
(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:
(a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level.
However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law.
In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case".
RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH S106
1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U86568 U86568 - Occupation Limition 3 U86569 U86569 - 10 caravans only 4 U86585 U86585 - No occupation until site complete 5 U86570 U86570 - Materials/Finishes 6 U86571 U86571 - No commercial activity 7 U86572 U86572 - No burning any waste 8 U86573 U86573 - No departure from plans 9 L09F Oil Tanks to be Bunded/Landscape 10 U86574 U86574 - No walls/fencing without Approval 11 U86586 U86586 - no additional hardstanding 12 K01H Landscaping 13 K02G Landscaping 14 U86575 U86575 - Retention of Hedging 15 U86576 U86576 - Day Room Use 16 U86578 U86578 - Fencing and Gate Details 17 U86579 U86579 - Surface/Foul Drainage Details 18 U86580 U86580 - No occupation until drainage complete
Planning Committee 38
19 U86581 U86581 - Waste and Recycling Arrangements 20 U86583 U86583 - Storage of waste 21 U86584 U86584 - Use of machinery on site
INFORMATIVE
22 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment
For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734
Planning Committee 39
Parish: Ward: Tangmere Tangmere
3. TG/14/00860/FUL
Proposal Erection of dwelling on site of the redundant tennis court.
Site Tangmere Cottage Tangmere Road Tangmere Chichester West Sussex PO20 2HW
Map Ref (E) 490393 (N) 106435
Applicant Mr Dominic MacKinnon
RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
Planning Committee 40
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
1.1 A Red Card was received from Councillor Oakley as he has information or an opinion, which he wishes to raise at Committee. Councillor Oakley also considered that a range of additional information was required as follows: o Impact on setting of heritage asset in conservation area; o Impact on conservation area; o Impact on amenity of gardens to north of site; o Clarity of works required for suitable access including minimum emergency access width and responsibility for maintenance of visibility splays; o Clarity on landscaping works including boundary treatments; o Clarity on refuse bin storage and collection requirements and arrangements; o Is garden space of suitable size and utility for a bedroom dwelling; o Clarity on parking and vehicle manoeuvring requirements and arrangements within site; o Clarity on surface water drainage impacts; and o Confirmation of orientation of development.
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The site is located on the western side of Tangmere Road within the Tangmere Conservation Area. The property is a detached, two-storey, Grade II listed residential building, which includes brick and flint elevations, clay roof tiles and timber windows. There is a detached double garage to the north-east of the dwelling and an outdoor swimming pool with the associated domestic paraphernalia located within the rear garden. The rear garden is primarily laid to lawn and is bounded by fencing, hedgerow and mature planting along the western and northern boundaries of the site. There are also trees located adjacent to the northern boundary and adjacent to the southern boundary of the neighbouring property, Holly Orchard. The boundary treatment to the western and southern boundaries of Holly Orchard, comprise a red brick wall approximately 1.8m high. The shared vehicular access is situated virtually opposite the Meadow Way and the ground levels rise between the highway and the driveway. There is a brick wall, which is almost 2m high, together with a number of trees situated along the eastern boundary adjacent to the highway.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The proposed development involves the erection of a detached three-bedroom bungalow in the north-west corner of the site. The bungalow would be L-shaped and measure 18.65m in width and 11.6m in depth. It would have a pitched roof with hipped ends and an overall height of 4.4m. The external facing materials would comprise reclaimed brick elevations, clay tiled roof and painted timber apertures. A new driveway would be located adjacent to the southern boundary of Holly Orchard, which would be accessed via an existing shared access situated to the west of Tangmere Road. The development also includes bin storage adjacent to eastern end of the new driveway and shed for cycle storage in the north-east corner of the site.
Planning Committee 41
4.0 History
01/01255/TCA NOTPO Fell 1 Birch, 1 Fir and 1 Leylandii.
02/03229/TCA NOTPO Notification of intention to carry out various tree works, including crown raising, felling and canopy reduction on Leyland Cypress trees, 1 no. Cherry, 1 no. Apple, 1 no. Sycamore and 2 no. Damson trees.
04/03954/TCA NOTPO Notification of intention to fell 1 no. Pine tree.
04/04355/LBC PER Kitchen extension, new ensuite, enlarge existing bathroom, vault landing ceiling and insert Velux and remove partition wall to bedroom to form 2 no. new doorways to bedroom/ensuite.
04/04361/DOM PER Single storey kitchen extension.
06/05118/PE REC Proposed replacement of existing UPVA windows with timber casement units.
09/00542/TCA NOTPO Notification of intention to fell 1 no. Cypress tree.
09/05020/LBC PER To replace existing staircase, and reverse it's direction within existing opening.
10/02726/TCA NOTPO Notification of intention to fell 1 no. Fir tree.
11/00237/TCA NOTPO Notification of intention to remove lower (northern) limb overhanging neighbour's property on 1 no. Flowering Cherry Tree.
12/02311/FUL REF Erection of dwelling on site of the redundant tennis court.
12/02312/LBC WDN Erection of dwelling on the site of the redundant tennis court.
Planning Committee 42 13/00644/TCA NOTPO Notification of intention to crown reduce 1 no. Leyland Cypress tree by 50% (T1) and 1 no. Leyland Cypress tree by 30% (T2).
14/00860/FUL PDE Erection of dwelling on site of the redundant tennis court.
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building YES Conservation Area TG Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
6.1 Parish Council
The Parish Council does not object to the above application as it addresses the objections of scale and height raised by the District Council in the original application.
6.2 WSCC - Highways
WSCC previously commented on an application for a similar proposal in September 2012 under application TG/12/02311/FUL to which no objections were raised from the highway point of view.
In regards of highway matters it would be confirmed that the comments and conditions previously issued would still remain applicable. Certain things have changed but given the history it would be satisfactory to continue with that which has already been agreed. The previously recommended conditions should be applied to this latest application.
6.3 WSCC - Water and Access Manager
My comments would be the same as the previous application 12/02311/FUL. The Fire and Rescue Service would not object to the planning provided that the application is compliant with Building Regulation BS5588 Part B5 for access for a fire appliance. This has been demonstrated on the design plans submitted. As a note there may be requirements to crown some of the trees in the approach driveway to ensure at least 3.7m head room. There are no issues with water supplies for the purposes of fire fighting as there is a hydrant within operational distance.
Planning Committee 43 6.4 CDC Historic Building Adviser
No Objection subject to amendment - On the basis that the principle of development has been accepted, the proposed dwelling should be subject to high quality design standards, materials and detailing so that the impact on setting of the grade II listed building is mitigated.
To this end, there remains some concern with the scale of the dwelling which should be reduced where possible. Of particular concern is the return which contains a large 'Master Bedroom'. Ideally the length of this should be reduced slightly if this is to read convincingly as a modest outbuilding.
There is also some concern with the single window centered on the east elevation here, which will be read in conjunction with the south elevation. This does not appear to relate well with the overall composition and results in a somewhat more domestic and cramped elevation here. This should be omitted. Removal of this does not appear to have a significant impact on amenity given the large fully glazed doors and two windows also serving this room.
The fenestration and design quality of the building could be improved through the use of pediment arches above the openings.
Please condition shutters, door and window details, rooflight details, material samples. Please also condition a landscaping plan as this could potentially harm the setting of the listed building.
6.5 CDC Archaeological Officer
It is unlikely that works associated with the proposal would impinge on archaeological deposits to the extent that refusal or the requirement of other mitigation measures would be justified.
6.6 CDC Tree Officer
Potential loss and impact on trees at the new entrance/driveway into the site and additional impact on a Cherry tree on the northern boundary.
Felling of the Cypress trees - These are not a species the District Council would normally consider worthy of TPO status. No issue if these were removed. These trees are set back from the road and are screened by outbuildings and other vegetation on the eastern boundary and east of the trees (Beech tree).
The Beech tree - multi-stemmed, part of a Beech hedgerow which has been allowed to develop into a fairly large specimen. This tree will be difficult to retain as this species does not like heavy pruning and the proposed drive would be well within the root protection area of the tree's rooting system. Any new access drive construction would most likely damage/compact the tree's rooting system. As stated regarding the Cypress trees - the Beech tree is set back from the road and is screened by outbuildings and other vegetation on the eastern boundary. This tree is not considered worthy of TPO status.
The loss of these trees would not be harmful or significant within the wider aesthetics of the area due to being set back and none of the trees are really worthy of TPO status.
Planning Committee 44 The Cherry tree to the rear (adjacent to the northern boundary). This tree has been pruned in the past (last permitted in 2011 Tree app. TG/11/00237/TCA). The tree has limited public amenity (back drop tree), any new tree works would require a separate tree application (as the tree is within Tangmere Conservation Area). It is not considered worthy of TPO status due to its location (limited amenity) and being a short lived species.
6.7 Third Party Objections
6.7.1 Six objection letters from six different households were received regarding the original plans. The comments are summarised below: o Design and extent of footprint fails to preserve and enhance Tangmere Conservation Area. Damage to the visual appearance of the area; o Substantial harm to the setting of Tangmere Cottage a Grade II listed building; o Overdevelopment of the site; o Velux windows would cause loss of privacy to surrounding properties; o Building will cause overshadowing and reduce light particularly in winter due to the proximity of the development; o View from garden and living quarters would be dominated by the roof of the development; o Adversely affect enjoyment of living accommodation; o Mature Cherry tree would need to be removed or would suffer root damage; o Concern regarding the additional vehicle movements and the need to ensure safe access to/from Tangmere Road. Drive is concealed, narrow and on a gradient; o Concern regarding the driveway, which will require felling of mature and substantial trees. Deciduous species should be protected; o Concern regarding how lorries will access the site; o No details on the shutters in the application. Also query whether they would ever be closed and therefore not mitigate the building's visual impact; o No provision for a garage or general storage area; o A condition requiring additional screening to prevent overlooking or dominating neighbouring properties is not a solution; o If the development is to be permitted then the building should be moved south to be in line with northern line of the neighbouring bungalow to the west; and o Inconsistency between plans regarding the direction of North. In accurate information regarding the precise nature and position of neighbouring dwellings.
6.7.2 Following the receipt of amended plans a further objection letter was received from a neighbouring occupier. The comments are summarised below: o Proposed dwelling has a floor area 47% greater than the original plans (12/02311/FUL) and therefore fails to enhance or preserve the appearance of Tangmere Conservation Area; o Plan cause substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II listed building; o Velux windows would cause a loss of privacy; and o All trees and mature shrubs must be preserved, including all boundaries, to protect the environment.
Planning Committee 45 6.8 Agent's Supporting Information
Following the receipt of a number of representations from neighbouring occupiers, the agent updated the Design and Access Statement and Heritage Statement. The statements seek to address how the primary concerns will be addressed.
Design - The roof lights positioned to maximise light and will not create overlooking issues. The level of maturing screening on the north boundary and low ridge height will mean a minimal impact on surrounding dwellings. Internal layouts allow flexible living.
Amount and Scale - The proposed is 24% of the total site and therefore it is felt the dwelling has sufficient amenity space.
Landscaping and Planting - The new boundary to the south between Tangmere Cottage and the proposed will be treated with a rustic cleft post and rail fence with native species planting to the front.
Access - Provision has been made for a driveway of 3.7m with a turning head within the site with a 9m radius which is suitable for an emergency vehicle to manoeuver. The proposed allows for two car parking spaces and two fixed cycle spaces in the shed to the rear of the property.
Waste Collection - Waste collection point located at entrance of the access drive and therefore will have a minimal impact on the vehicle standing time.
Surface Water - The surface water will be discharged into new soak ways positioned 5m from the building to the south.
Impact on Conservation Area - This proposal will not have any impact on the public enjoyment of the conservation area due to it being surrounded by other private properties and mature landscaping. Its orientation and layout has considered both True Fields and Holly Orchard in it design so as not to affect the enjoyment of existing properties. The L- shaped plan addresses the connection to Tangere Road.
Impact on Listed Building - Designed to be subservient to the listed building and reflect the natural progression development on the site. The style is also consistent with the local vernacular and is therefore a positive contribution which does not affect the setting of the listed building.
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE3 Archaeology
Planning Committee 46 BE4 Buildings of Architectural or Historic Merit BE6 Conservation Areas BE11 New Development BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features TR6 Highway Safety
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013
Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 47: Heritage
National Policy and Guidance
7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:
For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise:
- Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), as well as paragraphs 64, 129 and 132. Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:
Tangmere Conservation Area - Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (March 2007 - updated March 2012)
Planning Committee 47 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
D1 - Increasing housing supply D3 - Housing fit for purpose
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) The impact on the setting of the listed building; ii) Impact on the Conservation Area; iii) Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; iv) Amenity of trees; v) Highway impacts; and vi) Other matters.
Assessment i) Impact on the setting of the listed building
8.2 The proposed development involves erecting a bungalow within the curtilage of a Grade II listed building, Tangmere Cottage. The listed building has been previously extended to include a two-storey rear extension, which was permitted in 1950s, and a further single storey rear extension permitted in 2004. The proposed development would be located in the north-west corner of site adjacent to the north and west boundaries. The bungalow would be L-shaped and measure a maximum of 18.65m by 11.6m and have a pitched roof with an overall height of 4.4m. The external facing materials would comprise reclaimed brick elevations, clay tiled roof and timber apertures that would include barn style shutters to the south facing doors.
8.3 The previous application (12/02311/FUL) sought permission for a detached chalet bungalow with north facing dormer windows. However, it was considered that the previous scheme by virtue of its design, scale, mass and height, would have harmed the setting of the Grade II listed building, Tangmere Cottage, and failed to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Tangmere Conservation Area.
8.4 The current application, therefore, seeks to address previous concerns by altering the design and reducing the scale, mass and height of the dwelling. Nevertheless the Historic Building Adviser raised concerns regarding the original scheme submitted for the current application. In particular it was considered that the southerly projection containing the 'Master bedroom' should be reduced and the central single window in the east elevation be removed. Consequently the original plans were amended to address these concerns regarding the scale and design of the proposed bungalow.
8.5 The amended plans of the proposed bungalow indicate that it would have a footprint of 136sqm, which would be an increase of 34sqm from the previously refused application for a chalet bungalow. However, despite the increase in footprint, the alterations to the design of the development have enabled the scale, massing and height of the dwelling to be reduced. As such it is considered that the building would appear subservient to the Grade II listed building, Tangmere Cottage, and not represent an overdevelopment of the site. Furthermore, given the building's simple form, the proposed bungalow would assume the appearance of a historically linkedoutbuilding and thus would assist in mitigating the
Planning Committee 48 visual impact on the setting of the listed building. It is considered, therefore, that the proposed development would not significantly harm the setting of the Grade II listed building, Tangmere Cottage. ii) Impact on the conservation area
8.6 The Grade II listed building, Tangmere Cottage, is situated in the northern part of the conservation area and dates from the late 18th or early 19th century according to the Tangmere Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals. The area immediately surrounding Tangmere Cottage is characterised by late twentieth century development (c. 1975-1990) that includes a row of bungalows to the north along Malcolm Road and Holly Orchard to the north-east. The bungalow, New Fields, was subsequently erected within the curtilage of Jasmine Cottage, which is a Grade II listed building. In addition it should also be noted that the land between the three listed buildings (Jasmine Cottage, Austin's and Tangmere Cottage) has also been developed.
8.7 The proposed bungalow would be situated in the north-west corner of the plot and be surrounded by existing residential properties that primarily comprise bungalows to the west and north, and two-storey dwellings to the east and south. In addition the proposed bungalow would have an overall ridge height of 4.4m. Consequently the development would not visible from any public vantage points within the Tangmere Conservation Area.
8.8 Under the previous application (12/02311/FUL) the Historic Building Adviser noted, that the area north-west of Tangmere Cottage is the only remaining semblance of open space that forms part of the historic environment. However, as noted above, Tangmere Cottage is primarily surrounded by late twentieth development that includes the row of bungalows along Malcolm Road and Holly Orchard to the north-east, which are all situated on land that previously formed part of Tangmere Cottage. In addition it should also be noted that during the latter part of the twentieth century new dwellings were permitted within the curtilage of Austen's and Jasmine Cottage, which are Grade II listed buildings.
8.9 It is considered, therefore, that given the pattern of the surrounding development, the loss of the area of open space, which enclosed primarily by twentieth century development, would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the Tangmere Conservation Area. Furthermore it is also considered that the siting, scale and height of the proposed bungalow would not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area, particularly in light of the fact that it would not be visible from public vantage points. iii) Impact on neighbouring occupiers
8.10 The proposed bungalow would be located to the south of the bungalows along Malcolm Road, to the east of New Fields and west of Holly Orchard. The neighbouring occupiers to the north of the site have raised concerns that the proposed bungalow would cause overshadowing, a loss of light and have a visually dominate roof. However, the proposed bungalow would be positioned 4m from the northern boundary of the site, which comprises fencing along with a Cherry tree and mature planting. Furthermore the pitched roof of the bungalow would have an overall height of 4.4m, which would slope away with the ridge at least 6.5m from the northern boundary of the site. It is acknowledged, therefore, that the proposed bungalow could potentially cause a small amount of overshadowing of the rear element of the neighbouring occupier's gardens, particularly Mabruk and Hemse, during the winter months. Nevertheless, given the height of the bungalow, separation distance and the existing boundary treatment, it is considered that the proposed bungalow would not
Planning Committee 49 significantly impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of overshadowing and overbearing impacts.
8.11 Concern has also been raised in relation to the proposed roof lights in the north and west elevations of the proposed bungalow. However, given their position within the north and west roof slopes, it is considered that the roof lights would not lead to overlooking or a loss of privacy detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
8.12 The proposed bungalow would be at least 3m from the west and east boundaries, which are adjacent to New Fields and Holly Orchard respectively. There is mature planting along the western boundary of the site whilst the eastern boundary (rear boundary of Holly Orchard) comprises a brick wall 1.8m high. Consequently due to the height of the proposed bungalow and the existing boundary treatment along the west boundary, it is considered that the development would have a limited impact on the amenity of New Fields. The proposed bungalow would be visible from Holly Orchard; however, in light of the scale of the development, separation distance and the limited number of east facing windows, it is considered the proposal would not harm the amenity of the adjacent occupier. iv) Amenity of Trees
8.13 The proposed development would involve the removal of the Cypress trees and Beech tree, which are located directly north of Tangmere Cottage. This would enable the new driveway to be positioned adjacent to the southern boundary of the Holly Orchard, which comprises a brick wall approximately 1.8m high and fencing. The Tree Officer has noted that Cypress trees are not a species the District Council would normally consider of significant landscape value or worthy of TPO status. The Beech tree is multi-stemmed and was formerly a hedgerow that has been allowed to develop. Given that the trees have a limited amenity value and are set back from Tangmere Road, it is considered that their removal would not harm the character of the Tangmere Conservation Area or the surrounding amenity of the locality.
8.14 The proposed bungalow would be in close proximity to a Cherry tree located along the northern boundary of the site. Therefore works would in all likeliness need to be undertaken to the Cherry tree to enable the proposed development. However, the Tree Officer notes that the Cherry tree is a short lived species and has been previously granted permission to be pruned. Furthermore the Cherry tree is surrounded by existing residential development and therefore has a limited public amenity value. As such it is considered that if removal or works are necessary, then there would be a limited impact on the character of the conservation area. v) Highway impacts
8.15 The proposed bungalow would be accessed via the shared driveway between Tangmere Cottage and Holly Orchard, which is situated to the west of Tangmere Road and the junction with Meadow Way. The ground levels of the shared driveway increase from Tangmere Road towards the residential properties. Furthermore there is mature planting and hedgerow to the north and south of the access.
8.16 The proposed detached three bedroom bungalow would increase the number of vehicles using the existing access point. However, it is considered that one additional dwelling would not materially increase traffic movements to the detriment of highway safety along this part of Tangmere Road. Furthermore given that the existing access is currently
Planning Committee 50 used by the occupiers of two dwellings, it is not considered necessary to condition details relating to visibility splays. Notwithstanding this details of the driveway and on-site turning facility will be controlled by condition. vi) Other matters
8.17 The proposed bungalow would be accessed via a new driveway that would be located adjacent to the southern boundary of Holly Orchard, which comprises a brick wall approximately 1.8m high and fencing. Following the removal of the Cypress trees and Beech tree, it is considered that there would be sufficient space for emergency vehicles to access and turn within the site.
8.18 The proposed bungalow includes a number of south facing apertures, which would provide light and outlook for future occupiers onto the primary area of amenity space to the south of the dwelling. The existing two-storey Grade II listed building, Tangmere Cottage includes a number of rear (north) facing apertures, which could overlook the proposed bungalow. However, there would be at least 21m between Tangmere Cottage and the southern boundary of the proposed bungalow. As such it is considered the relationship between Tangmere Cottage and the proposed bungalow would be detrimental to amenity of future occupiers.
Significant Conditions
Conditions will be attached relating to the following matters: i) Materials; ii) Removal of permitted development rights; iii) Landscaping; iv) Details of boundary treatment; v) Details of driveway; vi) Bin and cycle storage; vii) Details of apertures; and viii) Surface water disposal.
Conclusion
Based on the above assessment of the material planning considerations, particularly the impact the impact on the listed building, conservation area and neighbouring occupiers, it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE1, BE4, BE6, BE11, BE14 and TR6, and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Human Rights
In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
Planning Committee 51
RECOMMENDATION PERMIT
1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U86711 U86711 - No Departure from Plans 3 U86712 U86712 - Materials/Finishes 4 U86713 U86713 - No Extensions without Approval 5 U86714 U86714 - No Outbuildings without Approval 6 U86732 U86732 - No Windows in Roof 7 U86715 U86715 - Landscaping 8 U86716 U86716 - Landscaping 9 U86717 U86717 - Landscape Works Implementation 10 U86718 U86718 - Porous Driveway 11 U86720 U86720 - Turning/Parking 12 U86721 U86721 - Bin Storage/Secure Cycle Parking 13 U86722 U86722 - Window/Door/Rooflight & Shutter Details 14 U86730 U86730 - Surface Water Disposal 15 U86729 U86729 - Construction Hours
INFORMATIVES
16 U86726 U86726 - Application Approved Following Revisions 17 U86727 U86727 - Planning Permission Only
For further information on this application please contact Anna Weir on 01243 534734.
Planning Committee 52
Parish: Ward: Southbourne Southbourne
4. SB/14/01678/FUL
Proposal Full application for demolition of existing stable / store and proposed change of use of land to provide two additional mobile homes pitches and one additional utility building for settled gypsy accommodation (total 5 pitch site) revised application further to permission granted under SB/13/03608/FUL for proposed change of use of land to three pitch site comprising the stationing of three mobile homes for settled gypsy accommodation and the construction of three associated utility buildings.
Site Land South Of Green Orchards Inlands Road Nutbourne West Sussex
Map Ref (E) 477474 (N) 105671
Applicant Mr Eli Green
RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH S106
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
Planning Committee 53
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site lies within the Rural Area and the designated Strategic Gap between Nutbourne West (approximately 160m away from site) and Southbourne and Prinsted (approximately 130m away). The site also lies within the 5.6km buffer zone for the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area, the SSSI and RAMSAR site.
2.2 The application site is flat and has an irregular shape, encompassing an area of 0.42 ha. It is located to the rear of a line of semi-detached houses on the west side of Inlands Road. The A259 is approximately 130m to the south and has regular bus services along this route. The nearest train station is approximately 1.1km away at Southbourne.
2.3 The application site is bordered immediately to the west by an adjacent property, 369 Main Road. To the west is Loveders Caravan Park; to the north is a dwellinghouse known as Green Orchards and to the south is Thornley, another dwellinghouse. Vehicular access from Inlands Road is along a single width, surfaced track, between two dwellings, Tree Tops and Selwyn. The track is bordered by timber fencing to the north and south and is approximately 3.5-4m wide.
2.4 The boundary treatments to the site are mixed but mostly comprise timber fencing and chain link fencing. There is a hedge along the northern part of the west boundary.
2.5 A large area of the northern part of the site has been surfaced with hardcore. A narrow projecting element of the site to the north is still grassed and at a slightly lower ground level than the remainder of the site. The southern part of the site is entirely laid to grass. The applicant and his family are presently living on the site having implemented an earlier planning permission for the provision of 3no. pitches (Application SB/13/03608/FUL). The site presently comprises 3no. mobile homes, 1no. utility building and the existing stable/store building, which is in a somewhat dilapidated state. The utility building and caravan are sited adjacent to the west boundary on the north part of the site on the surfaced area. The stable/store building, a former chicken shed had planning permission in 2002 to be used as a stable and tack room (SB/ 02/00808/COU refers). Planning permission was refused in 2011 and dismissed at appeal in 2012 for the change of use into a single dwelling and associated works.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The application proposes to expand upon the current implemented planning permission for the creation of 3no. permanent gypsy pitch (SB/13/03608/FUL) permitted at Committee in April 2014. The proposal now seeks permission for 2no. additional pitches to replace the existing stable/store building in the southern part of the site. The southern part of the site would remain in use as paddocks. The additional two pitches would be occupied by two more of Mr Green's children and their grandchildren. The use of the site for a single family group would reduce the need for internal separation and the site has been largely laid to a gravelled surface, aiding surface water filtration.
Planning Committee 54
3.2 Each of the pitches would comprise the siting of 1no. static mobile home together with the erection of a day room. There is adequate space within the site for parking of cars and touring caravans. A septic tank is proposed to be provided for the two additional pitches, similar to that provided for the existing 3no. pitches. A small, southern part of the store/stable building would be retained for the family's horses.
4.0 History
02/00808/COU PER Change of use from redundant chicken shed to stables and tack room.
02/01336/DOM PER Rear extension and roof conversion.
02/02541/DOM PER Replacement outbuilding.
04/00934/DOM PER Dropped kerb.
11/03712/FUL REF Change of use of existing brick built agricultural barn into single dwelling and associated works.
13/03608/FUL PER106 Proposed change of use of land to three pitch site comprising the stationing of three mobile homes for settled gypsy accommodation and the construction of three associated utility buildings.
02/00808/COU PER Change of use from redundant chicken shed to stables and tack room.
13/03608/FUL PER106 Proposed change of use of land to three pitch site comprising the stationing of three mobile homes for settled gypsy accommodation and the construction of three associated utility buildings.
12/00048/REF DISMIS Change of use of existing brick built agricultural barn into single dwelling and associated works.
Planning Committee 55
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
6.1 Parish Council
Southbourne Parish Council objects to this application for the following reason: The Council objects to the increase in the number of pitches proposed for the site which would have a detrimental impact on the locality.
6.2 WSCC: Highways
West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application SB/13/03608/FUL for the change of use of the site for the provision of three mobile homes for settled gypsy accommodation. No highway objections were raised to this proposal and this application has been granted consent by the LPA.
This application has been submitted as a revision to the approved scheme and seeks to provide 5 mobile homes for settled gypsy accommodation rather than the approved scheme to provide three mobile homes for settled gypsy accommodation. Having regard for WSCCs previous comments relating to this site and application SB/13/03608/FUL it would be difficult to substantiate that an additional two mobile homes for settled gypsy accommodation would be of detriment to highway safety so therefore no highway safety concerns would be raised to this revision.
If the LPA are minded to granted planning consent conditions securing the following would be advised:
- Cycle parking; - Vehicle parking and turning.
6.4 CDC Planning Policy
The proposal is demolish a stable / store to provide two additional pitches and additional utility building. The main consideration is whether there is a need for the development and potential impact on the adjacent settled community.
Planning Committee 56
The Development Plan
The Development Plan currently comprises saved policies in the Chichester District Local Plan 1999. There is not a saved policy which relates specifically to gypsies and travellers.
The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document was submitted on the 30th May. It has been subject to consultation and is therefore a material planning consideration, it currently carries some weight. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight (paragraph 216 of the NPPF).
The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document contains Policy 36 Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The policy sets out a criteria based approach to identifying sites within the plan area as part of a forthcoming Site Allocation DPD and for determining planning applications. This is consistent with paragraph 10 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPfTS) which says 'Criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need...'
Following the Pre-submission consultation a couple of comments have been received on Policy 36, one of which suggests that the 'policy criteria has been framed in vague terms and provides maximum opportunity to reject proposals rather than accept them'. The comments will be discussed at the forthcoming examination.
Therefore the application should be judged against the criterion within Policy 36, particular reference is made to criterion 6 which refers to sites in rural / semi-rural areas not dominating the nearest settled community. The site is bounded by residential properties, however for the application SB/13/03608/FUL where the 3 pitches were permitted the committee report indicates that 'the proposed development is unlikely to have an impact sufficient to warrant refusal' (para 8.6).
Other relevant policies include: 22, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49 and 50.
Coastal West Sussex Authorities Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) As part of the Council's assessment of need, the Council in partnership with the Coastal West Sussex Authorities (Arun, Adur and Worthing) and the South Downs National Park Planning Authority with support from West Sussex County Council, commissioned a Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment (GTAA) (2012/13)
The GTAA identifies a total need for 59 pitches for gypsies and travellers and 18 plots for travelling showpeople within the Plan area during the plan period. With a specific need for 37 gypsy and traveller sites before 2017.
The identified need for pitches based on the Five Year Supply assessment is for 40 pitches (2012-19). Since September 2012 permission has been granted for 29 units to date, there is therefore a need for 11 pitches prior to 2019. Based on this the five year supply gives an identified supply of 3.3 years.
It is acknowledged therefore that there is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the plan area, particularly in the period up to 2017. In the long term the Council intends to allocate sites in the Site Allocations DPD and work has started on this.
Planning Committee 57
Conclusion
There is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the plan area, particularly up to 2017. Given the government guidance above and there not being a five-year supply of deliverable sites there is not a policy objection to the proposal, providing you are satisfied in terms of development management principles.
6.5 CDC Environmental Health
Generally most households would need one domestic waste bin and one recycle bin each, the size of bins does depend on the number of occupants. The general rule is 140L bins for households of two or less, 240L bins for households up to four. However, if communal waste and recycling bins were preferable then you would need two 1,100L waste bins and two 1,100L recycling bins to cater for five pitches.
I have some concerns over access to the site, it has been mentioned in the design and access statement the access road maybe rather narrow. If waste collections are required from this site, consideration would need to be made for our refuse freighters. Please see vehicle dimensions in the attached standard waste requirements.
I note from the block plan there will be a bin store. If the applicant opts for communal bulk bins then there should be sufficient room in the bin store for the crew to manoeuvre the bins out of the bin store without causing damage to the walls or doors. I would suggest if doors are to be fitted to the bin store that they have the ability to be pinned back on collection day for ease of the collection crew.
The surface of the parking area also needs to be strong enough to take the weight of our refuse freighter (see attached standard requirements) with enough room to manoeuvre to the bin store.
6.7 Third Parties
10no. third party letters have been received from nearby residents. 9no letter have raised objections to the increase in number of pitches on the site, highlighting they had no concerns with the provision of 3no. pitches, but now consider the increase to be overdevelopment of the site. All the letters cite highway and pedestrian safety due to additional traffic utilising the narrow access road into the site. 1no. third party raised no objection but did highlight concerns regarding external lighting and noise.
6.6 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information
The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement setting out the reasons behind the layout, location, access arrangements and appearance of the proposal on the wider area. In addition, the applicant has agreed to enter into a S.106 Legal Agreement to provide the adequate mitigation to the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project against recreational disturbance on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area, and therefore the application is recommended for approval, deferred for a S106 Agreement.
Planning Committee 58
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
RE1 Rural Area Generally RE21 Safeguarding Existing Travelling Showpeople's Sites RE23 Safeguarding Existing Gypsy Sites TR6 Highway Safety R4 Public Rights of Way and Other Paths
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013:
Policy 1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure
National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states:
At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:
For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Planning Committee 59 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles).
7.6 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF.
Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D4: Understanding and meeting community needs
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Current provision; ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site; iii) Impact on neighbouring properties and the nearest settled community; and iv) Highway implications and means of access;
Assessment i) Current Provision
8.2 There is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 37no. pitches before 2017. Rolling that figure on to provide a current 5-year supply (2014 - 2019) would increase that requirement for 40no. pitches. This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment. The report was undertaken by Opinion Research Services and Peter Brett Associates and was completed in April 2013. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of gypsy pitches. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 11no. pitches in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2019. This application would provide a further 4no. permanent pitches to contribute towards meeting this requirement. 29no. permanent pitches have been provided by the grant of planning permission or at appeal since September 2012. ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site
8.3 Policy H of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) documents relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and the planning policy for traveller sites (paragraph 21).
Planning Committee 60
8.4 Paragraph 22 advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites; a) The existing level of local provision and the need for sites b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections
8.5 As set out in paragraph 8.2 above, there is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 40no. pitches before 2019. Whilst the District Council has now permitted 29no. pitches since September 2012, there remains a significant shortfall in provision. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of gypsy pitches. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 11 in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2019.
8.6 The agent advises in the supporting documentation that the applicant has close family connections in the local area. It is advised that it is widely known that there is a long waiting list for the County Council site on Cemetery Lane and as such the applicant has recently purchased the application site so that he can provide for his family. The applicant has 8no children, and following the acceptance of the site for 3no. pitches, Mr Green now seeks to provide 2no. additional plots in order to provide sufficient pitches for each of his sons. The supporting information also advises that in the past neither the applicant nor his sons have 'ever lived in bricks or mortar accommodation; they would not be comfortable there as such occupation is a different way of life to the manner in which they have grown up and their gypsy lifestyle'. The applicant and his wife, it is advised, have always lived in a caravan or mobile home and have had to travel from site to site (regularly doubling up on plots with relatives) but never having had any site as a settled base to call their own.
8.7 There is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and following submission of the Draft Local Plan, Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 carries an increased degree of weight. Given the relevance of Policy 36 and its general conformity to PPTS, further regard to this policy is set out below.
8.8 Policy 36 specifically sets out 6no. criteria for assessing the suitability of sites, criteria 1, 5 and 6 relate to the principle of development. Considering these in turn; they require that the development should:
1) be well related to existing settlements/close to major roads and/or public transport; 5) avoid areas of Flood Risk; and 6) not dominate the settled community.
Planning Committee 61
8.9 The site is located within the designated Rural Area, as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, 1999, which seeks to restrict development to those that comply with a range of other policies of the Local Plan. The site is also located within the Strategic Gap. Although the landscape is relatively flat, the site has residential development on its north, south and east boundaries and a caravan park on the west boundary. It is not considered to be clearly visible from the wider landscape. It is situated in a position not far from the nearly settlement policy areas of Nutbourne and Southbourne.
8.10 The application site is considered to be acceptable in terms of its sustainability, being located only a short distance from the A259 and bus services, just over 1km from a railway station and a short distance from Settlement Policy Areas with community facilities.
8.11 Having regard to the definition of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not meet the requirements of the NPPF for permanent residential development. However, given the nature of the proposed accommodation and the identified need to be met within the District it is considered to be in a location with sufficient links to local infrastructure to be considered acceptable.
8.12 The site is not located within any known area of flood risk and no objection was received from the Environment Agency to application SB/13/03608/FUL. The site is laid fully by either grass or a gravelled surface ensuring surface water filtration, preventing run-off and therefore not impacting on the neighbouring occupiers or the surrounding area.
8.13 Paragraph 23 of Policy H (of the PPTS) advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller sites in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.
8.14 Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside would have the potential to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape and impinge upon the openness of this part of the countryside. The current proposal would seek to provide 2no. additional gypsy and traveller pitches within an existing permitted, permanent site. The site is enclosed by screen fencing, and bounded by housing to the northern, eastern and southern boundaries and an established caravan park to the western boundary given the low level nature of the proposals, together with the provision of only 2no. additional pitches, it is considered that the scale of development would not cause any significant visual harm to the wider landscape setting and would not likely dominate the nearby settled community.
8.15 Paragraph 24 advises that 'considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters; a) Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land b) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness c) Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community
Planning Committee 62
8.16 The criteria listed above should be used in assessing the benefits of one site over another, where this is a significant shortfall of available sites in any given area, it is likely that not all sites will meet these aspirations. The current proposal is generally considered to be in conformity with three the four above criteria (b, c and d), and given the urgent need for additional permanent accommodation, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable, is well designed, and screened from public vantage points by existing boundary fencing and established dwellings along Inlands Road. Further mitigation could be achieved by the imposition of relevant conditions.
8.17 In conclusion, on this point, the current scheme is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS. It is therefore considered, given the existence of the 3no. existing permanent pitches, and the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional pitches, that the premise of allowing the expansion of the site to 5no. permanent pitches is considered acceptable. iii) Impact on neighbouring properties and the nearest settled community
8.18 Turning to Policy C of the PPTS (Sites in rural areas and the countryside), this policy seeks to ensure that 'the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community'. Although there are residential properties bounding the application site, it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to have an impact sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission. The site is proposed for 5no. pitches only and there is a lawful use for the stabling of horses which would generate a certain amount of activity. It is considered that increased use of the access track by vehicles would again not be sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would not conflict with Policy C and would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers.
8.19 The scale of the development is low level in nature and the proposed development would be located and orientated so as not to result in an unacceptable level of overlooking or overshadowing of neighbouring properties. The scale of the site is large, relative to the development proposed and it is not considered that the increase from 3 to 5 pitches would have a significant impact on the enjoyment of the private amenities of the nearby properties. iv) Highway implications and means of access
8.20 The comments of the WSCC Highway Authority are noted. No objection has been raised in respect of the increased use of the site from 3no. pitches to the 5no. pitches. The width of the access was also considered to be acceptable by the Inspector in determining an appeal at Lakeside Barn (HN/07/02174/FUL) and also in respect of an appeal decision for conversion of the stable building to a single dwelling (SB/12/03712/FUL). On both occasions, the access was not considered so unacceptable as to warrant refusal. The applicant has already implemented the earlier planning permission SB/13/03608/FUL, successfully bringing into the site the 3no. permitted mobile homes without causing damage to the surrounding properties. It is therefore considered that the modest increase in the number of units from 3 to 5 would not be so significant as to materially impact on either highway or pedestrian safety. This is also the specialist assessment of the County Highway Authority.
Planning Committee 63
Significant Conditions
8.21 The application is recommended for permission subject to a number of controlling conditions. Those include restricting the use of the site to a gypsy/traveller family, restricting the number of pitches and tourers and utility buildings, restricting the use of the utility buildings, requiring provision of materials and samples for the proposed utility buildings, requiring details of waste and recycling, requiring details of foul and surface water disposal, limiting use of external lighting together with details on landscaping and boundary treatment. All permitted development rights associated with the residential use of the site would be removed, given the exceptional circumstances for which the application is recommended for approval.
Conclusion
8.22 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that although the proposal conflicts with adopted development plan policies, the unmet need for gypsy and travellers pitches in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal, it complies with draft policy advice and the advice in the NPPF and PPTS and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Human Rights
8.23 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
Equalities
8.24 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant.
"In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:
(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:
(a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
Planning Committee 64 These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level.
However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law.
In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case".
RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH S106
1 U86640 U86640 - Approved plans 2 U86641 U86641 - Occupation restriction 3 U86642 U86642 - Number of mobile homes 4 U86643 U86643 - Use of utility buildings 5 U86644 U86644 - Materials 6 U86645 U86645 - Refuse disposal 7 U86646 U86646 - Surface water scheme 8 U86647 U86647 - Foul water disposal 9 U86648 U86648 - External lighting 10 U86649 U86649 - Landscaping 11 U86650 U86650 - Landscaping 12 U86652 U86652 - No fences without approval 13 U86653 U86653 - No hardstanding
INFORMATIVE
14 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions
For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734
Planning Committee 65
Parish: Ward: Funtington Funtington
5. FU/14/01061/FUL
Proposal Change of use to a small scale holiday park for 15 motorhomes/touring unit pitches and the construction of reception building, manager's accommodation and amenity building.
Site Ratham House Ratham Lane West Ashling Chichester West Sussex PO18 8DL
Map Ref (E) 481192 (N) 106374
Applicant Mr And Mrs Hodgkin
RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. NOT TO Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the SCALE permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
Planning Committee 66 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Red Card: Cllr Tassell - Exceptional level of public interest
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The site comprises 1.8 hectares of grassland, located to the north of Ratham House, which is a Grade II Listed Building. Ratham Lane (B2146) borders the northeast boundary of the site, with a drainage ditch running between the two. The Bosham Stream runs along the western boundary of the application site. The site is raised above the level of the road, with traditional estate fencing along the boundary. There are some mature trees and hedgerow along the boundary; however parts of the site remain open to views from public vantage points.
2.2 Beyond the Bosham Stream, to the northwest is an established Gypsy site, whilst to the south, beyond Ratham House is the remaining Ratham Estate. There is a terrace of three 2- storey brick cottages on the opposite corner of the junction leading to Ratham House. Along the northern edge of Ratham Lane is a mature screen of vegetation beyond which is what appears to be an equestrian enterprise.
2.3 The site is in the Rural Area, approximately 650m (as the crow flies) from the settlement edge of West Ashling to the north and over 1km from the settlement edge of Broadbridge to the south. Neither of the roads leading from the site to these settlements have pedestrian footpaths along them.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The proposal is for the change of use of the existing green field to a small scale holiday park for up to 15 motor homes/touring units. To facilitate this use, 2 additional 'late arrival' pitches are also proposed, as is a reception building comprising office, store, small provisions/shop and a 1-bedroom staff flat, a separate single storey amenity building and large recreation area to the north. The existing access is to be realigned to the south. Additional landscaping is also proposed within the site and along the boundaries.
6.0 History
No relevant history.
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building Adjacent Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
- Flood Zone 2 Adjacent - Flood Zone 3 Adjacent Historic Parks and Gardens NO
Planning Committee 67
6.0 Representations and Consultations
6.1 Funtington Parish Council
Whilst the Parish Council have no objections in principle to this planning application, they consider that the number of pitches should be limited to 15, not 17, as shown on the drawing. They are also concerned that the public highway system could prove inadequate for this development. Access through West Ashling should be discouraged.
Proper landscaping is required, with increased hedgerow screening along the highway frontage. The highway itself may require re-aligning north of the Ratham Lane junction where currently it is little more than a single track road, particularly where there are railings.
6.2 Bosham Parish Council
Bosham Parish Council objects to this application for the establishment of a holiday park in Ratham Lane. The proposal plans the establishment of 15 pitches for touring motor homes or caravans. It is proposed that surface water run-off will be directed into the Bosham Stream and the 15 pitches will be connected to the foul drains system.
Our objections centre on four strands:- Firstly, on the grounds of ecology. The Bosham Stream throughout its entire length is an acknowledged wildlife corridor. The stream debouches into the Harbour which is designated as an SSSI, RAMSAR Site and Special Protection Area. The planning application does not contain any report on protected species and it would be very surprising if there were no water voles present who are a specially protected species. Further there are Kingfisher, Little Egret and Moorhen present in the area of the stream, breeding and raising young.
Secondly on the grounds of Surface Drainage. Although it is stated that the preferred option is for a SUDS system, it seems unlikely that such could be put in place as it fails to meet several criteria. First there is potential ground instability with clay soil adjacent to a stream with significantly varying flows, second there is persistent shallow groundwater as the water table is only about 1 metre below ground level in this area and the lane regularly floods. The ground has a very low permeability and the land is likely to shrink and swell inducing ground movement. Finally, an onsite inspection and soakaway test has not been carried out which leads to the clear assumption that run-off would be to the Bosham Stream carrying with it the possible contamination of a matchless environmental asset.
Thirdly, the difficulties with monitoring waste disposal and spillage. Caravan and Motorhome sites have issues with specific contaminants such as oil, fuel, batteries, chemical toilet fluids, waste disposal and effluent.
Fourthly, the main sewerage system runs down to Bosham and thence to the Harts Farm WwTP. Whilst Harts Farm may be able to cope with the additional volume from potentially 15 new homes, it has been consistently shown that the pipe system that supplies the treatment plant is regularly overwhelmed in heavy rain conditions causing the release of dilute raw sewage into Chichester Harbour and the overflow of main sewer pipes throughout the lower end of the village.
If the Council is minded to permit this development, Bosham Parish Council requests that a condition be imposed to ensure the installation of an on-site sewage treatment plant in order to mitigate the effect of further pressure on the sewage system from north of the village
Planning Committee 68 adding to the quantity of raw sewage deposited on Shore Road and thence to Chichester Harbour.
6.3 Environment Agency
No objections to the proposal as submitted. The site is located in Flood Zone 1, defined by the NPPF as having a low probability of flooding.
6.4 Southern Water Services
Awaiting comments
6.5 WSCC - Highways (summarised)
No objection, subject to the approval of a Travel Plan Statement. The proposal involves relocating and realigning the access slightly to the south of the lane to improve visibility and enhance conditions for pedestrians.
The applicant has demonstrated that sightlines and visibility splays of 2.4 by 43 metres to the north can be achieved and 2.4 by 25 metres to the south can be achieved on to Ratham Lane. These sightlines are within the requirements set out within Manual for Streets given the posted speed limit and recorded speeds.
The applicant has provided swept path analysis demonstrating how a towed twin axle caravan and a rigid motor home would enter and exit the site at Ratham Lane and also navigate the internal access arrangements. These plans demonstrate that a vehicle would have the ability to enter and exit the site in the forward gear and enter the access adjacent to one another safely; although given the size of the development it is unlikely that this would be a frequent occurrence.
6.6 CDC - Historic Buildings Adviser
Objection
No comprehensive assessment of potential impacts to the setting of Ratham House nor the wider context of Ratham Mill has been provided with this application.
As defined in The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage 2011), setting is a holistic concept which goes beyond visual considerations to include environmental factors and experiential attributes of an asset within its setting. Impacts must therefore be considered beyond visual implications and as such there should not be merely a reliance on tree- screening.
As existing, the field appears to provide pastureland (and agricultural fields c.2009), with a typical Estate fencing to the boundary which is characteristic to the rural countryside. The field is visually quite open from the B2146, with only low level hedging to a large portion of the boundary, and a distinct lack of trees internally.
As part of this scheme, both the boundary and the interior land would be heavily landscaped to provide cover and create a setting for the holiday park. This appears to domesticate the landscape. The 'reception' building is effectively a dwelling with its own parking to the west. The grounds meanwhile are being heavily planted which could potentially read as an enclosed garden space with a pond. This represents a substantial change to the wider
Planning Committee 69 setting of the listed buildings and the countryside more generally, and is likely to be experienced in context with Ratham House from the corner of Ratham Lane, particularly as the boundary wall to the listed building extends along the Lane to immediately adjacent of the proposed entrance.
Further, more than with many other building types, industrial structures should be considered within their wider settings. The context of these types of buildings can be fairly extensive and may include the millstream, relationships with other heritage assets, and landscape character. In this regard, this scheme also has the potential to impact the setting of the grade II listed Ratham Mill and the millpond extending to the north which could be detrimental to their special interest.
It should be noted that this scheme does not constitute enabling development, and therefore investment in various Ratham Estate buildings cannot be considered justification at this stage.
6.7 CDC - Archaeological Officer (summarised)
Roman pottery has been found in close proximity to the site and there is a Roman-Celtic temple to the west of the application site, which is the utmost significance.
In the circumstances it would be appropriate to consider the potential impact of any development on archaeological deposits that might be present, and to this end it would be reasonable to expect the prospective developer to provide a desk-based assessment of archaeological potential of the site. However, it seems possible that the impact of the proposal on below-ground deposits might be relatively slight, and if this is indeed the case it should be possible to ensure mitigation of impact following a standard archaeology planning condition.
6.8 CDC - Drainage Engineer (summarised)
Infiltration should be investigated through winter groundwater monitoring and percolation testing. If it is found that discharge to the watercourse is the most suitable option for surface water disposal, attenuation storage should be lined and discharge rates restricted to greenfield runoff rates.
Conditions recommended disposal of surface water, discharge to and culverting of watercourses, and on-going access to the existing watercourse.
6.9 CDC - Environmental Strategy (summarised)
Due to the proximity of the site to ancient woodland and the presence of protected species within the area, an extended Phase One Habitat Survey must be undertaken prior to determination.
6.10 CDC - Economic Development
The Economic Development Service encourages the creation of tourism businesses, particularly those of high quality located in sites that are close to both the coast and the South Downs National Park. We know that these types of tourism businesses do well in terms of occupancy and long-term sustainability. The concern over this site is in regards to the sustainability of a tourism business in this location. It does not appear to be close to any
Planning Committee 70 local amenities, which you would expect to be close to a tourism site, nor does it benefit from being in close proximity to the beach or the walking or cycling paths in the South Downs.
6.11 39 Third Party Objection
The concerns raised by the third parties can be summarised as follows: - Hazard caused by tight bend in road would be exacerbated by motorhomes/caravans turning - Flood risk and surface water drainage - Impact on safety of road users (including horseriders and cyclists) - No evidence that there is a need for this use in the locality - Impact on Bosham Stream (pollution) - Impact on wildlife - Removal of hedgerow to accommodate splays would be harmful - No footpaths in the area - pedestrian safety - Impact on neighbouring properties (activity/noise/light) - Not in accordance with development plan policy - Concern 15 pitches is only the starting point - Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monument - Impact on the undeveloped rural character and appearance of the area - Filling the gap between West Ashling and Ratham
6.12 27 Third Party Support
The comments of the third parties can be summarised as follows: - Beneficial to community and local economy - Would provide jobs/income - Personal enterprise is something to be encouraged
6.13 1 Third Party Other
Chichester Access Group has requested that should the development be approved, appropriate level of accessibility to all facilities should be ensured.
6.14 Agent's Supporting Information
As well as the Design and Access Statement, the agent has provided a suite of documents to support the proposed development including the Flood Risk Assessment. Following the request from the Council's Environmental Strategy Team, the agent has submitted a Phase 1 Habitat and Protected Fauna Survey and Biodiversity Report.Further information has also been submitted regarding the likely presence of Archaeology on the site and demand for tourism facilities in the area.
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
Planning Committee 71
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
BE3 Archaeology BE4 Buildings of Architectural or Historic Merit BE11 New Development BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE8 Nature Conservation (Non-designated Areas) RE12 Rural Diversification TR6 Highway Safety H11 Residential Caravans T1 Accommodation and Facilities T3 Provision in Rural Areas T7 Touring Caravans and Tented Camping
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013
Policy 30: Built Tourist and Leisure Development Policy 31: Caravan and Camping Sites Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Carbon Reduction Policy Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 47: Heritage Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity
National Policy and Guidance
7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Planning Committee 72 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 14 (Sustainable Development), 17 (Core Planning Principles), 28 (Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy), 55 (Housing in Rural Areas), 118 (Biodiversity) and Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment).
Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.6 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
B1 - Managing a changing environment
B2 - Greener living
B3 - Environmental Resources
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: - The principle of the proposed use in this location - The impact on the character of the surrounding area - Highway safety
Assessment
Principle of use in this location
Tourism Facility
8.2 Paragraph 28 of the NPPF advises that to promote a strong rural economy, local plans should support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities. The Council's own policy regarding provision of tourist facilities in rural areas (CDC Local Plan policy T3) is in accordance with this part of the Framework, as it encourages the redevelopment of existing sites or small scale facilities.
8.3 As set out above, the application site is located within a relatively remote area of countryside within the rural area, accessed via a network of narrow rural lanes and almost 1km from the nearest settlement and facilities. In order to access these facilities on foot, it would require users of the site to walk along narrow country roads, with no pedestrian footpath available. The site is not served by public transport and although it is noted that the applicant intends to run a minibus service and provide an electric car, it is still likely that users of the site would be predominantly reliant on private car use to access day to day facilities and attractions. WSCC Highways also acknowledge that in the long-term it is unlikely that the provision of the minibus and electric car would be financially viable and, accordingly, a condition requiring such provision would not be reasonable .
8.4 The immediate area maintains a largely rural character, with the exception of the established gypsy site to the north. The Council's Economic Development Team has raised concerns regarding the viability of a new tourism business in this location, as it is not close to any local amenities. The agent's additional comments regarding the facilities/attractions
Planning Committee 73 within the district are noted, however this does not adequately address officer concerns regarding the sustainability of the site as no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that there is a need for this facility in this location.
8.5 In this respect, the Council has considered new tourism uses in similarly isolated locations, where the Council's decisions have been upheld on appeal (see Land West of Harwood, Cemetery Lane, Westbourne 12/00910/FUL and 132 Almodington Lane, Almodington 12/04149/COU). In both of these cases, the Inspector's concluded that the proposals would represent an unsustainable form of development as well as result in significant harm to the character of the surrounding area.
Provision of the Dwelling
8.6 The reception/office building includes a 1-bedroom flat, proposed as manager's accommodation. The applicant's Design and Access statement explains that this would be to provide 24-hour security on site, however no evidence or further justification has been provided to support this element of the scheme. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF advises new dwellings will only be allowed in the countryside in special circumstances such as, if there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside, if the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset, or if the design of the dwelling is of exceptional quality or innovative nature. It is considered that the proposal amounts to the creation of a separate dwelling in the rural area, that would fail to meet any of these criteria.
8.7 Whilst it is generally accepted that tourism is an important part of the District's economy, this does not mean that every site that comes forward for this use will be suitable. This site is not well linked to local facilities and there has been no compelling evidence presented to justify why a tourism use should be supported in this location. In the absence of such evidence, it is considered that the proposal would comprise an unsustainable form of development, with no compelling need or justification for such an isolated, rural location.
Character of the Surrounding Area
8.8 The land is currently undeveloped and the predominant character of the area remains rural. There are currently unrestricted views through the frontage into the wider countryside. The proposed change of use would represent a significant change in the character of the existing land, further exacerbated by the substantial landscaping of the site, which would formalise the currently informal rural appearance, and would amount to an increase in activity that would have a serious and negative impact on the character of the surrounding area. The likely level of noise and activity that would arise would be likely to be detrimental to the relatively quiet/tranquil character of the locality.
8.9 There are also concerns regarding the impact the proposal would have on the setting of the Ratham Estate, which includes Ratham House and Ratham Mill (both Grade II Listed Buildings). An objection has been raised by the Historic Buildings Adviser regarding the harmful impact the proposal would have on Ratham House in particular. The presence of tree screening does not sufficiently mitigate this harm, as it is the activity itself as well as the visual elements that have an effect on the heritage assets. In any event, the proposed landscaping will take a significant amount of time to mature and therefore any screening benefit that may bring should be carefully measured.
Planning Committee 74
8.10 It is noted that the use itself might have a transient nature, however it is the additional paraphernalia, such as the reception and amenity buildings and the access road proposed that lead to significant harm and change being caused to the character of the area. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to policies RE1, T3, BE4 and BE11 of the current Local Plan and policies 31, 45 and 47 of the emerging Local Plan.
Highway Safety
8.11 WSCC Highways Authority (HA) has raised no objection to the proposal based on the information submitted by the applicant and their site visit. The LPA relies on the Highway Authority's specialist knowledge and its comments carry significant weight. The HA has confirmed that the realigned access to the site can achieve appropriate visibility in both directions and is satisfied that the vehicles likely to use the site will be able to safely enter and exit the site. Whilst the HA's comments are acknowledged, officers remain concerned that the proposal would be likely to give rise to an increase in large vehicles using this junction, where visibility along the road is poor in places and where the proposal would lead to a potential increase in pedestrian activity along the surrounding roads. However, in the absence of an objection from the HA it is considered that a reason for refusal on highway safety could not be sustained.
Other Matters
8.12 Concerns have been raised by third parties regarding the impact of the proposal on surface water drainage and foul sewage disposal in the area. Conditions have been recommended to prevent any harmful environmental impact on the Bosham Stream and also to ensure appropriate sewerage is achieved to service the proposal. Whilst the concerns are noted, it is considered that should the development be acceptable in all other aspects, a technical solution could be achieved to control surface water and foul drainage.
8.13 A Phase 1 Ecological Walkover Survey has been provided following a request by the Council's Ecologist, the results of which suggest that although there is the potential for protected species at the site, the proposal would not cause harm subject to appropriate mitigation (e.g. the retention of existing trees and a buffer along the Stream). It is also considered that conditions would be appropriate to ensure that any archaeology is dealt with satisfactorily and no harm would be caused to the Scheduled Ancient Monument nearby.
8.14 The site is within the Chichester Harbour Special Protection Area Zone of Influence, where any net gain in dwellings is considered to have a likely significant effect on the reasons for this designation. The Council's Interim Policy Statement on Development and Disturbance on Birds in Special Protection Areas and Identified Compensatory Habitats identifies that a commuted sum of £172 per dwelling is required to provide mitigation against this likely effect. No confirmation that this would be forthcoming, or a mechanism to secure this payment, has been received.
Conclusion
8.15 As with any proposal for additional tourism facilities or accommodation, the proposal would have a positive benefit on the local economy. However, as has been explained above, there is no evidence of a demonstrable need for the proposal in this location. Furthermore the site is in an inappropriate location in terms of its distance from public transport facilities leading to users reliance on the private car and the introduction of new
Planning Committee 75 buildings would cause significant harm to the character of the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not respect the character of the countryside and would therefore not comply with paragraph 28 of the NPPF. The limited benefits would also fail to overcome the primary concern that the proposed scheme is not sustainable development.
8.16 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal is contrary to development plan policies RE1, BE4, BE11, T1 and T3 of the current local plan, policies 31, 33, 45 and 47 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 and therefore does not constitute a sustainable form of development to which the Framework's presumption in favour applies and on this basis the application is recommended for refusal.
Human Rights
8.17 In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded that the decision to refuse permission is justified and proportional to the harm that would be caused if planning permission were to be refused.
RECOMMENDATION REFUSE
1 U86687 U86687 - Unsustainable Location 2 U86688 U86688 - New Dwelling in Countryside 3 U86689 U86689 - Impact on Character of the Area 4 U86733 U86733 - Recreational Disturbance
INFORMATIVES
5 U86690 U86690 - Informative: Plans 6 W48F Application Refused Without Discussion
For further information on this application please contact Vicki Colwell on 01243 534734.
Planning Committee 76
Parish: Ward: Funtington Funtington
6. FU/14/01267/FUL
Proposal Provision of four mobile home pitches for occupation by gypsy/travellers (as defined in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites) and erection of three timber- clad utility buildings.
Site Land East Of Tower View Nursery West Ashling Road Hambrook Funtington W Sussex
Map Ref (E) 479867 (N) 107026
Applicant Mrs Sally Green
RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH S106
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
Planning Committee 77
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The site is located on the southern side of West Ashling Road, accessed down a single unmade track providing access to a number of other permanent gypsy/traveller and travelling showpeople's sites. The site itself is bounded by screen fencing, timber post and rail fencing and hedging and trees to the eastern and southern boundaries, with an earth bund along the southern boundary.
2.2 The site presently comprises a static mobile home, touring caravan, shed and brick and timber outbuildings on the land. There is a gravelled track within the site for access and areas of grassed amenity space. The use of the site for residential purposes is presently unauthorised
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The application proposes the sub-division of the site into 4no. pitches, 1no. for the use of the Applicant, Mrs Green, and the remaining 3no. pitches being unallocated at this stage. The access arrangements will be unaltered, and the site divided into four pitches each measuring approximately 18m by 21m (plots 2 and 3 being 24m). Internally within the site, each pitch would be divided by a native hedgerow, and each pitch would be largely laid to grass with a concrete hardstanding serving the mobile home and proposed utility buildings. Each pitch would be afforded two car parking spaces and space for a touring caravan. The central roadway would remain as a gravelled surface to aid surface water runoff and the site's boundary treatment would remain as existing. Plots 1, 3 and 4 would be provided with new cesspits, with Plot 2 connected to the existing system.
7.0 History
92/02231/FUL REF Wooden shed for storing maintenance equipment.
93/01401/FUL REF One wooden shed 10'x12' for storing maintenance equipment.
97/00509/ELD PER Use of building C as a dwelling.
98/00457/FUL REF 2 bedroomed bungalow and detached garage.
99/01155/FUL PER106 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2-bedroomed replacement bungalow with low pitched roof.
Planning Committee 78
13/04073/DOM REF Two storey side extension linking dwelling to detached garage.
14/01367/DOM PER Re-submission of FU/13/04073/DOM for a single storey link extension.
10/02464/FUL REF Stationing of a mobile home for occupation by gypsies and travellers (as defined by Circular 01/2006) for a temporary period of three years.
11/00544/FUL REF Stationing of a mobile home for occupation by gypsies and travellers (as defined by Circular 01/2006) for a temporary period of three years.
98/00077/REF DISMIS 2 bedroomed bungalow and detached garage.
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
6.1 Parish Council
Funtington Parish Council object to this planning application for four pitches, and consider one should suffice.
The Parish Council consider that sufficient planning applications for gypsy/traveller pitches have been approved within the West Ashling/Hambrook area in recent months and that a full review of such sites and their effect on the neighbourhood and supporting infrastructure should be undertaken before more pitches are allowed.
Planning Committee 79 6.2 WSCC: Highways
First Consultation (29 May)
The application is for an additional 4 mobile homes on an existing Traveller Site. The access onto the public highway is established, constructed of a bonded material and affords for some visibility. However, visibility can be restricted by shrubbery/hedging which requires regular maintenance to ensure visibility is maintained.
Second Consultation (26 June)
I appreciate this is an existing access and the visibility splay criteria should have been previously established. As a way forward, and if you are minded to permit this application, can you use the visibility splay requirement condition for this application.
6.3 Environment Agency
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above planning application which we understand proposes the use of a cess pit for foul drainage.
However, as the proposal is outside a Source Protection Zone, does not involve trade effluent and is outside of the mains sewer network, this development proposals falls outside our current working arrangements.
We have no comments to make on the proposal as submitted.
6.4 CDC Planning Policy
The proposal is for four mobile home pitches and three timber clad utility buildings. The main consideration is whether there is a need for the development.
The Development Plan
The Development Plan currently comprises saved policies in the Chichester District Local Plan 1999. There is not a saved policy which relates specifically to gypsies and travellers.
The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document was submitted on the 30th May. It has been subject to consultation and is therefore a material planning consideration, it currently carries some weight. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight (paragraph 216 of the NPPF).
The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document contains Policy 36 Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The policy sets out a criteria based approach to identifying sites within the plan area as part of a forthcoming Site Allocation DPD and for determining planning applications. This is consistent with paragraph 10 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPfTS) which says "Criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need..."
Following the Pre-submission consultation a couple of comments have been received on Policy 36, one of which suggests that the "policy criteria has been framed in vague terms and provides maximum opportunity to reject proposals rather than accept them". The comments will be discussed at the forthcoming examination.
Planning Committee 80 The application should be judged against the criterion within Policy 36, particular reference is made to criterion 6 which refers to sites in rural / semi-rural areas not dominating the nearest settled community. The site is bounded by residential properties, however for the application SB/13/03608/FUL where the 3 pitches were permitted the committee report indicates that "the proposed development is unlikely to have an impact sufficient to warrant refusal" (para 8.6).
Other relevant policies include: 22, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49 and 50.
Coastal West Sussex Authorities Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) As part of the Council's assessment of need, the Council in partnership with the Coastal West Sussex Authorities (Arun, Adur and Worthing) and the South Downs National Park Authority with support from West Sussex County Council, commissioned a Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment (GTAA) (2012/13).
The GTAA identifies a total need for 59 pitches for gypsies and travellers and 18 plots for travelling showpeople within the Plan area during the plan period. With a specific need for 37 gypsy and traveller sites before 2017.
The identified need for pitches based on the Five Year Supply assessment is for 40 pitches (2012-19). Since September 2012 permission has been granted for 29 units to date, there is therefore a need for 11 pitches prior to 2019. Based on this the five year supply gives an identified supply of 3.3 years.
It is acknowledged therefore that there is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the plan area, particularly in the period up to 2017. In the long term the Council intends to allocate sites in the Site Allocations DPD and work has started on this.
Conclusion
There is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the plan area, particularly up to 2017. Given the government guidance above and there not being a five-year supply of deliverable sites there is not a policy objection to the proposal, providing you are satisfied in terms of development management principles.
6.5 CDC Environmental Health
No objections with respect to contaminated land or air quality issues. As the land has been in horticultural/agricultural use there is potential for localised land contamination of the site. Given that three buildings are to be constructed at the site, Condition N21G should be applied in order that the land quality can be assessed. All waste arisings must be disposed of in accordance with current Waste Regulations. If any fuels/oils are to be stored at the site then Condition L09F should be applied.
It is noted that cycle storage is to be provided within the utility buildings which should encourage the use of sustainable transport.
6.6 Third Parties
No third party comments received.
Planning Committee 81
6.7 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information
The planning application has been supported by a detailed Planning, Design and Access Statement together with a signed Statutory Declaration confirming the gypsy status of the applicant Mrs Green together with a collection of family photographs showing Mrs Green and her family. The Statement includes a policy context and the identified need for the provision of additional permanent sites within the District together with details regarding the design, amount, layout, scale of the development proposal. The Statement also has regard to current planning policy considerations.
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
RE1 Rural Area Generally RE21 Safeguarding Existing Travelling Showpeople's Sites RE23 Safeguarding Existing Gypsy Sites TR6 Highway Safety
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013:
Policy 1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure
National Policy and Guidance
7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:
For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise:
Planning Committee 82 - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles).
7.6 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF.
Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D4: Understanding and meeting community needs
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Current provision; ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site; iii) Impact on the character of the area; iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties; v) Drainage; vi) Highway implications and means of access;
Assessment i) Current Provision
8.2 There is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 37no. pitches before 2017. Rolling that figure on to provide a 5-year supply (2014 - 2019) would increase that requirement to 40no. pitches. This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment. The report was undertaken by Opinion Research Services and Peter Brett Associates and was completed in April 2013. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of gypsy pitches. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 11no. pitches in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2019. This application would provide a further 4no. permanent pitches to contribute towards meeting this requirement. 29no. permanent pitches have been provided by the grant of planning permission or as a result of appeal decisions since September 2012.
Planning Committee 83 ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site
8.3 Policy H of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) documents relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and the planning policy for traveller sites (paragraph 21).
8.4 Paragraph 22 advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites; a) The existing level of local provision and the need for sites b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections
8.5 As set out in paragraph 8.2 above, there is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 40no. pitches before 2019. Whilst the District Council has now permitted 29no. pitches since September 2013, there remains a significant shortfall in provision. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of gypsy pitches. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 11 gypsy pitches in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2019.
8.6 The Supporting Statement confirms that the site will be occupied by Mrs Green (within 1no. pitch), with the remaining 3no. being made available to other occupies who comply with the terms of the definition of a gypsy and travellers. No other available permanent sites have been identified either by the applicant or the Council.
8.7 There is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and following submission of the Draft Local Plan, Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 carries an increased degree of weight. Given the relevance of Policy 36 and its general conformity to PPTS, further regard to this policy is set out below.
8.8 Policy 36 specifically sets out 6no. criteria for assessing the suitability of sites, criteria 1, 5 and 6 relate to the principle of development. Considering these in turn; they require that the development should:
1) be well related to existing settlements/close to major roads and/or public transport; 5) avoid areas of Flood Risk; and 6) not dominate the settled community.
Planning Committee 84
8.9 Whilst the site is located outside and away from any defined Settlement Policy Area (as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999), West Ashling Road links directly to Broad Road, which provides a local village shop and Post Office (approximately 1.6km away). Broad Road is the main road through Hambrook which provides direct access to the A259 Main Road, linking to Chichester, Emsworth and Southbourne. Given the nomadic habit of life associated with gypsies and travellers, a travelling distance of 1.6km is considered to be appropriate, and would enable the occupiers of the site to access a reasonable range of local services and facilities by public transport.
8.10 Having regard to the definition of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not meet the requirements of the NPPF for permanent settled residential accommodation. However, given the nature of the proposal for gypsy and travellers as outline in paragraph 8.9 above, and the identified need to be met within the District it is considered to be in a location with sufficient links to local infrastructure to be considered acceptable.
8.11 The site is not located within any known area of flood risk and no objection has been received from the Environment Agency.
8.12 In addition to criteria 6 of Policy 6 to the emerging local plan, Policy C of the PPTS (Sites in rural areas and the countryside) seeks to ensure that 'the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community'. The site is located in an area characterised by low density residential development, formed along the road frontages, with several farms in the immediate vicinity. There are also a number of other existing permitted gypsy and travelling showpeoples pitches within the Tower View Nursery site, including that of Mrs Green's son on a single pitch to the north of the application site. Therefore, it is considered that the use of the site to provide 4no. pitches would not result in a significant increase that would overwhelm the nearby settled community. The immediate area is largely comprised of open farmland and paddocks, with several large detached dwellings to the south and west along Scant Road (East) and the West Ashling Road and a small ribbon of former Council houses along the West Ashling Road east of the site. It is therefore considered that the additional of 4no. additional pitches within the Tower View Nursery site could integrate within the existing developments without causing material harm or a detrimental impact on the sporadic residential developments in the immediate area.
8.13 Paragraph 24 advises that 'considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters, a) Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land b) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness c) Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community
Planning Committee 85 8.14 The proposal is generally considered to be in conformity with the four above criteria, and given the urgent need for additional permanent accommodation, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable, would contribute towards improving and making better use of the site, which is well designed, screened by existing mature boundary vegetation whilst providing a good living environment for the future occupiers and their children. Further enhancements could be achieved by the imposition of relevant conditions.
8.15 In conclusion, on this point, the current scheme is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS. It is therefore considered, given the existence of this existing single permanent pitch, and the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional pitches, that the premise of allowing this on a permanent basis is considered acceptable.
8.16 It is also noted that the Parish Council has raised concerns regarding prematurity of the site, in advance of the Development Plan Document (DPD), and that a significant number of pitches have been permitted in the Hambrook/West Ashling area over the past few months. In terms of the recent approvals, the majority are temporary consents and the most recent was a result of an Appeal decision (Plot B Pond Farm). The DPD is at a very early stage of preparation (estimate adoption date - March 2016), and therefore the 5-year supply shortfall remains an issue at this point. Whilst the DPD will identify sites for the remainder of the plan period, given this early stage, it has little weight and it is not considered that the current proposal would be prejudicial to this work. iii) Impact on the character of the area
8.17 Criteria 4 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development not compromise nationally important features. Paragraph 23 of Policy H to the PPTS advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan, however where sites are within the rural area LPAs should ensure that sites respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.
8.18 The site is located outside any specific landscape designations. The site is located on a relatively flat plain south of the South Downs, and is well screened from public vantage points by existing vegetation along West Ashling Road. Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside could have the potential to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape. However, given the existing boundary vegetation, and relatively low level of the development proposed, it is considered that the site would not have an impact on the character of the wider landscape setting. The provision of post and wire fencing to the eastern and southern is typical of the rural location, and the close boarded fencing along the internal service road and northern boundary is not widely visible from the wider landscape due to the existing boundary planting and hedging along the main road. It is therefore considered that the intensification of the use of the site would not cause a detrimental impact on the wider landscape setting. iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties
8.19 Policy BE11 of the adopted Chichester District Local Plan requires that the relationship between existing and proposed development would be harmonious. Criteria 3 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development would provide for a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for occupiers and neighbours.
Planning Committee 86
8.20 The closest neighbouring residential properties would be the farm house located on the northern side of the West Ashling Road, opposite the site. The site has already been considered acceptable with regard to the impact on the amenities of surrounding residential properties following the approval of Mrs Green's son's site in appeal in 2011, and the intensification of the use of Mrs Green's site would be essentially set further into the site than the existing permitted use. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be sufficiently distanced, orientated and designed so as not to have an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, in particular to their outlook, privacy, available light or additional noise generated by the development, which is also residential in nature. v) Drainage
8.21 The site would remain largely laid to grass, providing each pitch with private amenity space for each unit, with the main access and parking areas laid to a porous gravelled surface. Whilst there would be an increase in hardsurfacing (concrete hardstandings for the mobile homes and utility buildings), surface water from these structures would be able to drain directly into the surrounding ground, ensuring no additional runoff to the surrounding land, which is also largely open, unmade agricultural/equestrian land. It is therefore considered that the site would not cause an increase in surface water runoff, and has resulted in no comments from the Environment Agency. vi) Highway implications and means of access
8.22 Criteria 2 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development would provide for a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for occupiers and neighbours safe and convenient vehicular access. The access has been assessed by WSCC Highways who consider it appropriate, subject to confirmation on visibility splays onto West Ashling Road.
8.23 Whilst this part of West Ashling Road is subject to national speed limits, it is relatively straight at the main point of access with the highway very extending approximately 3m, enabling good visibility east and west along the street, and therefore unlikely to cause a risk to highway safety.
Significant Conditions
8.24 The application is considered acceptable, subject to a number of controlling conditions, including the use of the site by gypsy and travellers only, together with conditions relating to the number and siting of the touring caravans, retention of boundary planting and details regarding surface and foul water disposal. Further, a condition restricting commercial activity on the site is also proposed.
Conclusion
8.25 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that although the proposal conflicts with adopted development plan policies, the unmet need for gypsy and travellers pitches in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal, it complies with draft policy advice and the advice in the NPPF and PPTS and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Planning Committee 87
Human Rights
8.26 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
Equalities
8.27 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant.
"In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:
(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:
(a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level.
However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law.
In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case".
Planning Committee 88 RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH S106
1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U86549 U86549 - Occupation Limition 3 U86566 U86566 - Provision of all 4 pitches 4 U86550 U86550 - 8 caravans only 5 U86551 U86551 - Materials/Finishes 6 U86552 U86552 - No commercial activity 7 U86553 U86553 - No burning any waste 8 U86554 U86554 - No departure from plans 9 L09F Oil Tanks to be Bunded/Landscape 10 U86555 U86555 - No walls/fencing without Approval 11 U86567 U86567 - No additional hardstanding 12 K01H Landscaping 13 K02G Landscaping 14 U86556 U86556 - Retention of Hedging 15 U86557 U86557 - Day Room Use 16 U86558 U86558 - Fencing and Gate Details 17 U86559 U86559 - No occupation until drainage complete 18 U86560 U86560 - Waste and Recycling Arrangements 19 U86561 U86561 - Storage of other waste 20 U86564 U86564 - Visibility Splays 21 U86565 U86565 - Car Parking spaces
INFORMATIVE
22 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment
For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734
Planning Committee 89
Parish: Ward: East Wittering And Bracklesham East Wittering
7. EWB/13/01977/FUL
Proposal 4 no. dwellings and associated works.
Site Martlets Peerley Road East Wittering Chichester PO20 8DW
Map Ref (E) 480066 (N) 96748
Applicant The F G Woodger Trust
RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
Planning Committee 90
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Red Card: Cllr Barrett - Important information/opinion to raise in debate. The timescale in determining this application is unacceptable. This is a small private development by the Woodger Trust and too much emphasis is being made on the sequential test. The proposal is for 4 affordable properties for local people.
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site lies on the southern side of Peerley Road, a residential street to the south east of East Wittering centre within the Settlement Policy Area (SPA). The site is currently occupied by a 2 storey detached dwellinghouse with garden land to the east and west. The dwelling is brick built with a plain tiled roof and single storey flat roof extensions to each side. Surrounding properties include a mix of bungalows, many of which are chalet style, and some 2 storey dwellings. The site is laid to grass and is currently bounded by wire fencing adjacent to the street with close boarded fencing and breeze block walls to the sides and rear. There is some planting around the edge of the site, but there are no notable trees within it.
The site is not subject to any landscape designations, however part of the site does fall within flood zones 2 and 3. The site is flat with no significant variation in levels to the surrounding properties.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The application seeks planning permission for 4 detached dwellings comprising; 1 no. 4 bed detached chalet bungalow (6.8m to ridge) 2 no. 3 bed semi-detached houses (7.5m and 8.2m to ridge) 1 no. 3 bed detached bungalow (5.8m to ridge)
3.2 The proposed dwellings would be developed by the Woodger Trust, a charitable trust. It is proposed that the dwellings would provide affordable rented accommodation for people with local connections to the Witterings.
4.0 History
09/03909/OUT REF Demolition of existing house and erection of 5 no. detached dwellings.
13/01977/FUL PDE 4 no. dwellings and associated works.
Planning Committee 91
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
Parish Council
No objection. Comments from the Environment Agency and Southern Water, including any recommendations, must be taken into account by CDC before a decision is reached, as this area is prone to flooding.
Environment Agency
17/07/13 Comments provided are based on the understanding that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is satisfied that the sequential test has adequately demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the NPPF. The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding.
No objection subject to condition requiring development to be carried out in accordance with mitigation measures set out in approved Flood Risk Assessment, including flood proofing measures and floor levels to be no less than 4.6m above AOD.
Information submitted with the application does not demonstrate that soakaways can be utilised, however this is a matter for Building Control.
Southern Water Services
2/09/13 Condition requested requiring details of the proposed SuDs, including long term maintenance of the SuDs.
18/07/13 No objection. Informative requested regarding connection to the public foul sewer. There is no surface water sewer in the area to serve the development, alternative means of draining surface water required. Surface water must not be drained to the public foul sewer.
WSCC - Strategic Planning
No objections. Recommend conditions to secure proposed parking provision, cycle parking provision and to ensure surface water does not drain onto the highway. Also request information regarding the need for a licence for carrying out works to the accesses.
Planning Committee 92
CDC-Planning Policy
There is a presumption in favour of development within the Settlement Policy Area. Site was identified in the SHLAA 2010 for 6 properties based on demolition of existing house. Principle is acceptable however the applicant has not submitted a sequential test.
CDC - Housing Enabling Manager
There is a greater need for 2 and 3 bed properties which are more affordable to local people. However the properties will be rented out to local people at reduced rent. No objection on this basis. Request a planning condition or legal agreement to ensure such lettings.
CDC - Drainage Engineer
Parts of the proposal fall within flood zone 2 and 3. Development should therefore be subject to a sequential test in accordance with the NPPF. The proposal will also displace flood waters which could result in increased risk of flooding elsewhere.
The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) correctly identifies the land levels will be susceptible to future tidal flood risk, the raising of floor levels above the 2115 1 in 200 year event would be an acceptable mitigation for this.
Main sewer surface water disposal as proposed is unacceptable. Development must demonstrate that soakaways, then discharge to watercourse are not possible. Condition requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme prior to commencement of development requested in the event planning permission is granted.
CDC - Environment Officer
27/09/13 Following the submission of a revised reptile survey "Revised report on reptiles and other protected species" undertaken in Sept 2013 recommend a condition is imposed to ensure mitigation takes place. Vegetation clearance should take place outside of nesting season.
05/09/13 A reptile survey has been submitted however this does not address other protected species that may be affected by development on the site. A phase 1 habitat survey is required.
25/07/13 Phase 1 habitat survey required. Proposed sustainable construction and on-site renewable energy proposals are acceptable and should be the subject of a condition.
2 Third Party Objections - Dwelling on plot 1 is beyond the building line in Charlmead - Plots 3 and 4 dwellings are too high - Concern about capacity of foul sewer - Houses don't respect adjoining bungalows - Overlooking - Houses will be intrusive and unneighbourly - Need is for bungalows
Planning Committee 93
Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information
The Agent has submitted an updated sequential test received 3rd July 2014. The merits of this additional supporting information are discussed below.
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features BE16 Energy Conservation TR6 Highway Safety H8 Social and Low Cost Housing in Settlement Policy Areas
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013
Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Carbon Reduction Policy Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas
Planning Committee 94 National Policy and Guidance
7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), Policy 4 (Promoting sustainable transport), Policy 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), Policy 7 (Requiring good design), Policy 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change) and Policy 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).
7.6 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application.
Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.7 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:
Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours
7.8 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D1: Increasing housing supply
Planning Committee 95 D2: Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3: Housing fit for purpose D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E1: Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of development ii) Flood Risk iii) Design and impact on visual amenity iv) Residential amenity v) Highway safety vi) Sustainability vii) Biodiversity viii) Other matters
Assessment i) Principle of development
8.2 The NPPF requires new development to be approved without delay where it is in accordance with the development plan. The application site lies within the East Wittering Settlement Policy Area (SPA) as defined by policy B1 of the Local Plan (LP) where new development will be permitted provided it is otherwise in accordance with the Local Plan. East Wittering benefits from a range of services and facilities and is designated as a settlement hub in Policy 2 of the draft submission Local Plan. Settlement hubs are centres to provide a range of homes, workplaces, social and community facilities, and there is a presumption in favour for development within the settlement boundaries.
8.3 East Wittering is a sustainable location and therefore the proposed development of 4 dwellings would constitute a sustainable form of development in respect of its location. The application is assessed against other development management criteria below. ii) Flood Risk
8.4 The western part of the application site lies within flood zones 2 and 3. Section 10 of the NPPF requires development to be directed to areas at the lowest risk of flooding, and new development should not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that development in areas at risk of flooding should only be considered appropriate where a site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA), which should follow a sequential test, and exception test if necessary, demonstrates that the most vulnerable development is in the areas at lowest risk of flooding and that appropriate flood resilience measures are provided. The proposal should include safe access, and any residual flood risk should be safely managed, including by emergency planning, and the proposal should give priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDs).
8.5 Detailed flood risk requirements are set out in Policy 42 of the emerging Local Plan . In summary, permission for development within areas at risk of flooding will be granted where; - the proposal meets the sequential and exception test as set out in the NPPF - a site specific flood risk assessment (FRA) demonstrates that development will be safe and will not increase risk of flooding elsewhere,
Planning Committee 96 - the proposal incorporates specific requirements of the site, protection and resilience and resistance measures appropriate to the area, - also requires new developments to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) where possible and lead to a reduction in flood risk, - development would not exacerbate coastal squeeze of any European sites preventing managed realignment that may be required, - the scheme identifies adaptation and mitigation measures, - appropriate flood warning and evacuation plans are in place, and - new site drainage systems are designed taking into account events which exceed the normal design standard.
8.6 The supporting information submitted with the application includes a site specific FRA which explains that the majority of the site is at, or below, the 4.5m AOD level for the 1 in 200 year flood event for the year 2115. The FRA demonstrates that resilience and mitigation measures would be incorporated into the scheme to address the flood risk affecting the site. These measures would include; raising the floor levels so that they would be 4.6m AOD, which would be above the 2115 1 in 200 year flood event; constructing the dwellings in accordance with 'Improving the flood performance of new dwellings' (CLG 2007); and registration for the Environment Agency's (EA) Floodline Warnings Direct service.
8.7 The proposed mitigation measures have been accepted as appropriate by the EA and the Council's drainage engineer, however government guidance requires that where possible development should be steered to areas of lowest risk, notwithstanding any mitigation that may be proposed. This is to ensure that development is well planned for, even in the event of a failure in the mitigation proposed within the flood risk assessment. A sequential test should form the basis of an assessment of alternative sites on which the development may be accommodated and sensitive development within flood zones 2 & 3 should not normally be permitted where such other alternative sites are suitable and available.
8.8 A sequential test has been submitted, the most recent having been received on the 3rd July 2014. The study area of the sequential test has been restricted to the Witterings. The justification for the study area is that the applicant provides local and it is suggested affordable housing for the community of the Witterings, and therefore new housing could not be provided by the applicant outside of the study area that would meet an identified local need. The National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) states that LPA's should take into account local circumstances where relevant when establishing the study area for the sequential test and therefore in principle this approach is accepted. However, at this time, there is no completed section 106 agreement that would restrict the occupation of the proposed dwellings to either people in housing need or to people from the Witterings. Therefore at this time the proposed development must be considered as open market housing that would meet the housing need of the District as a whole and therefore the proposed reduction in the site search area cannot be justified and as such is not accepted by the LPA.
8.9 The sequential test submitted identifies a number of sites within the site search area which have obtained planning permission for residential development. However, the sequential test does not demonstrate why the sites are unavailable. The sequential test is not considered to be a robust assessment of the alternative sites available to accommodate the development in areas with a lower risk of flooding, and as such the test does not accord with paragraph 103 of the NPPF, or the requirements of the policy 42 in the emerging LP.
Planning Committee 97
8.10 Planning permission should not be granted for development of the site until a revised sequential test is submitted detailing fully the availability of sites for development and satisfactorily demonstrates that there are not alternative sites that could meet the identified need and would be at lower risk of flooding. The sequential test should be accompanied by an undertaking to enter into a section 106 agreement to limit the occupation of the proposed dwellings to existing residents of the Witterings area should a reduced area of search be relied upon.
8.11 Notwithstanding the above objection to the proposed development as a result of flood risk, the proposal should be assessed as to its acceptability in all other respects. iii) Design and impact upon visual amenity
8.12 Policy 7 of the NPPF requires good design that improves the overall quality of the area and policy. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that "good design is indivisible from good planning". Policy BE11 of the LP states that new development should not detract from the surroundings, taking into account its effect on the environment, its design, scale, materials, siting and layout among other factors. Policy 33 of emerging LP also requires new development to meet the highest standards of design.
8.13 The proposed development would be of a scale that is appropriate within the street scene, with the height of the houses being lower than the existing house on the site to respect the scale of development to each side of the site. The development would also reflect the mix of house types within the vicinity and would incorporate features such as the half-hipped roofs, dormer windows and casement windows which are found on many of the surrounding dwellings. The proposed design and appearance of the development is therefore acceptable and would accord with national and local planning policy. iv) Impact upon residential amenity
8.14 The NPPF states in paragraph 17 that planning should ensure a goodquality of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, and policy BE11 of the LP and policy 33 of the emerging LP include requirements to protect the amenities of neighbours. Due to the siting, scale and massing of the proposed dwellings they would not have an adverse impact upon neighbours as a result of loss of light, neither would they be overbearing. Furthermore, the proposed dwellings would not result in unreasonable overlooking due to the position of the fenestration and also the height of the fence between plot 4 and the existing dwelling to the east. The proposal therefore accords with policy and is acceptable in respect of its impact upon residential amenity. v) Impact upon highways
8.15 The Highways Authority has advised that the proposed access and parking arrangements are sufficient for the development with adequate turning space on site and visibility to ensure that the development would have an adverse impact upon highway safety. The proposed development is therefore acceptable in respect of its impact upon the highway.
Planning Committee 98 vi) Sustainability
8.16 Policy 10 of the NPPF and policy BE16 of the LP require new development to incorporate energy efficiency measures to minimise energy consumption and the impact upon climate change. The application is accompanied by an energy statement which outlines the proposed sustainable construction measures to be incorporated; rainwater harvesting, energy efficient glazing, low energy lighting and the contractor will enter into a site waste management plan to minimise waste during construction. The proposed development therefore accords with national and local policy in respect of sustainable construction and energy efficiency measures. vii) Biodiversity
8.17 Policy 11 of the NPPF requires new development to minimise its impact upon biodiversity and policy BE14 of the LP states that new development will not be granted permission if they impact upon protected species. A phase 1 habitat survey and updated survey has been submitted with the application. These reports demonstrate that the proposal would not result in harm to biodiversity or any protected species. The report includes recommendations for mitigation measures and these should be conditioned in the event planning permission is granted. viii) Other matters
8.19 Should the application be approved a section 106 legal agreement should be entered into in order to secure the occupation of the dwellings by people from the Witterings.
Conclusion
8.20 Based on the above it is considered that whilst the principle of the development in this location and the design of the proposal are acceptable, the sequential test submitted fails to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites in areas at lower risk of flooding to accommodate the development. Therefore the proposal is contrary to paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 42 of the emerging Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029, and the application is recommended for refusal.
Human Rights
8.21 In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded that the decision to refuse permission is justified and proportional to the harm that would be caused if planning permission were to be granted.
RECOMMENDATION REFUSE
1 U86678 U86678 –Flood Risk.
For further information on this application please contact Fjola Stevens on 01243 534734
Planning Committee 99
Parish: Ward: East Wittering And Bracklesham East Wittering
8. EWB/14/01687/FUL
Proposal Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 no. three bed chalet style dwellings and new vehicular access.
Site Newlands Farm Road Bracklesham Bay Chichester PO20 8JT
Map Ref (E) 480930 (N) 96303
Applicant Ms MJ Bath
RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH S106
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit
Planning Committee 100 2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site is located to the north of Farm Road, within the Settlement Policy Area of East Wittering. It lies in an area predominantly residential in character with properties of varied styles and form on both sides of the road. The predominant character is that of chalet style properties, with pitched roofs and accommodation within the roof space, although the immediately adjoining properties are single storey and low level in nature.
2.2 The property occupies a comparitively wide plot and is a modest bungalow with a steeply pitched roof, which slopes away from the road to a ridge height of 6.1 with accommodation within the roof space. A flat roof double garage is located on the eastern side of the property and there is additional off road parking provided to the front of the property. Materials use within the dwelling include fibre cement tiles and pebble dash render. The rear garden is laid to lawn, measuring 27m in length and 18.2m wide, tapering in towards the rear extension, accommodating the shape of the neighbouring property Milldale to the east. The boundary treatment comprises of close boarded fencing and a low level wall with hedgerow to the front boundary and southern part of the west boundary.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The application involves the demolition and replacement of the existing property with 2 no. detached, 3 bedroom, chalet style properties with associated off road parking. Plot 1 (west) and plot 2 would have similar half hipped gable ends facing the road. The ridge height of the proposed properties would be 7.1m, with subservient additions to the rear (reaching a maximum ridge height of 6.1m). Plot 2 would follow the footprint to the north east corner of the existing property, with a flat roof garage addition to be situated within similar position as existing. The front build line of both properties would be similar to that of the existing dwelling, in line with neighbouring property; Milldale. Cat slide dormers are proposed to both properties facilitating head room for a stairwell, the windows to these would be obscure glazed. Both properties seek high level windows to the side facing roofslopes, providing light into bathrooms and bedrooms.
3.2 The existing access to the site would be retained for plot 2, with an additional access created in the existing front boundary treatment for plot 1. Plot 2 would have a single garage and provision for 2 cars in tandem parking and plot 1 would have 2 tandem off road parking spaces. To the rear of the gardens timber sheds are proposed to facilitate cycle parking, with access around the sides of the properties.
3.3 Amenity space to the rear of plot 1 would 11.4m wide and 23.2m long, with that for Plot 2 measuring 7.2m wide and 26.4m long. The existing boundary treatments to the site are proposed to be retained and the majority of the existing front boundary treatment and western boundary planting would also be retained.
4.0 History
14/01687/FUL PDE Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 no. three bed chalet style dwellings and new vehicular access.
Planning Committee 101
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
6.1 Parish Council
The Parish Council objects to the height of these dwellings and requests that they should be no higher than adjacent properties.
6.2 2 Third Party Objections
New line of the building is nearer to the road and therefore out of character Increase in height will overpower the existing roof heights Concern regarding noise during construction phase
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty RE7 Nature Conservation (Designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety H4 Size and Density of Dwellings
Planning Committee 102 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (pre submission) Draft 2013
Policy 1 Sustainable development Policy 4 Housing Provision Policy 24 East Wittering and Bracklesham Strategic Development Policy 33 New Residential Development Policy 39 Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 50 Recreational Disturbance
National Policy and Guidance
7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles)
7.6 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application.
Planning Committee 103 Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.7 The following Interim Statement is material to the determination of this planning application:
Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours
7.8 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
B1 - Managing a changing environment
B2- Greener Living
D1- Increasing housing supply
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Impact on neighbouring residential amenities. ii) Impact on the character and appearance of the area.
Assessment
8.2 The application has been submitted following the provision of pre-application advice, of which amendments were made to the initial proposals to meet the concerns raised regarding the design of the properties and their impact on the character of the area.
8.3 The site is situated within the settlement policy area where there is presumption in favour of development, unless adverse impacts of a scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. i) Impact on neighbouring residential amenities
8.4 The properties have been carefully designed having regard for the potential impact on neighbouring residential amenities. Plot 1 is designed with an eaves height of 2.55m, with the pitched roof sloping away from the boundaries to a ridge height of 7.1m and a subservient rear projection with ridge height of 6.1m. A degree of separation would be retained between the neighbouring boundary to Cobbetts, of 2m and 4m, with Cobbetts garage on the boundary providing a further sense of separation. Additionally it is proposed to retain the existing boundary hedging which will further soften any impact.
8.5 It is proposed to insert 3 no. rooflights into the west facing roof slopes of the dwelling on Plot 1. Following concerns regarding overlooking of the on neighbouring property the cill height of the windows have been amended to be set 1.7m from finished floor level, mitigating these concerns.
8.6 With regard to plot 2 the eaves height would also be kept low at 2.55m, with the form of the roof designed to slope away from the property around the tapered boundary edge. The proposed flat roof garage would provide a physical sense of separation between the
Planning Committee 104 boundaries. It is proposed to insert 2no. rooflights to the east facing roofslope, providing light into the master bedroom and family bathroom. These would include a cill level of 1.5m and due to their position overlooking the front of the neighbouring property Milldale, away from private amenity space, any detrimental overlooking impact is likely to be minimal. ii) Impact on character and appearance on area
8.7 The proposed development, which represents a net increase of 1 dwelling, would alter the appearance of the street scene, however, the development would remain in context with the surrounding character of the area. The existing plot is of a generous width when compared to other properties in the area and would satisfactorily accommodate two suitably designed dwellings. The proposals would be in keeping with the general full width plot form of the residential area and do not therefore result in an uncharacteristic or cramped form of development.
8.8 The street comprises a range of height and built forms of properties, but predominantly comprising of chalet bungalows. The proposals would be higher than the immediate neighbouring properties (5m), but only marginally higher than the existing property and with a different roof form, minimising the impact of the dwellings on the street scene. Neighbouring properties opposite are of a similar form and continuing eastwards along the road, there are a further mix of residential properties, including a 2-storey house neighbouring Milldale. It is considered therefore that the height of the proposed dwellings would sit comfortably within the range of dwelling heights evident in the area.
8.9 The proposed properties would be constructed of similar materials to that found in the wider locality; Plot 1 in red/brown multi stock bricks with gable ends clad in horizontal cement fibre boarding and a concrete tiled roof. Plot 2 would be rendered at ground floor and the first floor clad in horizontal cement fibre boarding, with concrete interlocking roof tiles. These materials are used widely within the Bracklesham Bay and Wittering areas and subsequently would be in keeping with the surrounding mix of properties.
Significant Conditions
8.10 The following conditions are considered reasonable, necessary and appropriate in order to make this proposal acceptable;
-Schedule and sample of materials. -Removal of PD rights relating to altering and extending property and inserting new windows. -Securing the cill height of west facing rooflights. -Car parking as approved plans and before use commences. -Construction hours and method statement required for approval -Boundary fencing and retention of trees and hedges.
Conclusion
8.11 Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal complies with to development plan policies BE1, BE11, BE12, BE13 and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Planning Committee 105
Human Rights
8.12 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH S106
1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 F01F Materials/Finishes 4 H01F No Extensions without Approval 5 U86457 U86457 - new windows 6 U86530 U86530 - Obscure Dormers and rooflight 7 U86529 U86529 - windows west 8 J17G Construction Method Statement 9 N33F Construction Hours 10 U86531 U86531 - bin and cycle 11 U86532 U86532 - Retained tree and hedging 12 U86533 U86533 - fencing 13 U86534 U86534 - car parking
INFORMATIVES
14 W01F Disclaimer - Other Consents 15 W25G Need for Highway Authority Consent 16 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions
For further information on this application please contact Caitlin Boddy on 01243 534734.
Planning Committee 106
Parish: Ward: Chichester Chichester West
9. CC/14/01359/ADV
Proposal 1no. internally illuminated fascia sign.
Site Tesco Stores Ltd Fishbourne Road East Chichester West Sussex PO19 3JT
Map Ref (E) 484542 (N) 104584
Applicant Mr Tom Green
RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
Planning Committee 107 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site is an out of town supermarket, adjacent to but well screened from the A27 and Cathedral Way. The building is single storey and currently benefits from internally illuminated signage above the main entrance, to the tower to the southwest and to the 'clock tower' to the east elevation. The store has been recently altered with a click and collect drive through (ref: 12/03779/ADV), with illuminated and non-illuminated signage permitted to the southern end of the east elevation
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The proposal seeks consent for an internally illuminated box sign to the east elevation of the store. The sign is proposed in connection with the new coffee shop located within the store and has been erected prior to consent being granted. The sign box is black powder coated aluminium and measures 4.5m wide by 1m high and 100mm thick. The sign features white and yellow lettering reading 'Harris + Hoole, Better Coffee' and the lettering is illuminated by LEDs. The sign is situated centrally to the mini gable detail to the overhanging canopy to the east elevation of the store, south of the entrance.
4.0 History
93/00004/ADV PER Free standing, wall mounted and soffit mounted signs.
93/00702/ADV REF 2 no box signs.
93/01012/ADV PER Free standing wall-mounted sign.
98/02945/ADV REF 1 no. static freestanding single sided sign. 1 no. static freestanding sign. 2 no. flagpoles. 2 no. rotating signs. 1 no. static wall mounted sign. 1 no. rotating wall mounted sign.
92/00270/CC PER Food superstore (65,000 sq ft) coffee shop, petrol filling station, access road, car parking and servicing.
92A/00272/CC PER 1 no support sign.
90/00574/CC REF Food superstore (65,000 sq ft) coffee shop, petrol filling station,access roads car parking & servicing.
Planning Committee 108
92A/00596/CC APP Two sets TESCO lettering internally illuminated.
92A/00712/CC PDE 2 sets of non illuminated lettering.
03/02797/ADV PER 3 no. freestanding panels and 1 no. wallmounted panel.
03/03404/ADV REF Various signs.
04/01945/ADV PER Various signage.
04/02740/ADV PER Directional and promotional signage.
04/02745/ADV WDN Roof and gantry signage.
04/03282/ADV PER Various signage.
04/03754/ADV REF 1 no. gantry, double sided and internally illuminated sign and fret cut 'Tesco Extra' applied to wall.
04/04364/ADV REF 2 no. internally illuminated signs (TE1 and TE3).
04/04392/FUL PER Revision of flood and spot lighting scheme on site (new scheme).
05/01309/ADV REF Retention of 1 no. sign attached to backboard.
06/03234/ADV PER 1 no. freestanding panel sign.
06/05449/ADV PER 1 no. static display panel.
07/00822/ADV PER 1 no. metal sign, yellow with black text.
07/02140/ADV APPRET 4 no. fascia signs, 5 no. freestanding signs and 2 no. building mounted directional signs.
07/05735/FUL PER Application for new and existing replacement lighting within existing tesco store car park.
07/05889/ADV PER Replacement of 12 no. existing signs and erection of 8 no. new signs.
Planning Committee 109
08/02637/ADV WDN Application for 1 no. wall mounted store branding sign.
12/03779/ADV PER 6 no. fascia signs, 1 no. hanging sign and 5 no. directional signs associated with Click and Collect facility.
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
Parish Council
Objection on the grounds that the introduction of an internally illuminated box sign would be out of character with the building but no objection to a non-illuminated sign.
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
BE9 Advertisements BE11 New Development
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it
Planning Committee 110 progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles).
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issue arising from this proposal is:
1. Visual impact of the sign on the premises and the wider impact on the character of the area. Assessment
8.2 The City Council have raised objection to this sign being illuminated but consider it acceptable in non-illuminated form. The sign is set within the context of the well-lit commercial aspects at the front of the store. It is positioned well back from the approach road and seen against the backdrop of the car park, with its tall lighting columns. There would only be very limited views of the sign in winter months and only if the landscaping were to be significantly cut back. Presently the landscaping obscures views into the site. A significant number of the existing signage to the store is internally illuminated and is not considered to be intrusive or to cause harm in this setting. The addition of this sign does not significantly alter the character of the building and it does not have a dominant or incongruous impact on the store or within the surrounding area. As such it is considered that the development does not result in harm to the character of the building or the wider area as a whole.
Significant Conditions
None
Conclusion
Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE9 and BE11and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Human Rights
In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
Planning Committee 111
RECOMMENDATION PERMIT
1 U86657 U86657 - No Departure from Plans
INFORMATIVE
2 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment
For further information on this application please contact Natalie McKellar on 01243 534734
Planning Committee 112
Parish: Ward: Chichester Chichester North
10. CC/14/01835/DOM
Proposal Replacement guttering as existing. Replacement larger rooflight. 1 no. additional rooflight. Replace timber dormer cladding/bargeboards with upvc to match existing. Enclose dormer rafter feet.
Site 107 Woodlands Lane Chichester West Sussex PO19 5PF
Map Ref (E) 485675 (N) 105708
Applicant Ms Pamela Pritchard
RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
Planning Committee 113
1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Applicant is a Member/Officer of Council, or spouse/partner
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site is located to the north of Chichester within the Settlement Policy Area. It lies in a residential estate of properties of the same distinctive character and style; a mixture of terrace town houses and flats with exposed rafters and tanned/yellow brick. To the east of the estate are allotments and to the north further residential development and a local primary school.
2.2 The property is a mid-terrace town house, with integral garage and timber clad pitched roof dormer window. It is constructed in a brown/yellow facing brick, with red brick detailing and brown UPVC windows and door. To the rear the property are two rooflights, set within the tiled roofslope. The boundary treatment to the west feature mature trees and hedgerow.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The application seeks a number of minor alterations to the façade of the property, which would normally be permitted development however the property is subject to controlling conditions attached to original permission for the estate. It seeks the following; o To replace the existing 700 x 500mm rooflight within the rear roof slope with a larger rooflight (1178mm x 500mm) and to insert a further 1178mm x 500mm rooflight of the same measurements next to this o To replace timber dormer cladding/barge boards with UPVC 'Rosewood' colour cladding o To enclose the rafter feet of the dormer with UPVC barge boards. o Replace front and rear main house timber barge boards with UPVC 'Rosewood' colour. o Renew the guttering
4.0 History
10/03599/PD REC Planning advice: double glazing/juliet balcony
10/04004/DOM PER Renewal of all windows from wood to uPVC, replace half glazed back door with fully glazed back door. Addition of uPVC french doors and Juliet balcony handrail.
11/02220/FUL PER Replacement windows.
14/01835/DOM PDE Replacement guttering as existing. Replacement larger
Planning Committee 114 rooflight. 1 no. additional rooflight. Replace timber dormer cladding/bargeboards with upvc to match existing. Enclose dormer rafter feet.
14/01910/DOM WDN Box in exposed rafter feet around eaves of dwelling.
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO
SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
Parish Council
Objection to the enclosure of the exposed eaves rafters on the rear elevation which are an important and attractive characteristic of this property and would establish an undesirable precedent for the rest of the development
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:
Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions
Planning Committee 115
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
Chichester Local Plan (pre submission) Draft 2013
Policy 1 Sustainable development Policy 33 New Residential Development
National Policy and Guidance
7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles)
Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:
Chichester District Council Planning Guidance Note 3: Design Guidelines for Alterations to Dwellings and Extensions (Revised September 2009)
7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
B1 - Managing a changing environment
B2 - Greener living
D3 - Housing fit for purpose
8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Impact on the character and appearance of the area ii) Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
Planning Committee 116 Assessment i) Impact on the character and appearance of the area
8.2 The application initially sought to clad the rafter feet around the eaves of the rear of the property and a separate application sought to do the same to the front of the property. However concerns were raised about the impact on the defining features of the character and appearance of the estate. Subsequently, the application for the works to the front of the building was withdrawn and this element was removed from the current application. This also overcomes the concerns raised by the Parish Council, outlined in section 6.
8.3 The application also seeks to box in the rafter feet of the dormer window and the applicant cites on-going maintenance as the reason for this. Elsewhere on the estate there are other examples of where the exposed rafter feet of the dormers have been boxed in; one of the most prominent properties to have this done is no. 117, however it should be noted there does not appear to have been a planning permission for these works.
8.4 The sides of the dormer are not prominent from the wider area, being partially screened by the end of terrace projections. The entire dormer, inclusive of the rafter feet would be clad in UPVC in a 'Rosewood' colour, which is in keeping with the rest of the estate and reduces its visual impact further. Therefore it is not considered the covering of the dormer rafter feet would have a significant impact on the prevailing characteristics of the estate.
8.5 In addition to the works described above, for maintenance reasons, it is proposed to replace the timber bargeboards with UPVC in 'Rosewood' colour, similar to that of the dormer. The colour is in keeping with the existing timber used within the estate and whilst timber is a preferable material, it is not considered the use of UPVC in 'Rosewood' would result in a significant detrimental appearance to the visual amenities of the estate.
8.6 It is also proposed to renew the guttering on the property, this would be a like-for-like replacement and is considered to be acceptable and in keeping with the estate. ii) Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
8.7 Within the rear roofslope it is proposed to enlarge an existing bedroom roof light and to install a further roof light. Both would be larger than the existing rooflight and subsequently create a feeling of additional space within the bedroom. There exists a 36m separation between the rear of the dwelling and that of the neighbouring property, which would result in an acceptable relationship between the two properties, in line with CDC Design Guidance. There would be no change in the level of overlooking than presently exists from the existing bedroom windows. The additional rooflight would not considered result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring amenity.
Significant Conditions
8.8 A condition limiting the use of materials to those specified on the application form is considered reasonable, necessary and appropriate in order to make this proposal acceptable.
Planning Committee 117
Conclusion
8.9 Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE11, BE12 and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Human Rights
8.10 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
RECOMMENDATION PERMIT
1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 U86540 U86540 – materials
INFORMATIVE
4 W01F Disclaimer - Other Consents
For further information on this application please contact Caitlin Boddy on 01243 534734.
Planning Committee 118
Agenda Item 11 Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 23 July 2014 By Assistant Director of Development Management Local Authority Chichester District Council
Application No: SDNP/13/04033/FUL Validation Date 27 September 2013 Target Date: 22 November 2013 Applicant: Minsted Properties Llp Proposal: Substitute proposals (for extant approvals SJ/05/03673/FUL and SJ/10/02688/FUL) For 4no. dwellings including a live work unit in lieu of holiday cottages, a dwelling in lieu of B1 office floorspace and demolition of existing modern farm buildings and associated landscaping. Site Address Minsted Farm, Minsted Lane, Minsted, Stedham, Midhurst, West Sussex, GU29 0JN Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision
Recommendation: That the application be Refused subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.
Executive Summary
The application proposal is for the change of use of the building group into four dwellings (one incorporating a live/work element), including the retention of a section of a modern, utilitarian dairy building. The applicant has sought to demonstrate that the extant planning permission permitting the change of use of the traditional farm buildings to a dwelling, two holiday lets and a live/work unit is no longer commercially viable and that the retention of part of the 20th century dairy building is justified under the conversions policy. It is considered that the marketing assessment does not justify the loss of this economic asset to the local rural economy and even if this issue is considered to be more finely balanced, part of the proposal involves what is considered to be tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling in the National Park, contrary to Development Plan policy and national planning policy.
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site comprises a group of traditional and more modern farm buildings located on the east side of Minsted Lane. The traditional range of buildings are an attractive feature within the street scene, although showing signs of deterioration though non-use. The main range comprises of former threshing barn with single storey ranges to its north and south are constructed of a mixture of coursed sandstone and ironstone. The single storey ranges retain the original roof coverings of clay tiles and natural slate, although the main barn roof has been replaced by corrugated steel sheeting. To the south is a 1.5 storey building separated by an access gate, again
Planning Committee 119 constructed of coursed sandstone under a clay tile roof. To the north of this traditional range is former dairy building, a substantial 20th century single storey structure constructed of Midhurst Whites brickwork under a corrugated asbestos sheeting roof of no architectural merit.
1.2 Further north still (but not part of this application) is a Dutch barn, which remains in agricultural use. To the east of the application site is the modern replacement dairy unit and to the south west on the opposite side of Minsted Lane is a further group of (now) converted farm buildings that originally formed part of farm building group. Minsted Farm house, a grade II listed building is located to the south of the application site.
1.3 The surrounding landscape is predominantly rural in character and comprises blocks of woodland and heathland, interspersed with farmland mainly used for pasture. The site lies within landscape character type L2 (Rother Farmland and Heath Mosaic) of the South Downs Integrated Character Assessment (Updated 2011).
2. Relevant Planning History
SJ/05/02037/FUL - Construction of new dairy unit and yard. PERMIT 17.02.2006
SJ/05/03673/FUL - Change of use of farm buildings to provide 3 no. dwellings, 1 no. live/work unit, 2 no. holiday cottages, 3 no. B1 business units and alterations to existing cottage. PERMIT 21.02.2006
SJ/09/00327/FUL - Change of use and partial rebuild (roof) of existing barn to residential. Amendment to planning consent SJ/05/03673/FUL. PERMIT 02.04.2009
SJ/09/00895/FUL - Variation of condition 16 (phasing of development) of permission SJ/05/03673/FUL. PERMIT 06.08.2009
SJ/10/02688/FUL - Demolition of unused dairy unit and change of use of cleared site to form part garden/part landscaped area; amended access and new full height glazed screen and entrance live/work unit; construction of new open-fronted double garage. PERMIT 18.08.2010
3. Proposal
3.1 The application is to substitute the previous planning permission for the change of use of the traditional range of farm buildings to two holiday lets, a dwelling and a live/work unit for the change of use to four dwellings (including one live/work unit). Three of the dwellings would be formed from the range of traditional farm buildings and the fourth, at the northern end of the site, is to be constructed by incorporating elements of the former dairy unit building.
4. Consultations
Parish Council Consultee:
4.1 Stedham and Iping Parish Council has no objections to this application.
Planning Committee 120 4.2 When the applications came up for the conversion of these farm buildings in 2005, we recommended that the holiday lets were impractical, the B1 use was inappropriate and the old Midhurst Whites buildings should be demolished. We therefore thoroughly approve the nature of the application.
4.3 Minsted residents have indicated their support for these proposals, whcih will make a better environment and enhance the community.
Design And Implementation Manager - CDC:
4.4 Whilst the detailed analysis of the buildings and how they have been adapted and changed over time in the Historic Building Assessment is of value, it fails to describe the intrinsic character of the farmstead arranged in the form of a series of loose courtyards. It is the ability to understand this character that can help inform how modifications and new development can be sensitively accommodated within the building grouping.
4.5 Concerned that there seems to be a tendency to romanticise and over domesticate agricultural complexes like this rather than acknowledging their character derived from the reality of farming practice and the associated paraphernalia that such activities generate.
4.6 The marketing evidence presented would seem to suggest that the approved scheme is not viable due to the mix of uses. The emphasis seems to have been on the holiday lets rather than possible other non-residential uses. I would therefore question whether other employment uses could be considered such as business start ups, specialist crafts etc based on available economic evidence.
4.7 Whilst the individual buildings are not listed the farm grouping as a whole should be considered a heritage asset group. As stated above the intrinsic character of the farmstead is derived from the arrangement of buildings around a series of loose courtyards.
4.8 In principle the removal of the later extensions to the north of the Dairy Barn is acceptable as it provides an opportunity to better reveal the form layout of the original farmstead and restoration of the historic buildings is supported.
4.9 It is not clear if the proposed live/work unit "North Barn" is refurbishment of a retained section of the modern north extension or a new building occupying part of the footprint. If the existing extension is mainly being demolished I would have thought this could provide an opportunity to introduce a more tradition building form, instead of the shallow pitched deep plan form of the proposed unit.
4.10 Minor design amendments required for both South Barn and Dairy Barn to ensure buildings are more appropriate to their agricultural heritage.
Economic Development Officer - CDC:
4.11 The Economic Development Service recognises that the proposed holiday lets and office space is well placed within the South Downs National Park and strategically placed, just over half a mile from the A272 running from East to West, Petersfield to Billingshurst. Good quality holiday lets and office units are both sought after in this area.
Planning Committee 121
4.12 According to a South Downs Visitor & Tourism Economic Impact Study published in February 2013, bed occupancy rates for this type of visitor accommodation within the area ranges from 45% - 65%. The national average according to a Visit England survey is 50%, which shows the South Downs National Park area is a strong and viable base for holiday lets.
4.13 With regard to the proposed change of B1 space to a C3 dwelling, the May 2012 South Downs National Park Employment Land Review stated "there is demand for business space in the north sub-area, as evidenced by the take up of converted farm buildings and the relatively few vacant units on the industrial estates." Therefore, the loss of space for both business use and tourism is not supported.
Response to the Marketing Assessment
4.14 The Economic Development Service recognises the level of work gone into the marketing assessment for the holiday lets and is regretful that it would appear as though the tourism accommodation would not make a viable financial business. It is disheartening to see the loss of site with so much economic potential. For this reason, we would like to see further business use at this site, while we realise that there are a few residential properties around the site, appropriately designated business use could fit in well to this environment. This ties in with our original comment that the May 2012 South Downs National Park Employment Land Review stated "there is demand for business space in the north sub-area, as evidenced by the take up of converted farm buildings and the relatively few vacant units on the industrial estates. (22.01.2014)
Environmental Strategy Unit - CDC: Bats
4.15 Following the bat surveys and the presence of bats roosting within the site we require that a mitigation strategy is put together and submitted with the application prior to determination. The reason for this is to allow the mitigation strategy to be conditioned for the site as a whole. The applicant should also be aware that they will need to provide temporary roosting for bats prior to works commencing on site, and new roosting opportunities will need to be provided within the loft of the new building. The applicant should also be aware than a Natural England Protected Species licence.
4.16 The lighting scheme for the site will need to take into consideration the presence of bats in the local area and the scheme should minimise potential impacts to any bats using the trees and hedgerows by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of directional light sources and shielding
Breeding birds
4.17 Prior to any demolition works taking place on the barns, they will need to be checked for nesting birds by a suitably qualified ecologist. If nesting birds are within the barns work will not be able to commence until they birds have fledged.
4.18 Due to the level of protection nesting birds hold, any vegetation clearance (including tree felling) should take place outside of the nesting season (February - September).
Planning Committee 122 4.19 We also require that provision is made for nesting barn swallows is incorporated into the redevelopment.
Nat Belderson - CDC:
No response received.
Estates - CDC:
4.20 I have had a look at the two attachments but in isolation they don't provide a complete picture. The marketing report does not indicate the price sought or attach a copy of any advertisements or sales particulars. The applicant may have had difficulty finding someone to take the properties but I cannot judge from the information provided whether the price sought was realistic and reflected the planning position.
4.21 Related to that they indicate that an unacceptably conditional offer was received but do not say why it was 'unacceptably' conditional. Similarly it appears that there was competing interest to purchase the property in February 2013 but that terms could not be agreed regarding (what appears to be) who should hold the benefit of any additional future potential - possibly arising through relaxation of the planning permissions. This would interrelate with the price offered.
4.22 The second paper looks at the viability of the self catering units but it does this in isolation from the rest of the development. Is that the right approach? You indicate that most of the residential conversion has been carried out and sold off. That means that the applicant has hived off the most attractive and profitable part of the development and no doubt achieved a value that reflects the worth of that without the encumbrance of the rest of the development. Is that an acceptable approach? It is possible that someone would have taken on the entire scheme as permitted but perhaps at a lower price than the applicants have been seeking.
Further comments:
4.23 Have considered the content of the Agents two letters as requested. As previously stated part of the consideration relates to whether the original expectation was that the holiday lets would be part of the overall package. The residential units already created are high value and the disposal value of the buildings/sites for these would contribute to the cost of associated development if it does entirely viable in its own right.
5. Representations
5.1 1 Third Party support
5.2 Design is appropriate in scale for Minsted, in the context of the National Park location. No actual loss of tourist opportunity or of economic assets on the basis that development has not taken place. Need for housing is very well documented Proposal will bring dilapidated and unproductive buildings back into the most appropriate use.
Planning Committee 123
Applicants agent
5.3 Comprehensive marketing assessment for existing B1 use and holiday accommodation has concluded that there is no unmet demand for business floorspace and that the Design aspects of the proposal amended in line with comments from the Council's Design and Implementation Manager but still consistent with the appearance and character of previously approved scheme Treatment of Unit 4 considered to be an innovative interpretation of the existing building and builds on the historic development of this building group Structural report indicates that a substantial proportion of the existing building's fabric can be incorporated into unit 4.
6. 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 Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010
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.
6.2 National Park Purposes
The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:
• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; • To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.
If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.
6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010
In addition to the above, it is considered that the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application:
Paragraphs 14, 17, 28, 55, 56, 61; Sections 3, 7, 11
Planning Committee 124
The outcomes and associated policies of the SDNP Partnership Management Plan are also a material consideration. Outcomes 1, 4, 5 and relevant policies including policies 43, 44, 50, 55 are considered to be applicable to this proposal.
In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the following development Plan policies are considered to be consistent with the Framework:
7. Planning Policy
The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review(1999) are relevant to this application:
• CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Genera • CHRE14 (CH)Conversions In The Rural Area • CHBE11 (CH)New Development • CHBE14 (CH)Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges And • CHT1 (CH)Accommodation And Facilities • CHT3 (CH)Provision In Rural Areas • CHT6 (CH)Occupancy Periods For Holiday Accomm • CHB5 (CH)Rural Area - New Build And Extension • CHB8 (CH)Safeguarding Business Floorspace
8. Planning Assessment
8.1 The application site was previously the subject of a more a comprehensive redevelopment of the whole farm, including the former farm buildings now in residential use on the western side of Minsted Lane. The original planning permission granted in 2006 under SJ/05/03673/FUL was for the conversion of the buildings to a mixture of residential and commercial uses and was considered to be an acceptable balance between commercial and non-commercial activity.
8.2 This permission was subsequently varied by a further planning permission in 2009 (SJ/09/00895/FUL) to omit the requirement to convert the Midhurst Whites dairy building to B1 use and in fact to require the demolition of that building. From the background information submitted with that application it was advanced that such a revision would effectively enable an element of cross-funding to capitalise the provision of a new dairy facilities at Minsted Farm and the conversion of the remaining buildings. It was also clear that the LPA had a reasonable expectation at the time that the development package as a whole would be provided. The acceptability of the loss of that building was reinforced by the grant of a further planning permission to change the use of the cleared part of the site as part garden and part landscaped area to compliment the approved development (application reference SJ/10/02688/FUL).
8.3 The applicant now states that in the absence of any demand for tourist accommodation or for a B1 use, the conversion of the buildings in accordance with the extant planning permission is no longer viable and that planning permission should now be granted for permission for the residential development of the site, including the adaptation and residential use of the former Midhurst Whites dairy building.
Planning Committee 125
8.4 Therefore the main issues are considered to be twofold:
1) Whether there is now sufficient justification to permit the change of use to residential use from the previously approved economically beneficial uses;
2) The effect of the works to facilitate the proposed change of use (including the retention of the modern dairy building) on the character and appearance of the building group generally and the surrounding area.
Whether there is sufficient justification to permit a residential conversion in lieu of the previously permitted economically beneficial uses.
8.5 The traditional building group has the benefit of an extant planning permission enabling a residential conversion, the provision of two tourist units and a further live/work unit. Both current national planning policy in the NPPF and Local Plan policies encourage the re-use of rural buildings for alternative purposes including in appropriate circumstances residential use. However, the NPPF emphasises that such development should, inter alia be supportive of the rural economy (section 3). Therefore the retention of the buildings for the previously approved uses would be consistent with current planning policy.
8.6 Marketing evidence has been provided subsequent to the grant of the original planning permission in 2007 and over various periods until February 2013. This has obviously encompasses the period in which there has been a marked downturn in economic activity throughout the country. The report also makes reference to the concessions made in the terms of the subsequent planning permissions to allow the omission of the B1 element of the extant scheme. However, there is little detail on how or where the property was marketed, at what price or explanation of the conclusions reached.. The Marketing information has been overhauled by the Council's Valuations and Estates Manager, whose comments and conclusions are summarised the section above. In essence the evidence in not presented in such a way that would enable an informed conclusion to be reached.
8.7 In any event, it is considered that the evidence justifying the substitution of the previously permitted B1 use of the dairy building with a residential conversion should carry little weight in the determination of this application. It is very clear from the relevant planning history that it has previously been accepted by the LPA that the B1 use need no longer form part of the approved scheme - in fact the revised planning permission (SJ/10/02688/FUL) goes further and requires the demolition of the building as a positive measure to improve the setting of the remaining buildings and to enable sensitive landscaping of the site to screen the modern agricultural buildings to the north of the site. Therefore the reliance on evidence regarding lack of demand for a B1 use previously accepted as no longer necessary cannot now be used to justify the retention of a building (albeit in a heavily modified form) of no merit in either architectural terms or its contribution to the wider setting of the other traditional buildings subject to this application.
8.8 A separate marketing assessment has been provided in respect of the attractiveness of the tourist accommodation to be provided as part of the approved scheme. The report's conclusions acknowledge that whilst there is a reasonable supply of self-catering accommodation in the area, a well marketed high quality development of two self catered units would be very likely to bring in business at average occupancy
Planning Committee 126 levels. This reflects the initial advice provided by the Councils Economic Development Service who have noted that the application site is strategically well-placed within the National Park, with bed occupancy rates between 45% and 65%, which compares well with the national average of 50%.
8.9 However the assessment goes on to conclude that in view of the capital investment necessary to convert the buildings and without grant aid investment, the self-catering units would not be a sound investment. That the Economic Development Service have acknowledged that these circumstances may now hinder the use of the buildings for tourist units. However, the Service still regards an economic re-use of these buildings to have economic potential and would wish to see further business use of this site.
8.10 When the original planning permission was granted, it was acknowledged that there was likely to be an element of cross-funding to enable the development as a complete package to be carried out, although with the conversion and disposal of the residential element on the west side of the road without the this does not appear to have been carried out. The Valuations and Estates Manager has questioned whether this was the correct approach.
8.11 In the circumstances it is considered that the marketing evidence should be treated with a degree of caution and it remains the case that an economic re-use of the buildings should be the primary consideration for the re-use of the building group. Officers are therefore not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the conversion of these building to a residential use or the retention of a building that was expected to be demolished.
The effect of the works to facilitate the proposed change of use (including the retention of the modern dairy building) on the character and appearance of the building group generally and the surrounding area.
8.12 The physical works to enable the change of use of the traditional range of farm buildings closely follow those previously approved. the applicant has incorporated a number of minor detail changes to reflect the comments of the Design and Implementation Manager. Therefore in the main, the alterations necessary to facilitate the change of use to these particular buildings is considered to be sympathetic and appropriate to their rural character and agricultural heritage.
8.13 The use of the dairy building to form Unit 4 (Dairy Barn) to the north of the traditional buildings would involve the retention and redevelopment of just a relatively small section of this building to create the new dwelling, together with a considerable amount of external and internal alteration. Whilst additional information sought to demonstrate the proportion of the existing fabric of the building to be incorporated into the new dwelling justifies it as being a re-use of the building, it is still requires the construction new external walls, new internal floors and wholesale replacement of the roof and in terms of its appearance would bear little or no resemblance to the form and utilitarian character of the building currently on the site.
8.14 Therefore it is concluded that this is tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside in an unsustainable location which is not consistent with the objectives of RE14 and BE11 of the Local Plan or with bullet point 3 of paragraph 55 of the NPPF. The existing building is of no merit and is assessed (as previously) as having a negative impact on the setting of the traditional range of farm buildings adjacent,
Planning Committee 127 which by virtue of the historic form, character, former association with Minsted Farmhouse (a Grade II listed building) and their contribution to the character of this part of Minsted should be regarded as non-designated heritage assets. This conclusion regarding the limited weight to given to the value of this building and its retention is consistent with that expressed in previous permissions, which, it should be highlighted, culminated in planning permission for its total demolition and the use of the land in connection with Dairy Barn and landscape buffer.
8.15 It should also be noted that it is not been argued that the retention of part of the fabric of this building and incorporation of that into what is effectively a new dwelling is necessary to facilitate the remainder of the proposal considered as part of this application. Therefore even if the arguments regarding the economic use of this building group are more finely balanced, it is concluded that the provision of what is in effect a new dwelling in the countryside into the scheme is considered to be contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF and relevant Local Plan policies as well as the purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park and therefore the proposal in its current form cannot be supported.
9. Conclusion
9.1 The application proposal is for the change of use of the building group into four dwellings (one incorporating a live/work element), including the retention of a section of a modern, utilitarian dairy building. The applicant has sought to demonstrate that the extant planning permission permitting the change of use of the traditional farm buildings to a dwelling, two holiday lets and a live/work unit is no longer commercially viable and that the retention of part of the 20th century dairy building is justified under the conversions policy. It is considered that the marketing assessment does not justify the potential economic benefit of this asset to the local rural economy and even if this issue is considered to be more finely balanced, part of the proposal involves the erection of what is considered to be tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling in the National Park, contrary to Development Plan policy and national planning policy. Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies RE1, RE14, BE11, B5 and B8 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and Sections 3, 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, together with the two purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park.
10. Recommendation
10.1 It is recommended that the application be Refused subject to the conditions set out below
10.2 The applicant has sought to demonstrate that the extant planning permission permitting the change of use of the traditional farm buildings to a dwelling, two holiday lets and a live/work unit is no longer commercially viable and that the retention of a section of the 20th century dairy building is justified under the conversions policy. However it is considered that the marketing assessment is limited and as presented does not justify the loss of the potential economic benefit to the local rural economy and the wider National Park that the extant planning permission would facilitate. Therefore it is concluded that the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of policies T3 and B8 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999, Sections 3 and 6 of the NPPF and the two purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park.
Planning Committee 128 10.3 The existing modern dairy building on which Unit 4 is based is of no architectural or intrinsic merit and is assessed (as in previous permissions for the redevelopment of this site) as having a negative impact on the setting of the traditional range of farm buildings adjacent, which by virtue of the historic form, character, former association with Minsted Farmhouse (a Grade II listed building) and their contribution to the character of this part of Minsted should be regarded as non-designated heritage assets. The proposal to convert this building would retain a relatively small section of the original structure and would involve substantive new work, including new external walling, roof and internal floors in order to facilitate the residential use of this building, resulting in a building that bear little or no resemblance to the form and utilitarian character of the building currently on the site. Therefore it is concluded that this is tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside in an unsustainable location, which is not consistent with the aims and objectives of policies RE14 and BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review, bullet point 3 of paragraph 55 of the NPPF or the two purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park.
11. Human Rights Implications
11.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.
Case Officer Details Name: Derek Price Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]
Planning Committee 129
Appendix 1
Site 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)
Planning Committee 130
Agenda Item 12 Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 23 July 2014 By Assistant Director of Development Management Local Authority Chichester District Council
Application No: SDNP/14/01442/FUL Validation Date 10 April 2014 Target Date: 5 June 2014 Applicant: Mr Ronald Taylor Proposal: Development of the side garden of No 77 including the demolition of the existing detached garage and expansion of the access and the construction of a pair of semi detached two storey 3 bedroomed dwellings. Site Address 77 Parsonage Estate, Rogate, Petersfield, GU31 5HL Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision
Recommendation: That the application be Approved subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.
Executive Summary
The proposal is for the development of part of the existing garden of No.77 Parsonage Estate for two modestly sized semi-detached dwellings in a design, form and layout that is considered to be compatible with the site's location within an existing residential estate and complimentary to its wider setting within the South Downs National Park.
1.0 Site Description
1.1 The site the subject of this application is located on the west side of the village of Rogate and comprises the northern garden area of 77 Parsonage Estate. The Parsonage Estate was constructed during the 1950's and occupies a prominent position and gateway site into the village. The site is located within the Rogate Settlement Policy Area and is immediately west of the Rogate Conservation Area and is also within the South Downs National Park.The site measures 0.1 hectares in size is enclosed on two sides by existing residential development, with its northern and western boundaries being formed by the A272 and the Parsonage Estate access road respectively.The site is slightly elevated relative to the access road to Parsonage Estate, with the boundary demarcated by a simple concrete post and wire fence. The northern boundary to the A272 is defined by a grassed embankment together with mature tree and hedgerow screening. The garden itself primarily laid to grass, with an intricate arrangement of well stocked borders. No's 76 and 77 as a pair are at a slightly lower level than the northern part of the garden. A prefabricated concrete garage and parking area are located immediately north of the dwelling.
2.0 Relevant Planning History
None
Planning Committee 131 3.0 Proposal
3.1 The proposal is for the erection of a further pair of semi-detached three bedroomed dwellings on the northern part of the garden area adjacent to and slightly set back from No 77. The massing of the proposed dwellings will reflect the size and scale of existing dwellings on the estate and their construction would incorporate traditional design features found in existing properties throughout Rogate, including stock bricks, clay tiles and tile hanging and simple casement style windows.
4.0 Consultations
4.1 WSCC - Highway: No concerns with application subject to conditions securing cycle parking, parking and turning and construction plant and materials.
Parish Council Consultee: The Parish Council object to the application SDNP/14/01442/FUL.
Whilst the Parish Council are sympathetic to the current proposal, the council are concerned with the effect this will have on Nos: 76 & 77.
There is a shared water supply to these two properties that is under pressure now and when blocked causes sewage back up overflow from the manhole and overflowing down the road. If a further two properties are built this will increase the problem. Two, three bedroom houses would not be in keeping with the results of the neighbourhood plan for smaller starter homes for the young or for the elderly. The council ask for the developer to re consider the bigger picture and ask them to look at the possibility of the site to rebuild at 76 &77 parsonage reflecting the need for smaller dwellings. The whole site would be more in keeping with the requirements of the village. The infrastructure could then be fully considered.
CDC - Environment Protection Team : Thank you for consulting with Environmental Management on the above application. Please accept this email as confirmation that we do not have any objections to the proposed development, however we recommend the following condition is attached should permission be granted,
- Restrict demolition/construction works to between 8am - 6pm Monday to Friday, and 8am - 1pm Saturday with no works on Sundays or Public Holidays.
CDC - Environmental Strategy Unit : Reptiles
I have read through the reptile survey and I am happy that reptiles are not present on the site. Though as a precautionary measure a destructive search of the site (as detailed within the reptile survey) should be undertaken prior to commencement onsite.
Bats
Due to the presence of bats within the local area, all trees and hedgerows should be retained onsite. If any trees are to be removed then further bat survey work would be required.
The phase one habitat survey has detailed that the ivy has been inspected for bat activity, though no roosting bat evidence was found, as a precautionary measure any ivy should be removed by hand in the presence of a suitable qualified ecologist.
Planning Committee 132
The lighting scheme for the site will need to take into consideration the present of bats in the local area and the scheme should minimise potential impacts to any bats using the trees and hedgerows by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of directional light sources and shielding.
Birds
Due to the level of protection nesting birds hold, any vegetation clearance (including tree felling) should take place outside of the nesting season (February - October)
5.0 Representations
5.1 1 Third Party objection
Issues with pressure of water supply would be exacerbated Capacity of foul drainage system
5.2 1 Third Party observation
Development should be designed to incorporate measures to enable mobility and access.
6.0 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 Chichester Local Plan First Review(1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010
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.
6.2 National Park Purposes
The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:
• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; • To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.
If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.
Planning Committee 133
6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010
In addition to the above, the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are considered relevant to the determination of this application:
Paragraphs 14, 17, 53, 58 and 64; Sections 6, 7 and 11
Although at an early stage in its development, the Rogate and Rake Neighbourhood Plan is a material consideration although can oonly be afforded limited weight.
7.0 Planning Policy
7.1 The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review(1999) are relevant to this application:
• CHBE1 (CH)Settlement Policy Areas • CHBE11 (CH)New Development • CHBE13 (CH)Town Cramming • CHBE14 (CH)Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges And
8.0 Planning Assessment
8.1 The main issues with this proposal are considered to be:
1. The principle of the redevelopment of the site for housing 2. The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area which is within the South Downs National Park 3. Car parking and highway safety 4. The impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties 5. Drainage
Principle of new housing
8.2 The application site lies within the Settlement Policy Area for Rogate and therefore it is considered that the principle of additional residential development on the site is acceptable. However this is dependant on its successful integration and visual relationship with the character and appearance of the area, in particular its setting within the National Park landscape. This approach is defined by the criteria set out in Local Plan policies BE11 and BE13 and include such matters as appropriate scale and mass and design of new development and its visual relationship to adjacent buildings; development in keeping with the existing building line fronting a highway; avoiding the loss of trees and vegetation and areas important to the amenity of the area. Paragraphs 58 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also encourages development to take into account of local character and distinctiveness and paragraph 53 places emphasis on resisting inappropriate development of residential gardens that may cause harm to the local area.
Planning Committee 134
8.3 In this instance the redevelopment of a site to create a higher density development and make the most efficient use of residential land is supported in principle subject to an appropriate layout and design being achieved. Therefore in terms of the principle of a re-development of this site for housing this is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the guidance contained in the NPPF and saved policies BE1 of the Local Plan.
Size, design and impact on the character and appearance of the area
8.4 The application site is considered to occupy an important position in relation to the entrance of the Parsonage Estate. The proposed scheme takes account of the slightly raised ground level relative to the estate road by setting the new dwellings approximately 800mm below the present garden level. The result would be that the ridge height of the new development is similar to that of 76/77 but with a slightly lower eaves line. In conjunction with the set back from the estate road and No77, giving the new development a more recessive character, it is considered that the proposed development would not overdominate the existing development when entering the estate.
8.5 In terms of size scale and design, the footprint of the new dwellings appear appropriate and compatible with other dwelling within the immediate area. Each dwelling will provide three bedrooms, with one of the bedrooms accommodated within the roof space. The only external reference to accommodation at this level is the introduction of a dormer window to the north west and north east facing roof planes and a modest number of rooflights (4). The dormer windows are traditional in form and proportionate to the roof in which they are to be inserted. Several properties within the estate have undertaken loft conversions and in this context, the provision of accommodation in this form is not considered to be uncharacteristic.
8.6 The articulated nature of the design of the pair of dwellings and angled relationship to the estate road also provides a degree of visual interest to the development and enables the overall massing of the development to be successfully broken down and assimilated within the site. This coupled with the traditional approach to the design of the development, incorporating a palette of good quality materials similar to those found throughout the village will result in an attractive form of development appropriate to its relatively prominent siting relative to the access road servicing the estate. The existing hedgerow and tree planting to the north boundary of the application site will also provide an effective visual foil to the proposed development when viewed from the A272. In addition, due to the road alignment and its lower position relative to the application site, there would only be relatively limited views of the new development when approaching Rogate from the west.
8.7 The Parish Council consider that the development of the application site should be considered as part of a more comprehensive proposal involving both No's 76 and 77 to provide the opportunity for smaller homes. The applicant has investigated the possibility of incorporating No 76 into a larger scheme but the economics involved in purchasing the adjacent property made such a scheme unviable. The applicant has also made the observation that this proposal would not prejudice the future development of No. 76 and in any event it is considered that the proposal cannot be refused simply because it has not incorporated other sites that are not available to the applicant. It is acknowledged that reference has been made to the Neighbourhood Plan for Rogate but this is at a very early stage and therefore can only be afforded limited.
Planning Committee 135
Car Parking and Highway Impact
8.8 The proposed access widens and makes use of the existing access to 77 Parsonage Estate to provide off-road parking for two vehicles each for the two new dwellings and No. 77. A shared turning area is also provided. No highway objection has been raised in respect of this arrangement.
Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
8.9 The development is sited to the very north of the estate, adjacent to No. 77. No other property is considered to be materially affected by the proposed development. There is considered to be adequate separation between No.77 and the new development and whilst the new houses are set further back relative to No.77, this is not considered to be overbearing and therefore would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 77.
Drainage
8.10 Concern has been raised in relation to the capacity of the existing foul water system. However, the applicant has advised that in consultation with Southern Water Services there are no technical issues with capacity. Confirmation of this was being sought from Southern Water at the time of writing, but in the absence of evidence supporting the issue about capacity this is a matter for the Southern Water and is not in itself reason for refusal. The concerns relating to fluctuating water pressure is not a planning matter and is the responsibility of the relevant water company.
Other Matters
8.11 Both a phase 1 and phase 2 ecological surveys have revealed no protected species on the site, although the Council's ecologist has recommended a precautionary approach be adopted in line with the conclusions in the surveys in relation to reptiles. Care over the siting of the proposed dwellings will ensure that trees and other vegetation important to the setting of the proposed development and the surrounding area will not be affected.
9.0 Conclusion
9.1 The development of the garden area of No, 77 Parsonage Estate is considered to make the best and most efficient use of the site. The design and appearance of the new dwellings is considered to be a successful response to the characteristics of not just the estate development but also that found in Rogate itself and overall the development would make a positive contribution to this corner site and the wider setting of the National Park.
Planning Committee 136 10.0 Recommendation
1. It is recommended that the application be Approved subject to the conditions set out below
2. 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)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
3. Agreement of materials
No development shall commence until details, and samples where appropriate, of the following materials to be used in the development have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the SDNPA: Bricks, stone & any other wall facing materials; Brick bonds; Mortar mix and finish; Rain water goods (including their relationship with eaves and verges); Slates, tiles & any other roof coverings, including rooflights Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in full accordance with that agreement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the SDNPA.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the absence of these important details from the application
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no additions to, or extensions or enlargements of, or alterations affecting the external appearance of, the building(s) hereby approved shall be made or erected without a grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargements/alterations of the building(s) in the interests of the proper planning and amenities of the area.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no building, or shed, greenhouse or other structure, swimming or other pool shall be erected anywhere on the application site other than as shown on the plans hereby permitted unless otherwise permitted by the Local Planning Authority by way of a grant of planning permission.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over such structures in the interests of the amenities of the area.
6. Before work begins on the development hereby permitted details of site levels and longitudinal and latitudinal sections through the site of the dwellings shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to show how the buildings shall be set into the ground and their relationship with existing and proposed ground levels.
Reason: To secure satisfactory development.
Planning Committee 137
7. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied the access, turning area, and parking spaces and, where applicable, cycle parking areas shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be maintained for these purposes in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
8. No development, including site works of any description, shall take place on the site and before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site, until all the existing trees or hedges to be retained on the site have been protected by a fence to be approved by the Local Planning Authority erected around each tree or group of vegetation at a radius from the bole or boles of 5 metres or such distance as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This fencing shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery, surplus materials and soil have been removed from the site. Within the areas so fenced off the existing ground level shall be neither raised nor lowered and no materials, temporary buildings, plant, machinery or surplus soil shall be placed or stored thereon without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. If any trenches for services are required in the fenced off areas they shall be excavated and backfilled by hand and any tree roots encountered with a diameter of 25 mm or more shall be left un severed. All in accordance with BS 5837:2012
Reason: To ensure the retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation which is an important feature of the area.
9. No construction/demolition work shall take place on the site and no plant, machinery or vehicles in connection with the development shall be operated on the site except between the hours of:
0800 and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays (inclusive); 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays; and not at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the site does not have a harmful environmental effect.
10. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:
(i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; (ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; (iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; (iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; (v) wheel washing facilities; (vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; (vii) turning on site of vehicles; (viii) the location of any site huts/cabins/offices.
Reason: To ensure safe and neighbourly construction.
Planning Committee 138
11.0 Human Rights Implications
This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.
Case Officer Details Name: Derek Price Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]
Planning Committee 139
Appendix 1
Site 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)
Planning Committee 140
Agenda Item 13 Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 23 July 2014 By Assistant Director of Development Management Local Authority Chichester District Council
Application No: SDNP/14/01085/FUL Validation Date 3 March 2014 Target Date: 28 April 2014 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Bonner Proposal: Replacement Dwelling Site Address Wassell Barn, Ebernoe, Petworth, GU28 9LD Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision
Recommendation: That the application is REFUSED for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.
Executive Summary
Wassell Barn is considered to be a 'heritage asset' worthy of protection due to its historical and cultural significance. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed new dwelling would adversely affect the visual amenity of the area and would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area which would conflict with the first purpose of designation of the South Downs National Park.
1. Site Description
1.1 Wassell Barn is an isolated dwelling located within open countryside and sited approximately 130 metres to the north of Streels Lane to the east of Ebernoe village. Planning permission was granted in 1995 (EN/95/02072/FUL) for the change of use and conversion of the former agricultural barn into a dwelling. The barn now provides residential accommodation in the form of a living/dining room, bedroom and study on the ground floor with kitchen in the original projecting cart shed on the front (south) elevation and mezzanine floor with a further bedroom and ensuite.
1.2 The works to convert the barn to a dwelling have retained the agricultural character of the building and importantly it retains much of its agricultural character due to its siting within an open agricultural landscape. Correspondence on the 1995 application file confirmed that the timber framed building was in 'reasonable condition and worthy of preservation'. One of the principal reasons for granting planning permission for the conversion of the building to a residential use was that it was considered to be an important building typical of the local agricultural vernacular. Planning permission is unlikely to have been granted for a residential use unless the building was considered worthy of preservation. The structural survey submitted stated that the barn was of 'typical Sussex style'.
Planning Committee 141 2. Relevant Planning History
EN/95/02072/FUL - Proposed conversion of redundant farm barn to residential dwelling - Permitted and implemented.
EN/12/00981/PENP - Replacement dwelling - Pre-application advice provided raising concerns with respect to the principle of the demolition of the barn as a 'heritage asset' and the impact on the visual amenity of the area from the proposed building.
SDNP/12/01839/FUL - Replacement Dwelling - Refused 2012 for the following reasons:
1) The proposed demolition of Wassell Barn, which dates back to at least 1847, is unacceptable as the building is considered to be heritage asset in its own right. The works carried out to the barn do not significantly affect the historic character of the building and its simple form is in keeping with the surrounding rural landscape which is part of the South Downs National Park. There is insufficient justification which outweighs the harm resulting from the loss of the building to the historic and cultural heritage of the National Park. The proposal therefore conflicts with the relevant paragraphs in Sections 7, 11 and 12 of the Government's National Planning Policy Framework 2012, policies CC6, C2 and BE6 of the South-East Plan 2006-2026, and policies RE1, BE4, BE11 and H12 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 First Review.
2) The site lies within the South Downs National Park, the first purpose of designation of which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. The proposed replacement dwelling would conflict with this purpose as it would be visually obtrusive and harmful to the attractive character and appearance of the surrounding National Park by reason of its design, form, appearance and in particular its excessive width and would not be in keeping with surrounding development. The proposal would be out of keeping with this sensitive rural locality and would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area which would again conflict with the purpose of designation of the National Park. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Sections 7 and 11 of the Government's National Planning Policy Framework 2012, policies C2 and CC6 of the South-East Plan 2006- 2026 and policies RE1, BE11, and H12 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.
SDNP/13/05838/PRE - Demolition of the exiting barn and replacement with a dwelling. Pre-application advice for a replacement dwelling - The conclusion of the advice given under this application was:
The existing barn is considered to be a 'heritage asset' worthy of protection due to its historical and cultural significance. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed new dwelling would adversely affect the visual amenity of the area and would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area which would conflict with the purposes of the designation of the National Park. The proposals are unlikely to receive officer support.
Planning Committee 142 3. Proposal
3.1 The planning application proposes the demolition of the existing barn and the construction of a replacement dwelling. The new dwelling is shown with three bedrooms, a front cat slide and half hipped roof and front bay addition. A further gabled addition projects off the front. The rear is two storey in scale with the fenestration giving a distinctively domestic appearance. A single storey gabled addition with a front projection is also added to the eastern elevation.
3.2 The proposed replacement dwelling is shown to have a green oak timber frame, with timber cladding and stone. The roof is shown to be reclaimed clay tiles. It has a footprint that is approximately 'C-shaped' with a maximum width and depth of 22.6m x 17.4m. This compares to the 'L-shaped' footprint of the existing building which is 15m x 12m. The ridge height of the proposed dwelling is 9m, with the ridge height of the existing building shown at 7.3m.
4. Consultations
4.1 Parish Council
I write to advise you that Ebernoe Parish Council have studied the latest plans relating to Wassell Barn in detail and have NO OBJECTION to this application.
4.2 Natural England
Natural England's comments in relation to this application are provided in the following sections.
Statutory nature conservation sites - no objection
This application is in close proximity to the Ebernoe Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI forms part of the Ebernoe Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Natural England advises your authority that the proposal, if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which Ebernoe Common has been classified. Natural England therefore advises that your Authority is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment to assess the implications of this proposal on the site's conservation objectives. In addition, Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the Ebernoe Common SSSI has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application.
Protected landscapes
Having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal. The development however, relates to The South Downs National Park and we therefore defer to the
Planning Committee 143 National Park Authority for comments regarding location and wider landscape setting of the development and whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the designation.
Protected species
We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation. The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer's responsibility) or may be granted.
Biodiversity enhancements
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application.
This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that 'Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity'. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that 'conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat'.
CDC - Environmental Strategy
Bats - Following the bat emergence surveys which were undertaken in July 2012 by Sedgehill Ecology Services it is clear that bats are using the barn for roosting. All bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 making all species of bat European Protected Species. Under the act it is illegal to kill or injure a bat and illegal to disturb or destroy their resting places even if the species is not present. Due to this we require that a full mitigation strategy is submitted for are approval prior to determination.
It is also recommended that Natural England are contacted prior to determination regarding this site, as an European Protected Species Licence will be required before any works take place.
Planning Committee 144 Nesting Birds - Due to the level of protection nesting birds hold, and the presence of house sparrows roosting within the building the demolition and vegetation clearance(including tree felling) should take place outside the nesting season (February - September).
A house sparrow nesting box must also be installed on the new building to ensure roosting opportunities are still in place.
CDC - Historic Buildings Advisor
Please note the principle of a replacement dwelling here has been discussed in much detail in a number of previous applications (EN/12/00981/PENP, SDNP/12/01839/FUL, and SDNP/13/05838/PRE). Each of these had a comprehensive consultation response rejecting the principle of a replacement dwelling here, expanding on the heritage interest of Wassell Barn and its contribution to the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park; most notably SDNP/13/05838/PRE which presented a near identical scheme to that now proposed. The NPPF places the ‘conservation of heritage assets’ at the core of sustainable development. Environmentally, the retention and restoration of heritage assets is also an implicitly ‘sustainable’ approach that preserves the aspirations, efforts, resources and embodied energy of another era. Cultural heritage is unique and irreplaceable and changes to it should not compromise or prejudice the future’s ability to understand and interpret the past. The South Downs National Park is a nationally recognized landscape designation given the highest levels of protection. As a statutory body, their first purpose it is to ‘conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area’. Accordingly, paragraph 115 of the NPPF affords great weight to the conservation of cultural heritage in these areas.
This is consistent with the authority’s previous consideration of the building. A 1995 permission for change of use and repairs to Wassell Barn (95/02072/FUL) confirms that the building has been treated as a non-designated heritage asset and is worthy of retention as such. On the basis of its ‘architectural or historic interest’ under policy BE9 of the Chichester District Local Plan (October 1991), the change of use was considered justified in securing the long-term future of the building. The proposal for a replacement dwelling is inherently contrary to these considerations and should be strongly resisted. As discussed in the Heritage Statement, cartographic maps suggest that Wassell Barn was a constituent part of a complex managed landscape network here including Wassell Mill House and Wassell Mill along with the man-manipulated water works, wood plantations, and agricultural fields. The Heritage Statement also posits that there is a ‘water meadow’ to the immediate south-east of the barns. If this land is indeed a water meadow, this adds significantly to the interest of the landscape here. Where numerous assets are grouped and share a functional history, they are likely to be of mutual heritage interest and cumulatively contribute to group interest. Whilst the heritage statement suggests that the ‘change in character’ of the adjacent fields to pastureland and the removal of some immediate field enclosures has severely compromised the setting of the common edge settlement here, the landscape retains its wider character as medieval assart fieldscapes and largely remains legible, as confirmed by West Sussex County Council and English Heritage’s Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation (Dr. Nicola Bannister, 2010). It should be noted that the change in enclosure occurred sometime between c.1875 and c.1898 and as such, makes up a considerable portion of the history of the setting in its own right.
Planning Committee 145 With respect to Wassell Barn itself, the building is first identified on a map of 1829, and as such can generally be put into the ‘1750-1880’ period of agricultural development in England, considered to be the most important period of farm building development. That said, characteristics in the construction of the main barn including the use of peg and lap-jointed rafters, may suggest an earlier post-medieval date but pre-dating 1750. The ‘Pre-Application Building Assessment’ by Turley Associates confirms our view that the building is a non-designated heritage asset and appears to identify a number of positive values which, whilst unlikely to attract statutory protection, remain relevant to the NPPF and the delivery of sustainability as well as the protection of cultural heritage within the South Downs National Park.
Notably, the report recognizes the building to have ‘historic value’ on a ‘local level’ and that it is typical of its kind. With some improvements, this local distinctiveness could be preserved and enhanced and its dialogue with the site reinforced. Even in its current form the report suggests that ‘the buildings form a characterful group whose value is enhanced by the fact that they are an isolated element in a large rural plot’. Similarly, in the description of the frames within the Structural Report, the authenticity and integrity of the barn does not appear to be significantly compromised on this basis as there is an ability to discern some relatively minor and reversible changes (removal of wind braces, alteration to the roof form, adding members) as well as recognize a high degree of survival in the fabric. This report confirms that only a small proportion of members have been completely lost with the main structural members and majority of the primary frame remaining in situ. Despite the fact that Wassell Barn was considerably rebuilt in c.1995 and is not in accordance with the approved plans, for the reasons mentioned above – i.e. the high level of fabric retention, reinstatement of the plan form, and superficial material changes to the roof and cladding - are not considered to have caused irreparable harm to the integrity and authenticity of the asset, nor its significance. The Heritage Statement also acknowledges ‘as existing the building has, at least superficially, the appearance of a converted historic barn’ (paragraph 2.13). Further, ‘the quantity and consistent presence of timber framing throughout the barn lends the interior space a degree of character’ (paragraph 2.26) and ‘the exposed timber frame and roof structure gives the impression of a historic space’ (paragraph 2.27). Further, three of the bays internal to the five-bay barn remain un-compartmentalized and as such help to preserve its spatial quality and special interest. Notwithstanding the fundamental concern with regards to loss of the building, there are concerns both with the principle of removing an authentic historic barn and replacement with a design that seeks to imitate this, thus creating a false heritage. The proposed design is also not considered to adequately ‘preserve or enhance’ the immediate setting, nor retain the broader values of the place. Cumulatively, between the fabric of the building, its longstanding and integral relationship with the site, the enduring legibility of the context, and the heritage interest in the wider managed landscape here, Wassell Barn remains of historic and cultural significance warranting proper protection. This is confirmed by our own assessment above and that of the applicants as discussed throughout. The building should therefore not be replaced for the sake of replacement. As English Heritage’s PPS5 Practice Guide clearly states:
The fabric will always be an important part of the asset’s significance. Retention of as much historic fabric as possible is therefore a fundamental part of any good alteration or conversion, together with the use of appropriate materials and methods of repair. It is not appropriate to sacrifice old work simply to accommodate the new.
Planning Committee 146 Motivations for a replacement dwelling thus remain unconvincing, particularly given that earlier proposals (SDNP/12/01839/FUL and EN/12/00981/PENP) sought the total demolition of the barn and replacement, including with what appeared to be a pastiche stone cottage. There are a number of alternative and less destructive ways of dealing with such issues which would retain the historic building, its relationship with the landscape and its contribution to the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park.
5. Representations
5.1 20 third party letters of support have been received, the reasons cited can be summarised as follows:
- Design is an improvement on the existing barn and the way it was converted - Would improve the appearance of the building - New design will make it possible to use as a permanent family home - The scheme will be a positive benefit to the area - Would be a visual enhancement - Existing building has little historic integrity - Would be consistent with other developments - The proposed development improves the outlook from Woodsmoke in that the upper floor window in the gable end will be removed - Had the barn been deemed to be of historical significance, the conversion to residential use would not have been granted in the first place. - Site is set back from the road
5.2 1 third party letter of objection was received, the reasons cited can be summarised as follows:
- That the only consideration to be made in deciding the outcome of this application is whether the barn is worthy of remaining on the site. - That according to the officer report following refusal of the previous application, the barn is considered a heritage asset, and 'heritage assets are a major contributor to the cultural heritage of the area'. The first purpose of the South Downs National Park is to conserve the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. It was also stated that the council did not agree that the 1995 conversion degraded the barn's historical significance. - That they cannot see that anything has changed since that report. - That the barn is a reminder of Ebernoe's agricultural heritage and deserves to remain on the site it has occupied for around 200 years.
6. 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 Chichester Local Plan First Review(1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010
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
Planning Committee 147 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.
6.2 National Park Purposes
The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:
• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; • To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.
If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.
6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010
The following NPPF sections and paragraphs are relevant:
14 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) 17 (Core planning principles)
Chapter 7 Requiring good design
56 (Positive contribution) 60 (Local distinctiveness) 61 (Integration of new development)
Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
109 (Protection of landscape and biodiversity) 115 (National parks)
Chapter 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
128 (Significance of heritage assets) 129 (Assessment of significance of heritage assets) 131 (Contribution of heritage asset and proposed development) 135 (Non-designated heritage assets) 136 (New development after loss of heritage asset)
In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the following Development Plan policies are considered to be consistent with the Framework:
Planning Committee 148
7. Planning Policy
7.1 The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application:
• CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Generally • CHBE1 (CH)Settlement Policy Areas • CHBE4 (CH)Buildings Of Architectural Or Historic Merit • CHBE11 (CH)New Development • CHBE14 (CH)Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges And Other Landscape Features • CHTR6 (CH)Highway Safety
8. Planning Assessment
Background/Planning History
8.1 This application is for the demolition of the existing 19th Century (1847) barn on the site and its replacement with a new dwelling.
8.2 A pre-application enquiry was first submitted by the current owner of Wassell Barn February 2012. The application requested advice on whether the demolition of the existing barn on the site and its replacement with a new dwelling would be acceptable. The advice given was that the demolition of the barn could not be supported and that the design of the replacement dwelling was also unacceptable due to its impact on the character and appearance of the area.
8.3 In September 2012 a planning application for the replacement of the barn with a new dwelling was submitted and this was refused planning permission in October 2012. A further pre-application enquiry was then submitted in December 2013 or a similar proposal including the demolition of the barn and its replacement with a new dwelling. Again the advice given was that the demolition of the barn and its replacement could not be supported. The current planning application was submitted in March 2014.
8.4 Throughout both the pre-application and application stages, officers have provided consistent advice and this is that Wassell Barn is considered to be an ‘undesignated’ heritage asset, there is no justification for its demolition and that it should remain on the site. Its demolition and replacement with a new dwelling cannot be supported and would be contrary to planning policy as well as the purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park, principally, to conserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the National Park.
The Current Planning Application
8.5 There are considered to be two principal issues with this planning application. These are: 1. The demolition of Wassell Barn and whether this is acceptable in principle, and; 2. The merits of the replacement building and its impact on the character and appearance of the area and whether the development would be of a form and character that 3. would conserve and enhance the National Park.
Planning Committee 149 Issue 1 - The demolition of Wassell Barn and whether this is acceptable in principle
8.6 Wassell Barn first appears on maps from about 1829 and is clearly shown on the ‘1847 Tithe Map’. Whilst the barn was converted to a residential use in the mid 1990’s it retains much of its character as an agricultural structure in the rural landscape. By virtue of its inclusion in these early maps and the retention of its character and historical association with the surrounding landscape, Wassell Barn is considered to be an ‘undesignated heritage asset’. The building is included in the Council’s Historic Environment Record.
8.7 The NPPF places the conservation of ‘heritage assets’ at the core of sustainable development. Environmentally, the retention and restoration of heritage assets is an implicitly ‘sustainable’ approach that preserves the aspirations, efforts, resources and embodied energy of another era. Cultural heritage is unique and irreplaceable and changes to it should not compromise or prejudice the future’s ability to understand and interpret the past. One of the ‘Core planning principles’ of the NPPF is that heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF considers planning applications to non-designated (undesignated) heritage assets and advises:
8.8 ‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.’
8.9 The South Downs National Park is a nationally recognised landscape designation given the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The first purpose of the SDNPA is to ‘conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area’. Accordingly, paragraph 115 of the NPPF affords great weight to the conservation of cultural heritage in these areas.
8.10 Whilst making an assessment of the merits of the demolition of the existing structure it is worth exploring the background to the planning permission for the conversion of the building to a residential use. Planning permission was granted in 1995 for the conversion and change of use of Wassell Barn to a dwelling. The assessment of the merits of the planning application was considered against policy BE9 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1991. Policy BE9 considered the re-use of redundant rural buildings and the change of use was considered to be justified because it secured the long-term future of the building. At the time the building was confirmed as being of ‘architectural or historic interest’ and was therefore considered as being worthy of retention.
8.11 Planning permission was only granted for the residential use of the building because it represented a means of securing the retention of the building along with its agricultural character, and made a positive contribution to the landscape character of the area and its rural agricultural setting.
Planning Committee 150
8.12 Additionally, the loss of the building now would be contrary to the original principle of allowing for the residential use of the building in what would otherwise be a location where residential use would have been unacceptable. It is only because the building had architectural and historic merit and that its retention represented a sustainable form of development, that its re-use for residential purposes was permitted.
8.13 In terms of current planning policy the NPPF makes it clear that with undesignated heritage assets the key test when considering a proposal is the effect of what is being proposed on the significance of the asset and that regard must be had to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset (para 135).
8.14 The Council’s HBA has provided comprehensive assessment of the ‘significance’ of Wassell Barn. The main reasons for the ‘significance’ of Wassell Barn as a heritage asset are considered to be that cumulatively, between the fabric of the building, principally its timber frame , its integral relationship with the site, and the heritage interest in a wider managed landscape here, the barn remains of historic and cultural significance warranting protection.
8.15 The proposal results in the complete loss of Wassell Barn including its timber frame and the contribution the barn, and barn within its setting, makes to the character and appearance of the National Park landscape and cultural heritage. The ‘significance’ of the barn is completely lost. The test as outlined in paragraph 135 of the NPPF when determining planning applications that have an impact on ‘undesignated heritage assets’ is that a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. As the proposal involves the complete loss of ‘significance’ of the heritage asset harm to the cultural heritage of the National Park is considered to be substantial and when a balanced judgement is made taking into account all of the material considerations the loss of the building cannot be supported.
8.16 In conclusion on this first issue, the demolition of Wassell Barn is not justified and will have a significant harmful impact on the cultural heritage and landscape of the National Park. The demolition of Wassell Barn is considered to be contrary to paragraphs 17, 115, 126, 129, 131 and 135 of the NPPF, policies RE1, RE14, BE4 and BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 and the first statutory purpose of designation of the National Park.
Issue 2 - The merits of the replacement building and its impact on the character and appearance of the area and whether the development would be of a form and character that would conserve and enhance the National Park
8.17 It is proposed to replace the existing barn on the site with a new dwelling. Since the previous refusal of planning permission for a replacement dwelling on this site in 2012, the design of the dwelling has been has been amended. Whilst the amended design approach to create a dwelling that is more barn-like in appearance is acknowledged, its size, scale and design is still unconvincing. In particular it retains some features of the existing dwelling through the front projections and use of the roof space, while adding to the footprint, scale and bulk of the building. The rear elevation is distinctively domestic and urban in its appearance, with significant additions to both side elevations adding to the size and volume of the property.
Planning Committee 151 8.18 Due to this increase in size and scale, the proposals are considered to increase the prominence and bulk and scale of the building in its landscape setting. This is considered to detract from the rural character and appearance of the area. Furthermore the proposed design seeks to replicate the form and barn like appearance of the existing building. This is considered to be a wholly inappropriate design approach falsely representing the appearance and function of the existing building and its historical relationship with the landscape. As such the proposal does not adequately 'conserve and enhance' the immediate landscape setting, nor retain the broader values of the place.
8.19 For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs the design and appearance of the replacement dwelling is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to paragraphs 17, 56-68 and 115 of the NPPF, policies RE1, H12 and BE11 f the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 and the first purpose of designation of the National Park.
9. Conclusion
9.1 In conclusion, the existing barn is considered to be a 'heritage asset' worthy of protection due to its historical and cultural significance. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed new dwelling would adversely affect the visual amenity of the area and would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area which would again conflict with the first purpose of the designation of the National Park.
10. Recommendation
10.1 It is recommended that the application be Refused for the following reason(s):
1. The proposed demolition of Wassell Barn, which dates back to at least 1847, is unacceptable as the building is considered to be heritage asset in its own right. The works carried out to convert the original barn to a dwelling have not significantly affected the historic character of the building and its simple form is in keeping with the surrounding rural landscape which is part of the South Downs National Park. There is insufficient justification which outweighs the harm resulting from the loss of the building to the historic and cultural heritage of the National Park which would not be conserved and enhanced. The proposal therefore considered to be contrary to the relevant paragraphs in Sections 7, 11 and 12 of the NPPF, policies RE1, BE4, BE11 and H12 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 First Review and the first statutory purpose of designation of the National Park.
2. The site lies within the South Downs National Park, the first purpose of designation of which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. The proposed replacement dwelling would conflict with this purpose as it would be visually obtrusive and harmful to the attractive character and appearance of the surrounding area by reason of its design, form and scale and, would not be in keeping with surrounding development. The proposal would be out of keeping with this sensitive rural locality and would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area which would again conflict with the first statutory purpose of designation of the National Park. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Sections 7 and 11 of the Government's National Planning Policy Framework 2012, policies RE1, BE11 and H12 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and the first statutory purpose of designation of the South Downs National Park.
Planning Committee 152
11. Crime and Disorder Implications
11.1 It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications.
12. Human Rights Implications
12.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. .. 13. Equalities Act 2010
13.1 Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.
Case Officer Details Name: Mr Martin Mew Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]
Planning Committee 153
Appendix 1
Site 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)
Planning Committee 154 AGENDA ITEM 7
Chichester District Council
Development Plan Panel Thursday 17 July 2014
Planning Committee Wednesday 23 July 2014
Cabinet Tuesday 9 September 2014
Update on Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works and Wastewater Position Statement
1. Contact
Sue Payne - Planning Policy Officer Telephone: 01243 534722 E-mail: [email protected]
2. Recommendations
2.1 That prior to approval at the Cabinet the Development Plan Panel notes the updated Wastewater Position Statement appended hereto and recommends that it is forwarded to Planning Committee for information and endorsement.
2.2 That the Development Plan Panel recommends to the Cabinet to adopt the updated Wastewater Position Statement attached hereto as the Council’s position with regard to future growth in the Apuldram catchment and sets out the location of development that will utilise the remaining capacity for wastewater treatment at Apuldram.
3. Background
3.1 In November 2013 the Development Plan Panel was presented with a Wastewater Position Statement which sets out the Council’s position with regard to future planned growth and existing capacity at wastewater treatment works (WwTW) in the District, particularly relating to Apuldram WwTW.
3.2 The position statement was drafted to ensure that the Council could deliver the strategic growth in the Chichester Local Plan: Key Polices Pre-submission document, which is reliant on the upgrade of the Tangmere WwTW.
3.3 The Council would expect the following proposals for development in the Local Plan Key Policies – Pre-submission document to connect to Apuldram with a presumption that the strategic sites will connect to Tangmere.
Planning Committee 155 • development at Fishbourne Parish (50) • development at Chichester City North (approximately 130) • Chichester City parish allocation (150) • potential allocations through a possible Chichester City Area Action Plan/windfall sites.
3.4 In August 2010, the Environment Agency issued a position statement advising the Council to refuse residential development if it would result in a significant increase in the net flow to the sewer network. In September 2013 the Environment Agency withdrew its position statement and following the installation of UV treatment on the storm overflow in April 2014 the remaining headroom was released. However, development beyond this headroom could have a significant impact on the nitrogen loads and weed growth in the Harbour and therefore the release of this headroom has been limited and monitoring work has been undertaken to ensure capacity remains to deliver the Chichester Local Plan.
3.5 The appended updated position statement sets out latest position with regard to the existing and future capacity at wastewater treatment works in the District, particularly relating to Apuldram WwTW. This makes it clear that the remaining capacity should be reserved to allow continued development on brownfield sites within existing settlements.
4. Appendices 4.1. Updated Wastewater Position Statement June 2014
Planning Committee 156 Appendix
Position Statement on Wastewater and Delivering Development in the Local Plan
July 2014
Planning Committee 157 1. This background paper/position statement is a continuation of the background paper (Water Quality and Strategic Growth for Chichester District) written in November 2012 to inform the Local Plan Key Policies Preferred Approach and the Position Statement on Wastewater and Delivering Development in the Local Plan (January 2014).
2. This update relates particularly to the Council’s position with regard to future planned growth and existing capacity at Apuldram wastewater treatment works. The section on Tangmere and other WwTW in the District has remained unchanged.
3. The Water Quality Group agreed to use the certified (MCERTS) measured flows averaged for all the 7 years available for the WwTW in the District, except for Apuldram which only has MCERTS data for four years so uses from 2009. This was agreed to be the best way forward for estimating the Dry Weather Flow (DWF) headroom at each wastewater treatment works.
4. Irrespective of the DWF methodology, due to the infiltration/environmental issues at Apuldram a more robust way of monitoring the headroom has been established to deliver the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP). Monitoring of the other WTW in the district remains unchanged.
Apuldram (Chichester) WwTW
5. In August 2010, the Environment Agency issued a Position Statement advising the Council to refuse residential development if it would result in a significant increase in the net flow to the sewer network. In September 2013, the Environment Agency withdrew its position statement and following the installation of UV treatment on the storm overflow in April 2014, a headroom of 770 dwellings was released. However, development beyond this headroom could have a significant impact on the nitrogen loads and weed growth in the Harbour and therefore the release of this headroom has been limited to 770 dwellings. Monitoring work has been undertaken to ensure capacity remains to deliver the CLP and enable growth within the City, Fishbourne, Donnington and Apuldram Parishes.
6. This updated Position Statement assessed the headroom available using the estimated existing headroom of 770 as the base data minus planning applications that have been granted permission and planning applications received and under consideration to 20th June 2014. Sites of 6+ units granted permission during August 2010 – 16th September 2013 have been excluded as applicants would have had to demonstrate that there would be no significant increase in the net flow to the sewer network. Planning permissions prior to 31st July 2012 have also been excluded as this information has been included previously in assessing the headroom.
7. Table 1 has been amended to reflect the new way of monitoring the headroom; however, the headroom for the remaining WwTW in the district (Table 2) will be monitored as before and remains unchanged.
Planning Committee 158 8. The allocation of Parish numbers from the CLP has been added to the table with the information that has been considered in assessing the headroom for Apuldram.
9. There is estimated headroom for 159 dwellings to connect to Apuldram WwTW, over and above the allocation in the CLP. With an average windfall delivery rate of approximately 100 dwellings per year in Chichester City allowing development on greenfield sites would erode the remaining headroom and prevent development from occurring on brownfield sites within existing settlements. Therefore it is considered appropriate to refuse planning permission on greenfield sites, if intended to utilise the treatment facilities at Apuldram, in favour of retaining the existing headroom for brownfield development.
Planning Committee 159 Table 1 – Apuldram WwTW
Monitoring Data A - Estimated B - Local Plan C - Local Plan D - Local Plan E - Local Plan F - Subtotal G - existing headroom Parish Numbers Parish Parish Chichester City (B+C+D+E) Remaining (households) at Fishbourne (50) Numbers Numbers windfall capacity July 2012 Chichester Chichester City (A-F) City North 130 allocation (150) 770 Number of dwellings 176 committed to 31st March 2013 Sub total 594 0 594 Sites in Fishbourne 28 with permission from 01/04/2013 – 20/06/2014 Sites in Chichester (1- 45 5 units) with permission from 01/04/2013 – 20/06/2014 Sites in Chichester (6+ 17 units) with permission from 01/04/2013 – 20/06/2014 14/00733/EIA Land 175 south of Graylingwell Drive, Chichester (original allocation of 130 dwellings) 14/02070/PE Land 30 rear of Romans Mead Estate, Mosse Gardens, Fishbourne (Neighbourhood Plan allocation)
Planning Committee 160 Planning applications 7 (1-5 units) received and under consideration to 20/06/2014 Planning applications 29 (6+ units) received and under consideration to 20/06/2014 Sub total 594 58 175 46 (+ 104)* 52 435 159
* The Local Plan allocates a parish number for Chichester City of 150, 104 remains to be delivered
Planning Committee 161 Tangmere and other WwTW in the District
15. The CLP directs strategic growth to connect to Tangmere WwTW. The upgrade of this works is subject to Ofwat approval (December 2014) with the works being operational in 2019.
16. As shown in Table 2 below, the approval of the Shopwyke Lakes planning application, Westhampnett and other sites in Tangmere up to 31st March 2013, has taken up the majority of the remaining headroom at the works. Although these sites are anticipated to have phased delivery, the Council acknowledges that these are committed to connect to Tangmere WwTW unless there is any material change in circumstances.
Table 2 WwTW A - Estimated B - Estimated C - Number of D - Estimated Catchment existing permit existing dwellings remaining headroom headroom committed at headroom (households) at (households) at 31st March (households) April 2006 July 20121 2013 at 31st March (MWH Study) Southern Water 2013 (B-C=D)
Bosham 297 400 3 397 Kirdford Not assessed 60 60 Loxwood2 Not assessed 80 80 Pagham3 233 700 37 663 Sidlesham 1208 1,000 106 894 Tangmere 843 800 779 21 (up to 3,000 following Ofwat approval for upgrade to works post 2019) Thornham4 554 1,700 22 1678 Wisborough Not assessed 200 0 200 Green
Lavant 1,397 1,900 0 1,900
1 Estimated existing permit headroom based on assumed flow returned to sewer per new household of 500 litres/property/day. Headroom is calculated in terms of households but any additional flows, including from commercial development, will erode the headroom. 2 Part of the catchment falls within Waverley. Development in this area will also take up headroom. 3 Part of the catchment falls within Arun. Development in this area will also take up headroom. 4 Part of the catchment falls within Havant. Development in this area will also take up headroom.
Planning Committee 162
Steve Carvell and Amanda Jobling Our ref: Chichester PS Chichester District Council East Pallant House 1 East Pallant Date: 16th September 2013 Chichester West Sussex PO19 1TY
Dear Steve and Amanda,
Environment Agency Position Statement – Planning and Wastewater Treatment
Further to conversations with your officers I am writing to confirm that we wish to withdraw our position statement “Wastewater treatment capacity constraints on new development in Chichester city” dated August 2010 and its addendum dated September 2011.
Our Position Statement was published due to concerns with storm discharges from Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW). As you will be aware through the Chichester Water Quality Group we have been working with yourselves and other partners to address this. One of the outcomes will be the installation of ultra-violet (UV) treatment on the storm overflow to mitigate its impact on the Harbour. It is expected that this will be operational from spring 2014.
The main discharge from the Apuldram WwTW is already subject to UV treatment. Installing this type of treatment on the storm overflow will reduce the bacteria levels entering the Harbour but will not address the nitrogen load.
It is accepted by both the Environment Agency and Natural England that the total discharge from the storm overflow is likely to be having a significant effect on the European designated site at certain times.
We are continuing to work with our partners through the Chichester Water Quality Group to address this and have issued Southern Water with an enforcement notice under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. The enforcement notice introduced a requirement for Southern Water to implement the proposed UV treatment plant on the storm overflow, imposed a schedule for reporting on progress of the sewer investigation programme and required the company to investigate the environmental impact of the storm discharge.
The Apuldram WwTW has some remaining headroom within its current permit. We have undertaken modelling work to understand the impact of releasing some of this headroom following installation of the UV treatment. This modelling has solely looked at the impact the extra headroom flow would have on the volume and frequency of discharges from the storm overflow and its impact on the nitrogen loading and subsequent weed growth in the Harbour.
Planning Committee 163 The modelling demonstrated that the additional nitrogen discharged through the storm overflow when a flow of 385 m3/day is added to the WwTW would have an insignificant impact on weed growth. In discussion with Natural England we have agreed that this headroom could be made available for development that would be occupied once the UV treatment is operational.
A volumetric headroom of 385 m3/day equates to approximately 700 dwellings. We would recommend that you have discussions with Southern Water as to how you monitor any planning permission granted.
Any development beyond this headroom, under current catchment conditions, would have a significant impact on the nitrogen loads and weed growth in the Harbour. Once this headroom is reached we would therefore revisit our position and may reinstate our current advice to refuse development that results in a significant increase in the net flow to the sewer network.
We would advise any planning permission granted within this catchment to be conditioned for occupancy following the operation of the UV treatment on the storm overflow. We will work with your officers to agree consultation arrangements and specific wording for conditions.
I trust that the above sets out clearly our current position regarding development in the Apuldram WwTW catchment. If you would like to discuss anything in more detail please do contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Hannah Hyland Sustainable Places – Planning Specialist
Planning Committee 164 Agenda Item 7
Chichester District Council
PLANNING COMMITTEE 23 July 2014 Review of Planning Enforcement Strategy
1. Contacts
Report Author: Shona Archer, Enforcement Manager, Tel: 01243 534547 E-mail: [email protected]
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the draft revised Planning Enforcement Strategy.
2.2 Recommends the revised Planning Enforcement Strategy to Cabinet.
3. Background
3.1. Chichester District Council (CDC) as the Local Planning Authority has powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts to control unauthorised development. The Council adopted a formal Planning Enforcement Strategy in December 2009 that explains the approach the council will use to investigate and remedy breaches of planning control.
3.2. CDC has a dedicated team within the Planning Service to carry out investigations, resolve breaches of planning control, take formal action and offer advice where appropriate. The team consists of a manager, assistant manager, three planning officers plus a technical support officer. The Team Support Officer role now sits centrally to provide administrative support to Planning Services as a whole with enforcement administrative support being provided by the administrative service. It is recognised that the team has over the years struggled to maintain a full complement of officers and this continues to be an issue that impacts upon performance. A planning officer vacancy in the team has recently been filled but due to a lack of suitably qualified applicants there remains a further vacancy.
3.3. In April 2011 the Development Management Service entered into an agreement with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) to act as their agent in the provision of Development Management services within the park. This includes planning enforcement work which is the subject of a protocol between the SDNPA and CDC. The SDNPA has however adopted its own enforcement strategy.
3.4. In 2012 the CDC Internal Audit Team undertook an audit of Planning Enforcement. It concluded that it was satisfied with the function of the Planning Enforcement service and made 2 medium rated recommendations:
Planning Committee 165
1. The Planning Enforcement Strategy is subject to a review. Consulting with the SDNPA as part of the review; and 2. Review of extent of Delegated authority to enable the Enforcement Team Manager to close cases where there is a breach of control but no further action will be taken by the council. This recommendation has been implemented.
3.5 The service has now been operating under the guidance of the Enforcement Strategy for four years and has implemented the recommendations of the 2009 and 2013 internal audit with the exception of 1 above. This report and review address that recommendation and the opportunity has also been taken to review the Strategy to reflect the NPPF.
4. Outcomes to be achieved
4.1. To ensure that the Enforcement Strategy is up to date to enable the expectations of those engaged in the planning enforcement process to be managed through a clear statement of service objectives and goals.
4.2. An Enforcement Strategy that reflects the simplified statements of Government policy and refers to relevant legislation will instil confidence in users of the service; provide a document that is both easy to use and informative to help fulfil the aims and objectives of the Development Management Corporate Improvement Project and Service Plan.
4.3. Performance against the revised Enforcement Strategy will, as at present, be monitored by officers on a monthly basis and on a quarterly basis reported to the Planning Committee. Weekly updates of Inspections and Actions will also be made available via the Members Desktop.
5. Proposal
5.1. The proposal is to undertake a light touch review of the Enforcement Strategy and to add a proactive element.
5.2. The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should “set out how they will monitor the implementation of planning permissions” and so it is proposed that proactive conditions compliance is included in the Enforcement Strategy. Officers will check if conditions have been discharged on all major development schemes and inspect a selection of other development types, identified from Building Control Commencement Notices, to ensure development is carried out in compliance with the permission granted.
5.3. The Planning Enforcement Strategy sets out the goals and objectives of the Enforcement service; and provides milestones for driving the enforcement process to ensure good customer care. It is considered that this overarching aim has, in the main, been achieved in that most cases are investigated in compliance with the Strategy. For this reason, the review of the strategy has in other respects focused on amending its presentation and legislative content.
5.4. A fundamental difficulty for the enforcement service is the recruitment of suitably qualified and experienced planning officers. Hence at times there are insufficient
Planning Committee 166 resources available to progress significant investigations. This can result in reduced levels of customer care and service delivery. Efforts are currently being made to fill the remaining vacancy in the team.
5.5. A revised Enforcement Strategy will provide the Council with an up to date statement of its objectives and priorities for enforcement that customers can use to answer questions that may arise and to learn more about the service they expect to be provided.
6. Alternatives that have been considered
6.1. To operate without an Enforcement Strategy. This approach would be contrary to guidance in the NPPF in relation to the importance of effective enforcement.
7. Resource and legal implications
7.1. There are no direct financial or budgetary implications arising from this matter. The Strategy will be accessible via the Council’s website. It is anticipated that the continuation of the Strategy will result in fewer complaints about unsatisfactory service which in turn will enable greater focus on the core function of enforcement investigation and complaint resolution.
7.2. Paragraph 207 of The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states:
“Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. Local planning authorities should consider publishing a local enforcement plan to manage enforcement proactively, in a way that is appropriate to their area. This should set out how they will monitor the implementation of planning permissions, investigate alleged cases of unauthorised development and take action where it is appropriate to do so”. Emphasis added.
The Enforcement Strategy meets the objectives of the NPPF and the Corporate Plan in meeting the needs of customers.
7.3. The introduction of the revised Enforcement Strategy will have a positive impact upon the enforcement team in its contact with members of the public as it states how enforcement will be managed in the district, how planning permissions will be monitored and how alleged cases of unauthorised development will be investigated and when action will be taken.
8. Consultation
8.1 Members were consulted in February 2014 via the Knowledge Hub about a revision to the Enforcement Strategy. No adverse comment was received.
8.2 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 July 2014 considered the draft revised Strategy. Members questioned the ability of the service to adequately resource the revised strategy, in particular the proactive conditions compliance monitoring. It was suggested that Development Management Officers be encouraged to limit the number of conditions imposed on major schemes that are
Planning Committee 167 subsequently difficult to enforce. Members supported the work undertaken by the enforcement service and noted the improved progress and performance reporting to the Planning Committee.
8.3 The committee endorsed the changes made to the Planning Enforcement Strategy and recommended it to Cabinet for approval.
9. Community impact and corporate risks
9.1. The Enforcement Strategy has not been significantly revised but the updated text in relation to policy and procedures makes it easier to use and the introduction of a proactive approach in relation to conditions compliance will have a positive impact on the quality of development in the district. Within the enforcement process there is a risk that an aggrieved party may make a formal complaint or seek financial compensation for any harm arising from a failure to enforce. These risks can be managed through the regular monitoring of cases by both officers and members as set out above.
Other Implications
Are there any implications for the following? Yes No
Crime & Disorder: No
Climate Change: No
Human Rights and Equality Impact: No
Safeguarding: No
10. Appendices
Appendix 1 – Revised Planning Enforcement Strategy.
11. Background Papers
11.1 National Planning Policy Framework
Planning Committee 168 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY 2013
Introduction
The Town & Country Planning Acts give discretion to the Local Planning Authority in the exercise of its powers for controlling unauthorised development.
The Council is firmly committed to the effective enforcement of planning control. The Council views breaches of planning control very seriously and has a dedicated enforcement team within Development Management.
The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2013) states, at paragraph 207, that “Local planning authorities should consider publishing a local enforcement plan to manage enforcement proactively, in a way that is appropriate to their area. This should set out how they will monitor the implementation of planning permissions, investigate alleged cases of unauthorised development and take action where it is appropriate to do so.” This document sets out the strategy and the approach the Council will take in investigating and remedying breaches of planning control. This Strategy was formally adopted by the Council following approval on ……………
Planning Enforcement
Planning Enforcement plays an important role in monitoring development and investigating potential breaches of planning control. The integrity of the development management process depends upon the planning authority's readiness to take effective enforcement action.
The Council, as the local planning authority, has powers to investigate unauthorised developments and take appropriate remedial action where necessary. Breaches of planning control can take a number of forms, including unauthorised changes of use of land or buildings, work being carried out without the benefit of planning permission and breaches of conditions attached to planning permissions.
When the Council investigates a breach, an assessment is made to determine what action, if any, is necessary. In many cases where a breach has taken place, there is no adverse effect on the character of the surrounding area, or on residential amenity. In these circumstances the Council will normally avoid taking enforcement action simply to regularise a development.
Our Objectives
The Council has established the following objectives:-
• To remedy the undesirable effects of unauthorised development • To strike a balance between protecting amenity/ environment and other interests of acknowledged importance, and enabling acceptable development to take place • To ensure that the credibility of the planning system is not undermined
Planning Committee 169 • To carry out all duties in accordance with the principles of the Enforcement Concordat1, particularly with respect to openness, helpfulness, proportionality and consistency • To be pro-active in regard to the monitoring of development to ensure compliance with conditions imposed on Planning Permissions and to be reactive in the investigation of complaints • To work with other agencies and organisations, both internally and externally to deliver acceptable outcomes
Principles
1. All written complaints, from a named person(s) regarding breaches of planning control will be acknowledged and investigated; and complainants notified of the action taken.
2. Complaints will be prioritised, depending on their urgency and potential environmental/amenity harm.
3. The identity of complainants will be kept confidential, unless subsequent Court action warrants their evidence being made public. Complainants will be kept informed of the progress of investigations and of the eventual outcomes.
4. Action is discretionary and will only be taken where it is both expedient to remedy harm and in the public interest.
5. Action will be proportionate to the breach and may be held in abeyance whilst planning applications or appeals are determined provided there is a reasonable prospect that planning permission will be granted.
Priorities
The Council receives approximately 600 complaints each year regarding alleged breaches of planning control and will give priority to those cases where greatest harm is caused. However, even if low priority, cases will be given attention and brought to a conclusion.
Complaints will be investigated in accordance with the following:
1. High Priority
These will normally be subject to a site inspection within 2 working days:
a) Unauthorised demolition, partial demolition or significant alteration of a building, which it is essential to retain (e.g. a listed building or building within a Conservation Area)
b) Unauthorised works to trees covered by a tree preservation order (TPO) or in a Conservation area
1 In March 1998 the Local Government Association published the central and local government Enforcement Concordat on Good Enforcement that sets out the best practice to achieve higher levels of voluntary compliance.
Planning Committee 170 c) Any unauthorised development/activity which causes clear, immediate and continuous harm or danger to the locality including the living conditions of adjoining residents
2. Medium Priority
These will normally be subject to a site inspection within 10 working days:
a) Unauthorised development that will be immune from enforcement action within 6 months2
b) Operational development/changes of use and non-compliance with conditions likely to cause neighbourhood distress or adverse harm to a Conservation Area or the appearance of nationally statutorily protected landscapes
3. Low Priority
The lowest priority will be given to cases resulting in little or no harm and will normally be subject to a site inspection within 20 days:
a) Means of enclosure; advertisements, flag poles and satellite dishes
b) Householder development
c) Works likely to be permitted development
Making a complaint
Complaints about alleged breaches of control will be accepted by letter, e-mail or on-line. Telephone calls are only accepted for Priority 1 cases. Anonymous complaints will not be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. Contact:
Chichester District Council East Pallant House 1 East Pallant Chichester West Sussex PO19 1TY TEL: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected] http://www.chichester.gov.uk/
2 The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 introduced time limits within which a LPA can take planning enforcement action against breaches of planning control. • four years for building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, without planning permission. This development becomes immune from enforcement action four years after the operations are substantially completed • four years for the change of use of a building, or part of a building, to use as a single dwelling house. Enforcement action can no longer be taken once the unauthorised use has continued for four years without any enforcement action being taken • 10 years for all other development. The 10 year period runs from the date the breach of planning control was committed Once these time limits have passed, the development becomes lawful, in terms of planning.
Planning Committee 171
To assist the Council in providing an early resolution to the issues raised it is important that the complainant provides as much information as possible about the alleged breach of control. For example a description of the problem identified, dates and times of the activities carried out and the names and address of those involved. Once a breach of control is confirmed, a complainant may be asked to keep a record of any relevant activities. All complaints will be dealt with confidentially and there is no public right to access information about complainants.
A complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days.
What is a breach of planning control?
Most building, engineering work and changes in the use of land and buildings needs planning permission from the Council. Sometimes development is carried out without planning permission or does not properly follow the detailed plans/and or planning conditions which have been approved by the Council. Such actions are referred to as a ‘breach of planning control’ and can include the following:
• Building work • Changes of use of land or buildings, e.g. mobile homes or new business uses • Non-compliance with planning conditions • Display of advertisements • Work to protected trees, listed buildings and demolition in a Conservation Area
Once the alleged breach has been investigated and it has been established that harm is being caused, action may then be taken. However, assessment of complaints would not include:
• Loss of value to a neighbouring property • Competition to another business • Loss of an individual’s view or trespass onto someone else’s land • It may be possible to address issues such as these by way of civil action although this is a matter for the individual to pursue and is not an area where the Council would be involved
Enforcement Action
The Council will usually attempt to remedy unauthorised breaches through negotiation, rather than immediate statutory action. This may involve the submission of a retrospective application or a requirement to take steps to ameliorate specific problems with a development. In cases where the breach is serious and has a detrimental impact on the character or amenity of an area or building, the Council can serve an Enforcement Notice. Where the breach is particularly severe a Stop Notice may be served in conjunction with the Enforcement Notice, requiring immediate cessation of the unauthorised activities. Failure to comply with these Notices constitutes a criminal offence, and the Council can take direct action to secure compliance.
Planning Committee 172 In deciding whether to take action the Council will have regard to the development plan and other material considerations including national policy and Government Circulars. Any action taken will be proportionate with the breach of planning control and will pursue the minimum remedy necessary to mitigate the harm caused by the development.
If unauthorised development complies with Development Plan policies, is not harmful or any harm can be controlled by condition, the Council will allow a period of 28 days for the submission of a retrospective planning application to try to regularise the position. In other circumstances, the Council will proceed to issue an enforcement notice. When applications are being considered the developer may be advised to stop work. Enforcement action will not normally be taken whilst applications are under consideration.
Deciding when to take action
In considering whether to take action the Council will not give weight to the fact that development has commenced. Where an application is submitted retrospectively a decision on whether to proceed with enforcement prior to the determination of the application will be made. Unauthorised developments are treated on their merits in the same way as proposed developments.
Decisions not to take action will be made by a ‘designated officer’ as agreed through the Council’s scheme of delegation. Reasons for not taking action will be recorded in writing. In accordance with the adopted delegation arrangements any recommendation to commence prosecution proceedings must be referred to the Head of Service. In exceptional cases where significant expenditure could be incurred or a decision overturns a previous decision of the Council the matter will be reported to the Planning Committee.
In considering whether to take action, the Council will not give weight to non-planning considerations. Local opposition or support for an unauthorised development will not be given weight unless that opposition or support is founded upon valid planning reasons.
In using the regulatory powers provided by the planning system the Council will have regard to the Council’s obligations and powers under other legislation and also the statutory powers carried by other organisations.
Types of Action
The main forms of enforcement action taken by the Council are as follows:
• Enforcement Notice • Breach of Condition Notice • Stop Notice • Temporary Stop Notice
The Council will ensure that any enforcement action taken is proportionate to the impact of the breach of planning control.
Where the condition of a building or land seriously detracts from or affects the character of an area and remedial works are note undertaken within a specified period a notice may be served under the provisions of S215 of the Act.
Planning Committee 173 Not all breaches of planning control will result in significant harm being identified. In these cases officers may decide that no further action should be taken. If, at any stage, it becomes clear that there has been no breach of planning control, or the development has been altered to no longer require permission, the process will be discontinued and interested parties informed of the situation.
Appeals against the issue of an Enforcement Notice
There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice and appeals are processed in accordance with procedures administered by the Planning Inspectorate. The actions required by an enforcement notice, along with the compliance period, are held in abeyance pending the determination of an appeal. If the appeal is allowed, the Enforcement Notice is quashed and the investigation closed. If the appeal is dismissed and the Enforcement Notice is upheld, the compliance period on the Notice commences on the date of the appeal decision letter. The Council will then use all appropriate means to secure compliance with the Notice.
Other forms of action that the Council can take are:
Prosecutions
An offence occurs where a developer fails to comply with the requirements of a notice or carries out work to a protected tree or listed building without consent. It is also an offence to display an advertisement without consent. Where these matters cannot be resolved by any other means, the Council will take prosecution action in the local courts. The Council will also seek to prosecute any failure to return formal legal documents where required by law to do so or deliberately providing any false information, where such a prosecution would be in the public interest.
Injunctions
In exceptional cases, the Council may seek an injunction through the Courts. An injunction may be sought at any stage of the planning enforcement process, either as the Council’s preferred remedy or in addition to some other formal enforcement action. Unlike an enforcement notice or a stop notice, injunctive proceedings are “personal” in that the Council seeks to obtain an order from the Court to restrain a person, or a number of people from carrying on the breach. The Council will therefore have to weigh the public interest against the private interest of the person or people whom the Council seek to restrain.
The Court has the discretion to commit a person to prison who refuses or neglects to do something required by a Court Order.
Direct Action
The Council can decide to take direct action to secure compliance with the requirements of an outstanding enforcement notice where the person responsible fails to do so. Such action will only be taken after consideration of the ‘public interest’ in pursuing the matter and contact with the owner/occupier of the land. The Council will seek to recover its costs for example, by placing a charge on the land.
Planning Committee 174 Proactive Enforcement
Conditions compliance
Conditions are often imposed to regulate certain aspects of an approved scheme and are an essential element in the process. Were it not for the conditions, it is probable that planning permission would have been refused.
The Council will carry out compliance checks on major application sites and selected developments both in terms of imposed planning conditions and the physical features of the development itself (i.e. siting). Priorities will be determined by the Enforcement Manager or their assistant. This approach will be based on a risk assessment, where sensitive developments and sites will be judged to be a higher risk. A developer is at risk of the Council issuing a Breach of Condition Notice for failure to adhere to approved details. However, some minor changes are acceptable and can be dealt with through a further planning application.
The Council will seek to develop close contacts with major developers to facilitate mutually beneficial checking of conditions and other aspects of individual developments to resolve matters as quickly as possible.
Targeted pro-active projects
The Council will undertake pro-active projects where resources allow. Such projects could include illegal advertisements in a specific area, untidy sites or checking occupancy conditions (agricultural/holiday).
Review of conditions
The practical issues involved in enforcing conditions and agreements and the issues that can arise from unclear information on approved plans will be shared with Planning Services to ensure that robust and sound controls are applied to new development.
Publicity The Council will take a proactive stance in publicising successful action as part of its strategy for improving public awareness of the importance of managing development.
Performance
The Council will maintain accurate records of enforcement investigations and report performance figures to the Planning Committee on a quarterly basis to ensure that standards of customer care are adhered to and that enforcement meets the standards of service delivery set out in this document.
Planning Committee 175 Agenda Item 8
AREA DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 23 July 2014 SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING CONTRAVENTIONS
1. This report presents the Schedule of Outstanding Planning Enforcement Contraventions. The report updates the position on those contraventions included on the previous schedule and those cases that have since been authorised up to the 30th June 2014. It is not a full list of enforcement cases. Please note that from 1st April 2012 all new complaints within the national park are being registered on the SDNP system. Those complaints received prior to 31st March 2012 will remain on the CDC system until the file is closed.
Statistics as at 30th June 2014 2. Case Numbers: CDC SDNP cases (included SDNP cases Total in CDC figures but (on SDNP remaining on CDC system) system until closed) On hand as at last 263 15 91 354 report: Cases received since 108 0 54 162 last report: Cases closed since 89 1 32 121 last report: Current number of 282 14 113 395 cases on hand:
3. Breakdown by year Breakdown of the outstanding cases are as follows:
Outstanding cases logged Pre- Enforcement Strategy (pre 2009) 17 Outstanding cases logged in 2010 24 Outstanding cases logged in 2011 28 Outstanding cases logged in 2012 (CDC System) 33 Outstanding cases logged in 2012 (SDNP System) 11 Outstanding cases logged in 2013 (CDC System) 70 Outstanding cases logged in 2013 (SDNP System) 43 Outstanding cases logged in 2014 (CDC System) 115 Outstanding cases logged in 2014 (SDNP System) 54
4. Performance Indicators financial year 2014/15 CDC area only:
a. Acknowledge complaints within 5 days of receipt (124 complainants) 72 %
b. Time taken to initial visit from date of complaint: Low within 20 days (55) 87% Medium within 10 days (44 Cases) 43% High with 2 days (0 Cases)
Planning Committee 176
c. Time taken to notify complainants of action decided from date of complaint: Low within 35 days (55 Cases) 91% Medium within 20 days (50 Cases) 98% High within 9 days (0 Cases)
d. Notices served within 10 days of authorisation (6 Cases) 100% between 01.04.14 to 30.06.14
The lower level of performance against the time to acknowledge complaints and carry out site visits in relation to Medium Priority cases is noted. This has occurred due to the loss of a Planning Officer (Enforcement), the continued vacancy of a second post within the team and the transitional effects of changes in administrative procedures. However, since the collation of these statistics a Planning officer has been appointed to the team and new administrative arrangements are in place to ensure consistency in the registering of complaints. Also, efforts are currently being made to fill the remaining vacancy in the team. For these reasons, it is anticipated that performance will recover over the next quarter.
5. Performance Indicators have not been made available for cases within the South Downs National Park
6. Notices Served.
01 Apr – 30 Jun Total in FY 2014/15 Notices Served: CDC SDNP CDC SDNP Enforcement Notices 4 2 4 2 Breach of Condition Notices 1 1 1 1 Stop Notices Temporary Stop Notices Section 215 Notices High Hedge Remedial Notices 1 Tree Replacement Notice 3 3 Total 9 3 9 3
7. If Members have any specific questions on individual cases, these should be directed to the contact officer, Shona Archer, Enforcement Manager (01243 534547)
Planning Committee 177 OUTSTANDING CONTRAVENTIONS – SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice BX/SDNP/12/ Land at Warehead The erection of a pole 09.12.13 EN BX/10 issued 00426/ Stud barn, metal container Appeal in progress – PINs site visit date awaited UNAWKS Thicket Lane building and creation of Halnaker a hardsurface
CON1950 Bignor Park Mobile Home and shed 24.06.92 EN issued - Mobile Home [MH] – BY/5 CONMHC Nursery, Bignor Court hearing - 08.11.04. Prosecuted for non-compliance Road, Bury and fined £6,400. 92/01950/ 16.06.10 – MH on the land. CON Owner interviewed under caution. Letter sent 19.11.10 BY/97/00058/ requesting removal of the mobile home by 31.03.11. CONMHC 03.08.11 - mobile home not removed. 16.08.11 – Prosecution paperwork to Legal. 22.11.12 – committee agreed a further 6 months to comply with the Enforcement Notice. 03.06.13 – site visit. Mobile home still in situ. Owner states intention to make an application to retain MH. 12.07.13 – prosecution paperwork sent to Legal Services 08.01.14 – advice received from Legal Services 10.01.14 – file returned to Legal Services to commence prosecution proceedings 31.03.14 Officers have been made aware that the site is for sale. 08.04.14 – adjourned by the Court for a further site visit to ascertain whether a change in the land has taken place. Case to be returned to court if the mobile home remains in situ. Continued on next page
Planning Committee 178 CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice CON1950 23.04.14 - meeting held with Legal. It was agreed that due to CONMHC the passage of time and the extensive planning history, ‘Delay’ may be an issue. So the advice is the case should be 92/01950/ reviewed and a report presented to Committee before any CON further legal action to return to court. BY/97/00058/ 12.06.14 – No change in the status of the land. CONMHC
BY/SDNP/13/ Bignor Park Erection of a lean-to 12.06.14 EN BY/20 issued 00193/BLDOP Nursery used for residential Compliance date 27.10.14 Bignor Park Road purposes as ancillary Bury accommodation to a RH20 1HG caravan
BY/09/00271/ Old Cross Street Without Listed Building 07.04.14 – Authorised to issue LBEN BY/19 ELBNP Farm consent the erection of 07.04.13 – Agent to send in revised details of proposed West Burton Road a garage scheme to address harm identified West Burton 24.6.14 – applications made to alter garage and workshop RH20 1HD building. Issue of EN suspended to enable these applications to be determined.
DN/SDNP/13/ Down View Farm Without planning 11.04.14 EN DN/5 issued 00516/COU Burton Park Road permission change of Compliance date 23.11.14 Duncton use to a mixed use for Petworth equestrian purposes GU28 0JT and stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation
Planning Committee 179 CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice EB/SDNP/13/ Snowhill House Without planning 03.12.13 EN EB/5 issued 00163/GENER Easebourne permission the erection Compliance date 14.03.14 Midhurst of a close boarded 04.04.14 - the close boarded fence (the subject of the notice) GU29 0AE fence within the has been removed. Remove from next list. curtilage of a listed It is noted that a replacement fence has been provided and building this will now be considered separately .
EL/10/00712/ Popple Meadow Breach of condition 2 27.06.14 SDNP/13/01674/FUL to re-landscape front of house and EBCNP Graffham attached to planning remove steps. Application permitted 29.07.13. Work required Petworth permission by condition 2 to be carried out by 29.1.14 West Sussex SDNP/13/01674/FUL Increase the height of the wall in front of the basement GU28 0QF windows of the property by 1.2 metres; The formation of an earth mound between the gravel driveway and the top of the retaining wall; The gradation of the earth mound to the northeast and southwest; The grassing of the earth mound; The planting of a hedge along the north west slope of the earth mound; The removal of the steps, step piers and balustrade walls and their replacement with a continuation of the earth mound, and; The resulting debris is removed. 25.06.14 - SDNP/14/01657/CND – application to retain building without complying with conditions REFUSED by Committee which resolved that a BCN be issued to require compliance with Condition 2 (earth works) within 3 months. BCN EL/7 issued Compliance date 28.09.14
Planning Committee 180 CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice ES/11/00308/ Land at Rother Untidy Land 06.12.11 S 215 Notice issued. Compliance date 17.04.12 EACCNP Farm 13.07.12 – Appeal Hearing at Worthing Mags Court: Fitzhall Road 1. Notice upheld on the basis that the materials placed on Elsted the land do affect its amenity; Midhurst 2. The period for compliance with the notice is extended GU29 0JS to 6 months after the determination of the prior approval application by the Council. The materials must either be used in the Development within that time or, if the application is refused, removed. 3. Costs were awarded in the Council’s favour in the sum of £1433.70 – £1,320 in respect of legal costs and £113.70 of investigation costs. 30.11.12 - SDNP/12/01381/AGA permitted. New compliance date – 01.06.13 01.06.13 - site visit confirmed non-compliance. Letter before action sent to contravener. 02.07.13 – site meeting with landowner the outcome of which is to proceed to prosecution. 21.08.13 – prosecution papers lodged with court. Hearing adjourned. 21.01.14 – Court Hearing. Case dismissed by Court. Officers to pursue compliance with the notice through negotiation. 07.4.14 – officers met with land owner to discuss clearance of the land. 02.07.2014 - Meeting to be held with person responsible for deposit of material on the land. Civil proceedings are engaged that impact upon progressing this matter.
Planning Committee 181 CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice FH/08/00347/ Land at Without planning 24.11.11 EN FH/19 issued – appeal dismissed 18.07.12 EDWENP Brackenwood permission change of 07.12.12 – Leave to appeal to the High Court refused. Telegraph Hill use of the land to New compliance date –18.01.13 Midhurst stationing of a mobile 16.10.12 – Letter from the appellant requesting to vary notice. GU29 0BN home for the purposes 10.01.13 – site visit to check occupation of the timber log of human habitation cabin. Still in breach – commence prosecution proceedings. 13.02.13 – PLD application received (SDNP/13/00702/LDP - Use of land for the stationing of a timber chalet within the definition of a caravan/mobile home for staff accommodation.). 07.07.14 – No further action until PLD application determined
FH/11/00487/ Land at Change of use of the 11.02.13 EN FH/22 EAGRNP Brackenwood land to a mixed use Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry FH/10/00140/ Telegraph Hill comprising of 11.06.13 - application for retention of the operational ESHNP Midhurst equestrian use and development refused (SDNP/13/1290/FUL). Appeal lodged. GU29 0BN agriculture, namely the 15-17.10.13 and 08.11.13 – Planning Inquiry held. keeping and training 07.01.14 - Appeals dismissed and the notice upheld with polo ponies corrections and variations. New compliance date of 03.10.14 following refusal of application to High Court to challenge PINs decision.
FH/11/00487/ Land at Construction of 11.04.13 EN FH/23 EAGRNP Brackenwood buildings, horse walker Appeal lodged – As Above. FH/10/00140/ Telegraph Hill fencing, hardstanding, Appeal dismissed, notice upheld with corrections/variations. ESHNP Midhurst trailer ramp, access New compliance date of 03.10.14 as above. GU29 0BN track, parking area and exercise track.
Planning Committee 182 CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice FH/10/00560/ Land North East of Erection of a 05.12.12 EN FH/21 issued EENGNP Court Farm dwellinghouse in the Appeal decision received – Enforcement Notice upheld Miggs Lane approximate position New compliance date of 19.03.14 Fernhurst shown on the attached 04.04.14 – site visit revealed non-compliance. GU27 3EZ plan. 07.04.14 – letter before prosecution action sent. 16.06.14 - site visit still showed non-compliance with EN. 18.06.14 – Commence work of prosecution papers. 03.07.14 – arrangements made for a site visit to be conducted on 10.07.14
FU/06/00297/ 1 Tower View Use for the stationing 23.06.10 EN FU/47 issued - Compliance date of 04.02.11 EMHCNP Nursery of a mobile home for 17.03.11 – conducted site visit. Notice not complied with. West Ashling Road the purposes of human 06.04.11 - letter sent prior to prosecution proceedings. Hambrook habitation and use of 28.07.11 – owner attended interview under caution. Funtington part of a building for 22.09.11 – investigation of personal circumstances. Chichester residential purposes 17.10.11 – requested site visit to view inside the buildings PO18 8UD and; Use for the 01.11.11 – LPA contacted by agent reviewing the case storage of disused 10.01.12 - Site visit - mobile home no longer used as lorries, vans, cars and residential accommodation, but the former farm shop in use as a touring caravan. a dwelling. EN does not cover with this use. 04.09.12 – LDC application submitted for use as a dwellinghouse ref: 12/02253/ELD; 08.10.13 – LDC application refused; 14.1.14 – The owner claims to have lived on the land since 2008 and the EN has, in part, been complied with. 7.7.14 - The long term residential occupation of the site will now be considered having regard to the occupier’s personal circumstances and the Human Rights Act.
Planning Committee 183
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice FU/08/00230/ The Old Post Office Untidy building and 04.02.11 S215 Notice issued EWSTNP Southbrook Road land 22.12.11 – Notice of intention to undertake works in default West Ashling served. Chichester 12.03.12 – Works in compliance commenced. 19.06.12 – West Sussex works partially complete. 11.10.12 - No further works PO18 8DN undertaken 25.03.13 – Authority given to commence prosecution. 10.06.13 – Court Hearing – defendant failed to appear. 06.08.13 – Relisted Court Hearing – request to Court to convict in defendants absence. 09.10.13 – Defendant was found guilty in their absence. The court imposed the maximum fine of £1,000 together with a victim surcharge of £100 and costs of £438.65. 14.1.14 – No further contact has been made with the owner. A notice of intended action displayed on site. 07.07.14 – Quotes for carrying out the work to be obtained to inform the enforcement process. FU/08/00230/ The Old Post Office Untidy building and 27.06.14 – authorised to issue S215/20 (FU/57) EWSTNP Southbrook Road land not included in the West Ashling above serial. Chichester West Sussex PO18 8DN
Planning Committee 184
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice LG/10/00365/ Old Mill Farm Without planning 13.10.10 EN LG/10 issued - Appeal dismissed. ECOMNP Mill Lane permission change of 27.05.11 – partial compliance achieved. Lurgashall use of existing farm 07.12.11 – App refused to retain access and extensions. Petworth buildings to joinery 22.12.11 – re-commence prosecution proceedings. West Sussex workshop and timber 20.02.12 and 13.03.12 – Interviews under caution conducted. GU28 9ER storage and formation 22.03.12 - appeals lodged against LPA refusals on (11/03609 of a new vehicular and 11/03610/FULNP). Appeals dismissed. access and 19.09.12 –agreement to carry out remedial works. hardsurfaced access 23.01.13 – letter setting out remedial steps required. track from Mill Lane 12.07.13 - prosecution papers forwarded to Legal Services. 24.01.14 – Further prosecution papers forwarded to Legal. 08.04.14 - Court adjourned to 27.05.14 as tenant instructed builders to carry out the works required by the notice. 13.05.14 – Email from defendant to confirm contractor appointed to carry out the work; 06.06.14 - Site visit showed that work had not commenced on site. 07.07.14 – materials now on site to commence work & owner instructed to inform Officers of date for completion.
NC/10/00648/ Land West of Breach of condition 18.08.11 BCN NC/12 issued. EBCNP London Road notice – no caravan, Action on BCN suspended on the understanding that the LPA Northchapel chattel or structure or would accept a new application for an agricultural worker’s building placed or mobile home on the site. Second barn erected. erected on the land 4.10.13 – no application received. Owner informed at risk of prosecution concerning non-compliance with the BCN; 07.11.13 - (SDNP/13/04972/FUL) application for retention of agricultural worker’s mobile home for temp period of 3 years. 04.04.14 - no further action until application has been determined. 07.07.14 – application pending consideration.
Planning Committee 185
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice ML/SDNP/13/ 11 Milland Lane Without Listed Building 03.03.14 LBEN ML/24 issued 00161/LB Milland Consent the demolition Compliance date 14.07.14 Liphook of a chimney stack 01.05.14 – retrospective application to remove chimney West Sussex refused (SDNP/14/01174/LIS) GU30 7JP 07.07.14 - letter to owner requesting update.
SE/SDNP/13/ 1 Church Way Without planning 11.07.14 EN SE/2 issued 00376/BLDOP Singleton permission the erection Compliance date 22.11.14 PO19 8ET of a wooden chalet building
Planning Committee 186 Chichester District Cases: CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice BI/12/00099/ The Barnyard Prosecution under s 15.04.14 – hearing. The main sign which was removed has CONADV Birdham Road 224 TCPA – display of been taken down but relocated within the site. Case to be Birdham an unauthorised sign relisted for 27.05.14. The Defendant has been invited to West Sussex meet with council officers as to what compliant advertisement is suitable. 27.05.14 - Hearing so matter can formally be withdrawn as compliance achieved and application for relevant permission being submitted. Remove from next list
BI/11/00515/ Kellys Farm Change of use of a 06.03.14 EN BI/22 issued CONDWE Bell Lane garage to a self- Compliance date 17.10.14 Birdham contained Chichester dwellinghouse
BI/12/00041/ Land at Little Oak Untidy Land 28.08.13 Section 215 notice served S215/18 CONACC Farm Compliance date 09.01.14 Sidleham Lane 09.01.14 - Site visit revealed non-compliance with the notice Birdham Prosecution papers to be prepared 01.04.14 – site clearance underway starting with removing the felled trees. 16.06.14 – site visit – no progress on clearing the site 07.07.14 – further letter before action
BX/11/00276/ Land west of Without planning 13.06.13 EN BX/9 issued CONMHC Oakwood Livery permission change of Appeal lodged – written representation Yard use of the land to the Appeal determined – enforcement notice upheld with Tinwood Lane stationing of a mobile variations (compliance period of 2 years) Eartham home for the purposes New compliance date 30.04.16 PO18 0NE of human habitation.
Planning Committee 187 CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice CC/13/00278/ Carphone Without consent the 04.12.13 EN CC/110 issued CONLB Warehouse attachment of adhesive Compliance date 15.04.14 1North Street coverings and panels at 04.04.14 – Window sticker removed and LBC application Chichester the windows received for amendment (14/00824/LBC) PO19 1LB 02.07.2014 – Application refused. Proceed to prosecution
CC/13/00303/ 12 Brandy Hole Breach of condition – 09.04.14 BCN CC/116 issued CONBC Lane hours of operation Compliance date 07.05.14 Chichester Notice complied with – Remove from next list
CC/13/00332/ 14 Southgate Without consent the 26.06.14 LBEN CC/122 issued CONLB Chichester attachment of seven Compliance date 07.09.14 PO19 1ES advertisements to the front façade of the premises CC/13/00291/ 79 East Street Without consent the 28.05.14 EN/CC/117 issued CONLB Chichester painting of the shop Compliance date 09.08.14 PO19 1HL front white, the attachment of projection lettering to the fascia panels and vinyl lettering to windows CC/14/00025/ Friary Close Without planning 06.06.14 EN CC/118 issued CONLB Friary Lane permission the erection Compliance date 18.10.14 Chichester of a fence within the PO19 1UF curtilage of a listed building and the setting of a scheduled monument
Planning Committee 188 CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice CC/11/00253/ Pampurred Pets Prosecution for failure Legal advice is to proceed with civil action via the estates CONBC Unit 7 & 8 to comply with Breach contract. No enforcement involvement at this time. Chichester Trade of Condition Notice Remove from next list Centre CC/91 – limited to Quarry Lane storage and trade Chichester counter
CC/11/00530/ Trents Erection of clear glazed 13.02.12 EN CC/96 issued CONENF 50 South Street panelled walls and a 26.05.12. Site visit confirmed partial compliance. Chichester tarpaulin roof 27.06.12 – Owner to submit an application for Lawful PO19 1DS Development Certificate concerning the jumbrellas 01.04.13 – no application received for jumbrellas and glass barrier separating pub seating area from public access. 03.07.2014 - A review of this case has revealed that the requirements of the notice have been met in that there is no physical attachment to the listed building. Remove from next list.
CH/12/00268/ Long Acres Without planning 27.03.13 EN CH/39 issued CONHH Drift Lane permission the erection Compliance date 08.08.13 Bosham of a brick boundary wall 13.08.13 - application refused for retention of the boundary PO18 8PR adjacent to a highway wall (CH/13/00653/DOM) awaiting determination. in excess of 1m in 22.11.13 – authorisation given to proceed with prosecution. height 11.04.14 – Hearing date awaited. 15.05.14 – Application for planning permission made and successful at appeal. Breach ceased, close file. Remove from next list
Planning Committee 189 CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF Date of COMMENTS BREACH Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice E/13/00277/ Land north of Without planning 28.05.14 EN E/23 issued CONMHC Marsh Farm Barn, permission change of Compliance date 09.10.14 Drove Lane, use of the land to the Earnley, storage of a items on PO20 7JW the land
FU/06/00384/ Land west of Change of use of the 11.09.07 EN issued CONAGR Moutheys Lane land to storage of 7.3.13 – site meeting with EA and owners son who now East Ashling. wooden pallets, boxes, occupies the land with his 12yr old daughter. A further person scrap metal, household lives in a touring caravan. EA required the land to be cleared goods, disused but raised concerns about the method of disposal. Site to be a vehicles and monitored and new action taken where appropriate. storage/sale of building 20.6.13 – site visit with police, EHOs and EA. materials. 04.10.13 – Officers notified that planning agent appointed. 1 03.7.14 – letters sent to invite the owner and occupier of the land to an Interview under caution to advance the enforcement of the use and occupation of this land.
Planning Committee 190
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice FU/11/00071/ Land South of Breach of condition – 02.04.12 BCN FU/52 issued. Compliance date 02.05.12 CONBC Tower View provision of a scheme 19.06.12 – site visit. No change in appearance of the site. Nursery for foul and water 10.10.12 - Legal opinion sought on next course of action. Scant Road East surface drainage 04.12.12 – site visit showed temporary units in place Hambrook 21.12.12 –intentions about the utility blocks requested 8.7.13 – letter to request meeting on site before prosecution. 18.7.13 – Owner did not attend site meeting. Site occupied in ad hoc manner. Drainage arrangements still not discharged. 04.10.13 – letter to be sent to owner stating intention to prosecute and instigate action requiring use of land to cease. 13.01.14 – no acknowledgement. 17. 07.14 – Site visit scheduled to carry out a conditions compliance check to ascertain the need for further action. HN/09/00331/ Land at Garnet Without planning 23.08.10 EN HN/17 & HN/18 issued CONENG Cottage permission change of 14.02.12 – site visit - substantial amounts of rubble removed Hunston Road use of land to the from the land, but soil being dumped at the rear of the site. Chichester storage of a mobile 01.06.12 – further site visit revealed caravan placed on the PO20 1 NP home and builders land and raised area cultivated as a small holding. rubble and/waste 17.09.12 – meeting held with the landowner’s reps. Agreed 28 days to make application for re-profiling the imported soil and retention of the mobile home. 25.10.12 – site visited– no application made. 25.01.13 –Papers prepared for prosecution. 11.09.13 - 14.10.13 and 09.12.13 –Hearings adjourned and rescheduled for 20th January 2014. 08.01.14 – Site visited - Some work done to clear the land. Agreed to adjourn prosecution proceedings pending consideration of the respondent’s personal circumstances. 16.01.14 – letter regarding HR audit sent to owner 14.04.14 – Hearing adjourned as defendant did not attend. The matter is now listed for 19.05.14 for trial. Defendant failed to appear. Warrant for arrest issued. 12.06.14 – further explanatory letter sent to the defendant.
Planning Committee 191
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice HN/12/00216 Garnet Cottage Change of use of the 10.01.13 EN HN/20 issued CONMHC Hunston Rd land to the stationing of Compliance date 21.08.13 Hunston a mobile home for the 08.01.14 - Site visit carried out. Mobile home still in situ. PO20 1NP purposes of human 16.01.14 – letter requesting compliance with the notice and to habitation arrange meeting to discuss personal circumstances. 10.02.14 – Human Rights audit conducted. 07.07.14 – case under review
HN/11/00049/ Land east of Engineering operations 21.03.11 EN HN/19 issued CONENG Farmfield consisting of the Appeal upheld on ground (g) and compliance period extended Nurseries excavation of soil and to 6 months all other aspects of the notice upheld. Selsey Road the deposit of hardcore 30.05.12 – site visit conducted – compliance not achieved. Hunston and rubble to form a 28.06.12 - Owners advised of prosecution proceedings track and area of 06.07.12 – agent claimed dev. was PD and that refusal of hardstanding and the application 11/04408/FUL would be appealed. erection of fencing 25.10.12 – site visit conducted 8.7.13 – letter before prosecution action sent to owners. 15.07.13 – prosecution papers forwarded to Legal Services 28.09.13 – owner agreed to carry out works. Court proceedings suspended for 4 weeks to 22.10.13 02.10.13 – partial compliance achieved. 08.01.14 – site visit - access track still in situ. 14.01.14 – Landowner contacted and requested to remove material from the land. 03.02.14 - Compliance check fence removed but hardcore track still in situ 09.04.14 – letter before action sent to defendant 07.07.14 – memo to Legal requesting re-commence prosecution proceedings.
Planning Committee 192
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice KD/12/00250/ Slifehurst Wood Change of use of the 01.10.13 EN KD/22 issued CONBC Farm land to a mixed use for Compliance date 12.05.14 Scratchings Lane agriculture and the 16.05.14 – letter before action to occupier requesting Kirdford stationing of a mobile compliance with the notice; RH14 0JN home for the purposes 01.06.14 – confirmation that the mobile home has been of human habitation removed. Further compliance check scheduled for 10.07.14.
KD/11/00563/ Bridgefoot Non-compliance with 10.01.13 BCN KD/21 issued. CONBC Meadows, condition 3 attached to Compliance date 11.04.13 Glasshouse Lane Appeal Decision APP/ Non-compliance with the notice. Kirdford L3815/A/08/2065822 Prosecution proceedings have not commenced as the owners RH14 OLW dated 25 Sept ’08 whereabouts are unknown. Need for the retention of this site [KD/06/05584/COU] is to be considered.
O/03/00173/ Decoy Farm Construction of partially 01.07.05 ENs issued. Appeal dismissed, compliance date 22.11.06. CONMHC Decoy Lane completed building. 10.12.08 – Court hearing. Pleaded guilty, the court imposed Aldingbourne Change of use of land a 12 months conditional discharge and costs of £1200. for storage of motor 17.08.11 - meeting with owners to discuss ownership, vehicles etc compliance and agricultural justification of items on the land 31.01.12 – Site visit held– court case adjoined until Apr 2012. 30.1.13 - Matter discussed with Legal to decide way forward. 10.04.13 –Prosecution proceedings now in progress. 25.07.13 – Authorised for prosecution. 13.11.13 – Court hearing – case adjourned to 14.01.14. 14.1.14 - Legal attended court. Mr and Mrs Smith attended, entering Not Guilty Pleas. Trial was set for 2 April 2014. 02.04.14 – Case adjourned and scheduled for process hearing on 05.08.14
Planning Committee 193
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice PS/10/00761/ Land north of Ifold Change of use of the 24.10.12 EN PS/43 issued CONMHC Copse (Nell Ball) land for the mixed use Appeal lodged – Hearing held on 16.04.13 (Old Court Room) Dunfold Road for agriculture and 03.07.13 – Appeal Decision – appeal dismissed and EN Plaistow stationing of a mobile upheld. New compliance date 04.01.14 home for purposes of 07.01.14 – Site visit revealed non-compliance with the notice human habitation Prosecution papers to be prepared. 13.01.14 – Letter before prosecution sent. 27.02.14 – Prosecution papers forwarded to Legal Services 01.04.14 – Prosecution suspended following submission of application for retention of the mobile home as permanent dwelling 14/00460/FUL. 22.05.14 - application refused - prosecution recommenced. 04.06.14 – exchange of emails with defendant regarding possible appeal/resubmission of application; 07.07.14 – prepare papers for prosecution
PS/13/00214/ Land north of Ifold The erection of a food 29.08.13 EN PS/46 issued CONAGR Copse (Nell Ball) preparation and egg Appeal decision received – enforcement notice upheld with Dunfold Road packing bldg, workshop variation Plaistow & two container New compliance date 08.01.15 storage buildings
PS/13/00375/ Camellia Removal of trees – 18.06.14 Tree Replacement Notice PS/48 CONT Chalk Road required to replant T3 Compliance date 30.11.14 Ifold by the issue of the Tree Loxwood Replacement Notice
PS/13/00375/ Camellia Removal of trees – 18.06.14 Tree Replacement Notice PS/48 CONT Chalk Road required to replant T4 Compliance date 30.11.14 Ifold by the issue of the Tree Loxwood Replacement Notice
Planning Committee 194
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice SB/13/00043/ 12 Second Avenue Untidy Land 03.12.13 Section 215 Notice S215/19 issued CONWST Southbourne Compliance date 14.04.14 Emsworth 14.04.14 – site visit showed no compliance with the notice PO10 8HP Prosecution papers to be prepared 02.07.2014 – Further correspondence and warnings have achieved limited compliance. Proceeding to prosecution.
SB/11/00504/ Land South of Untidy Land 24.06.13 S215 Notice S215/17 issued CONENG Newells House Compliance date 05.11.13 Hambrook Hill 27.11.13 – Site visit revealed partial compliance with the South notice Hambrook 02.04.14 - Agreement with landowner that implementation of PO18 8UJ planning permissions 12/00108/FUL (Barn) and 11/03193/FUL (Stables) will use remainder of material for surfacing and foundations. Dry weather needed to start the work. Therefore site visit deferred until 01.05.14. 02.07.2014 – applications made to discharge pre commencement conditions of above permissions – awaiting determination - 2011 permission expires in October 2014.
SI/11/00517/ Enbourne Change of use of the 29.10.12 EN SI/59 issued CONENF Business Park land to the display and Appeal decision received – Enforcement Notice upheld Selsey Road sale of motor vehicles New compliance date 04.04.14 Sidlesham 08.04.14 – site visit revealed non-compliance with the notice. Letter before action to be sent 28.05.14 – Breach ceased, notice complied with Remove from next list
Planning Committee 195
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice SI/01/00444/ 35 Chalk Lane Erection of a building. 13.10.05 EN/39 issued. Compliance period expired 24.05.06. CONENG Sidlesham Change of use of land 03.11.09 – site visit showed non-compliance with to mixed or dual use – enforcement notice. restoration and storage 05.10.11 – Full trial at Worthing Magistrates Court. Owner of motor vehicles, etc found guilty on two breaches of EN SI/39. £750 fine imposed in respect of each offence (total fine £1,500). He was ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £2,500 and victim surcharge of £15. Total fine payable: £4,015. 20.03.12 – Crown Court Appeal against sentence. Owner decided not to continue with appeal on the condition that the Council did not seek further costs. This was agreed. The original conviction therefore stands. Therefore continued failure to comply will result in a higher penalty. 20.2.13 - Access to site denied. 14.1.14 – since July 2013 the owner has resisted attempts by officers to view the land. Notice now to be served on the owner that officers will visit the site. If access is refused the owner will be prosecuted and a warrant obtained to enter the land. 25.03.14 –Unable to gain access to the site. Access to site to be arranged. 02.07.2014 – site visit established that material compliance has been achieved. Remove from next list
Planning Committee 196
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice SI/10/00472/ Green Lane Without planning 30.09.13 EN SI/60 issued CONENF Piggeries permission change of Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry 29/30.07.14 – Committee Rm Ham Road use of the building to a 1 Sidlesham use for the stationing of Chichester a caravan for the PO20 7NS purposes of human habitation
SI/10/00473/ Green Lane Without planning 30.09.13 EN SI/61 issued CONENF Piggeries permission change of Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry 29/30.07.14 – Committee Rm Ham Road use of the land to the 1 Sidlesham stationing of a caravan Chichester for the purposes of PO20 7NS human habitation
SI/11/00051/ Bird Pond Cottage Without planning 01.10.13 EN SI/58 issued CONMHC Selsey Road permission change of Appeal lodged. Sidlesham use to a mixed use for Appeal decision received – planning permission granted, West Sussex agriculture, the enforcement notice corrected and quashed. PO20 7NF breeding of dogs and Remove from next list the stationing of a mobile home
SI/13/00078/ Living Elements Without planning 24.06.13 EN SI/64 issued CONENF 1 Keynor Lane permission change of Compliance date 24.12.13 Sidlesham use of the said part of Enforcement action suspended pending outcome of S78 PO20 7NL the building to use as a appeal in progress (SI/12/04761/COU) single dwellinghouse Appeal allowed in part Remove from next list
Planning Committee 197
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice SI/13/00078/ Living Elements Without planning 24.06.13 EN SI/62 issued CONENF 1 Keynor Lane permission change of Appeal in progress – decision issued Sidlesham use of the said part of The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld. PO20 7NL the building (first New compliance date11.10.14 floor)to use as a single dwellinghouse
SY/13/00178/ The Pippins High Hedge 14.04.14 HHRN HH/21 issued CONHI 7 Coxes Road Compliance date 12.08.14 Selsey PO20 9AW
WE/13/00191/ Hambrook Gravel Change of use of the 18.06.14 EN WE/28 issued CONENG Pitt land to storage Compliance date 18.10.2014 Marlpit Lane including containers, Hambrook plant machinery and Westbourne domestic garden items
WE/13/00191/ Hambrook Gravel Without planning 18.06.14 EN WE/29 issued CONENG Pitt permission the Compliance date 18.10.2014 Marlpit Lane formation of an access Hambrook and track, hardstanding Westbourne and depositing of materials
WE/13/00192/ Hambrook Gravel Removal of a plantation 18.06.14 EN WE/30 issued CONT Pitt of trees covering an Compliance date 17.04.15 Marlpit Lane approximate area of Hambrook 0.3ha that are subject Westbourne to an area Tree Preservation Order
Planning Committee 198
CON NO. ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of COMMENTS Notice EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice WR/12/00207/ Greenways Without planning 30.01.14 EN WR/21 issued CONAGR Nursery permission change of Appeal lodged – public inquiry to be held - 18/19.11.14 in Kirdford Road use of the land to the Committee Room 2, con-joined with s78 appeal - Wisborough Green stationing of caravans 13/00744/FUL for the purposes of human habitation
WR/09/00421/ Grene Cottage Without consent the 24.06.13 LBEN WR/20 issued CONLB Billingshurst Rd installation of 4no. Compliance date 05.02.14 Wisborough Green timber casement 03.04.14 – works in progress, further visit required. Billingshurst windows at first and Notice complied with. second floor level Remove from next list
Planning Committee 199 Agenda Item 9
PLANNING COMMITTEE 23 July 2014
Report of Head of Planning Services
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPEALS, COURT AND POLICY MATTERS
This report updates Committee Members on current appeals and other matters. It would be of assistance if specific questions on individual cases could be directed to officers in advance of the meeting.
Note for public viewing via Chichester District Council web site: To read each file in detail, including the full appeal decision when it is issued, click on the reference number (NB certain enforcement cases are not open for public inspection, but you will be able to see the key papers via the automatic link to the Planning Inspectorate).
WR – Written Representation Appeal H – Hearing I – Inquiry ( ) – Case Officer initials * – Committee level decision
1. NEW APPEALS
Reference/Procedure Proposal
CC/14/00938/ADV Kwik-Fit, 151 St Pancras, Chichester – replacement corporate WR (A Weir) signage.
SDNP/13/04341/LIS Tower House, 2 Verdley Place, Fernhurst – removal of WR (R Sims) existing wall between kitchen and hall. Install 2no steels over (Fernhurst) opening.
SDNP/13/02293/FUL Dundee House, Bepton Road, Midhurst – demolition of WR (SDNPA – P Aird) existing B1(c) industrial building with ancillary offices and (Midhurst) erection of a new mixed development with A1/A3, B1 and C3 uses. Provision of service yard and car parking. (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/02294/CON)
SDNP/13/02294/CON Dundee House, Bepton Road, Midhurst – demolition of WR (SDNPA – P Aird) existing B1(c) industrial building with ancillary offices. (Midhurst) (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/02293/FUL)
SI/13/03648/FUL 27 Chalk Lane, Sidlesham, Chichester – provision of bed and WR (P Kneen) breakfast accommodation on site of existing outbuildings.
Planning Committee 200 Reference/Procedure Proposal
WW/14/00413/FUL The former Boat Store and Workshop, Chichester Road, West Wittering – change of use and alteration of former boat store and workshop with 1no 2-bed dwelling together with a wildlife buffer zone to Chichester Road frontage.
2. DECISIONS RECEIVED
Reference/Decision Proposal
* CH/13/03376/OUT Wakefords Field, West of Broad Road, Hambrook – proposed H (V Colwell) residential development of 30 dwellings, community ALLOWED AND allotments and orchard, and informal open space. PARTIAL AWARD OF COSTS “ ... It is accepted the Council do not have a 5 year housing land supply identified. The latest figures suggest they have 4.3 years. However this is based on the old South East Plan target of 2400 houses. The Council seem to have gone forward to the new local plan with the same target, notwithstanding that it falls short of the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN). They are going to argue that due to the restrictions affecting land in the District the OAN cannot be met. This suggests to me the outcome of the local plan process is far from certain ... The result of all this is that the Council do not have a 5 year housing land supply and paragraph 49 of the Framework comes into play. Relevant housing policies should not be considered up to date. The appellant argues this includes future policies in the new local plan. I cannot agree with this. These future policies are predicated on the Council having a 5 year supply at the time the local plan is adopted. The weight given to them depends on their position in the local plan process, but also, how likely the local plan is to be adopted. In this case the Council’s 5 year supply arguments seem to me to be controversial and it is far from certain the plans adoption will go forward smoothly. It is that uncertainty that diminishes the weight to be given to them, not paragraph 49. Consequently, while I am aware of policies 2, 5 and 48 of the new local plan I can only give them little weight, and thanks to paragraph 49 policies RE6, RE1 and BE11, which all directly affect the location of housing, are out of date ... In terms of a rural village Hambrook seems to me to be very well connected ... The Council argued that while the village might be sustainable for a low level of development, too many houses would be unsustainable. I am not entirely convinced by that argument, but in any event I do not think that position has been reached yet ... I consider there is still a clear gap in development between the two
Planning Committee 201 Reference/Decision Proposal
Villages (Nutbourne East and Hambrook) ... the general sense when driving along the road is that one has left Nutbourne at the railway line and entered Hambrook beyond the site to the north ... It is quite clear to me that the merging of two settlements would do irreparable harm to the identity of both of them and such decisions quite rightly lie within the ambit of the local planning process ... The question therefore is whether there would be coalescence? A very recent housing development on land to the north of Lion Park ... was allowed, on appeal ... this year and this has a considerable impact on this question ... However, roughly the northern third of the site is earmarked for open space. Roughly the southern half of the appeal site is also proposed as either allotments, an orchard or open space. The result of this is that all the land in the gap on the western side of the road would be within the two development sites, but a significant portion of land in the centre would remain open ... the object is not to protect the countryside, but to prevent the villages coalescing. It was agreed the landscape is not particularly vulnerable and can accommodate further development so the question is whether the remaining gap would actually separate the two villages and I consider that it would ... The gap would be reduced but not closed and it would be wide enough so that to the casual observer it would still seem as if there was clear differentiation between Hambrook and Nutbourne. I was informed that Hambrook used to be a small village. There were 273 dwellings north of the railway line in 2009 and since then 109 new houses have been built in the middle of the village at Hazel Copse and at Lion Park. A further 48 have been allowed at the Wimpey site and Flat Farm, which is to the east side of Broad Road, just to the south of the Beaufort Cluster. With the 30 proposed by this appeal there would have been a 68% increase in houses in the village in 5 years. These figures are illuminating and reveal the pressure that the housing crisis is putting on rural villages that are close to larger urban areas, but they do not tell the whole story. A lot of the development at Lion Park, Flat Farm and the Wimpey site are to the south of the gap at the Nutbourne end of Hambrook. So the village itself has not been quite so swamped as it might seem... while I sympathise with the local residents feeling of being overwhelmed, it does not seem to me that the identity of Hambrook would be changed in any significantly negative way by this proposal, even when considered cumulatively with the other housing in the area.
Planning Committee 202 Reference/Decision Proposal
The northern edge of the site is marked by a line of trees and bushes with houses beyond ... The development is planned so that the backs of the houses face towards the existing houses to the north and with reasonable length back gardens there is good separation between the two ... 1 Kings Meadow however, would lie much closer to the proposed No 1 ... However, the existing tree screen is within the control of 1 Kings Meadow and provides good screening when the trees are in leaf and would break up views to a certain extent even in the winter ... The 16.5m separation distance is adequate for a side to front separation so there would be no over- dominance ... Overall it is undeniable the occupiers of all the houses bordering the edge of the field would experience a significant change in their outlook ... but that is not the same as the proposal causing harm in planning terms, which I do not think it does ... While I do have concerns about the cumulative impact of development on the identity of Hambrook and on the services and facilities in the area none of this outweighs the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the clear benefits of providing extra housing in an area with no 5 year housing land supply...
COSTS DECISION The appellant argued that the three reasons for refusal were not supported by any substantive evidence and the application was only refused because of strong local objections ... The first reason for refusal was that the development was out of scale for Hambrook and so was unsustainable, particularly when considering the cumulative effects of other housing approvals in the area. This was fully explored at the Hearing and evidence was provided to support the contention both that Hambrook was not a sustainable location and that it was being overwhelmed by development ... The second reason for refusal was that the gap between the two settlements would be closed and that they would coalesce ... Although I did not agree, I do not think it was an inherently unreasonable argument. The third reason for refusal concerned the impact of the density of the development on Hambrook. Like the appellant I could not understand this, but I took it to have meant little more than another way of looking at the first reason for refusal, that cumulative development was overwhelming the village. The
Planning Committee 203 Reference/Decision Proposal
Council did argue that a different density, either higher or lower would have a different impact on the village but they did not say which they preferred or why the proposed density was actually harmful. Although no time was spent on it at the Hearing, it does seem the appellant spent time before the hearing trying to elicit from the Council what they meant. As far as I am aware no cogent density argument was ever made by the Council, so it does seem that they acted unreasonably in adding this reason for refusal ... Consequently, while I do not consider the Council acted unreasonably in refusing planning permission for the development and so necessitating an appeal, they did act unreasonably when seeking to rely on the third reason for refusal. A partial award of costs is thus justified ...”
SDNP/12/02704/FUL Rosemary Park Nursing Home, Marley Lane, Marley (Fernhurst) Common, Fernhurst - construction of a single storey side (SDNPA) extension to create 12 additional en suite bedrooms and ALLOWED (costs residents lounge. refused) “… Principle of Development … Representations from third parties have expressed concern about the increasing scale of facilities and whether that is appropriate to its National Park setting. … I consider that the evidence submitted in support of the proposal clearly demonstrates that there is a continuing national demand and need for such specialist facilities … I also attach significant weight to the linked nature of the various health units within the complex which provides for a transition of health car from one to the other depending upon the changing level of car required. There are clear economic advantages of doing that within the same site. Overall therefore I consider there are exceptional circumstances in the public interest to justify the proposal within a National Park location. There is also a concern that patients are brought in from outside of the area and therefore it does not relate to specific local need….Given the more up to date guidance within the Framework, I attach greater weight to that than the local plan policies and am satisfied the principle of the proposal is acceptable …
Planning Committee 204 Reference/Decision Proposal
Character and appearance of the National Park The SDNPA considers that the design of the proposal is out of keeping because it would not be characteristic of the vernacular design approach owing to the provision of a parking undercroft and deep plan form … Whilst functional requirements should not dictate a design, they are an important consideration particularly in this instance given the specialist nature of health care provided … I am also mindful of advice within paragraph 61 of the Framework that securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. In my view the proposed design would be an appropriate addition to the existing building assuming matching materials would be used, and would not look out of place in the immediate context of its surroundings … I agree however that it would be appropriate to clad the undercroft area of the south east and north west elevations as suggested by the appellant and am satisfied that could be secured through an appropriate condition … I am also mindful that the site is well screened form wider viewpoints and it adds weight to my findings that the character of the wider National Park would not be harmed as a result … Highway Considerations Local representation have expressed continuing concern about the ability of the local access roads to cater for the increasing amount of traffic serving the complex as a whole …The traffic analysis submitted with the application indicates that the current proposal would involve only a small increase in numbers of staff and that deliveries would not significantly increase because they would be shared with other existing deliveries. Visitors would also only be likely to marginally increase … On the evidence before me and having regard to the above considerations, I see no reason to arrive at a different conclusion that the previous Inspector in that the level of additional traffic movements associated with this specific proposal, in the context of the wider operation of the whole site would not give rise to inacceptable highway safety or other adverse operation of the local highway network. In reaching this finding I also note there was no highway objection form the highway authority or from the SDNPA itself …
Planning Committee 205 Reference/Decision Proposal
Cost Decision … The application for an award of costs is refused … In respect of the above, a previous site visit was arranged for 10 March 2014 but following that visit it became clear that local residents had not received notification of the appeal and had therefore not had the opportunity to respond. This resulted in a re notification letter to local residents by the Authority which caused consideration of the appeal to be delayed whilst the case was reassigned to a new Inspector … I understand the frustration of the appellant in terms of the ensuing delay. However, the Authority point out that it had also be inconvenienced as a result of having to re notify interested persons … There appears no clear explanation for the failure of the first notification letter to be delivered to local residents. However on the basis of the evidence before me I do not consider that was the fault of the Authority. Accordingly I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in paragraph 340 of the Planning Guidance, has not been demonstrated …”
PS/13/02721/FUL Northwood, The Drive, Loxwood – proposed 2 new dwellings WR (S Locke) to the rear of Northwood. ALLOWED “ ... the appeal scheme would not be unusual by virtue of being in a backland position, but the Council is concerned about the principle of the development and its effect on the character and appearance of the area. In respect of the issue of principle, the site straddles the boundary of the defined Settlement Policy Area (SPA) so that the dwelling proposed to be constructed on Plot 2 would be outside it ... Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided other than in specific special circumstances. None of the circumstances apply to the proposed dwellings, but given the extent of residential development already present in the immediate area, I cannot conclude that they would be isolated. Consequently, the development would not be unsustainable simply on account of its location ... The SPA boundary is not discernible with reference to any particular physical features on the site, natural or built. Therefore no specific harm would be caused by the dwelling on Plot 2 being outside it ... the linear plan layout of the proposed development found in Woodland Copse. However, like the majority of the existing back land developments I observed, the appeal scheme would be largely self-contained, having a dedicated access and being
Planning Committee 206 Reference/Decision Proposal
largely screened by planting ... ‘Northwood’ itself does not appear to be cramped by virtue of insufficient plot width and the proposed dwellings would have a smaller footprint. Similarly, the space around ‘Northwood’ and the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 would be comparable to that around No 1 Woodland Copse, which is larger, two-storey house. For these reasons, I do not consider that the proposed development would detract from the general pattern of development in the area by virtue of its layout or the size of the plots ... Whilst the precise position of the sewer has not been determined by a site survey, the balance of the evidence indicates that the dwellings themselves would not impinge upon it ... I do not consider that two small dwellings would generate such a significant demand for parking that highway safety would become an issue ... while the proposed dwellings would face the shared boundary, they would be some distance from it. Given that they would be only single storey, there would be no undue overlooking of either the houses or gardens at Nos 1 and 2 Woodland Copse. ...”
PS/13/03662/FUL Staddle Stones, The Drive, Loxwood – 2no dwellings to the WR (V Colwell) rear of Staddle Stones. DISMISSED “ ... It is reasonable to concur with the Council’s view that the buildings would extend beyond the settlement boundary ... In this case part of each dwelling should be considered as being in the rural area, and none of the paragraph 55 exceptions apply. As far as accessibility to services and the like is concerned however there would be no difference than if the whole of the buildings were within the boundary. Nevertheless, the line has been drawn for a reason, backed by Chichester District Local Plan, First Review 1999 saved Policy RE1 and unjustified incursions into the area beyond the boundary could cumulatively have an adverse effect ... In this case the dwellings would be placed across the site, with a gap between them but each being placed very close to the boundaries, with Courtland to the north and Northwood to the south. This arrangement would provide natural lighting to upper rooms by way of oriole windows with side glazing only at full height, so that no harmful overlooking occurs. However, this proximity to the boundary would appear cramped and uncharacteristic of the area, and the oriole design ... would appear contrived and awkward. The arrangement does not follow the linear form found acceptable at Northwood, notwithstanding the encroachment into the rural area, and would cause harm to the character and
Planning Committee 207 Reference/Decision Proposal
appearance of the area ... In conclusion, the layout and aspects of the detailed house design would be contrary to the aims of Policies RE5, BE11 and BE13, and those of the Framework which ... seeks high quality design, and ... seeks to deliver high quality homes ... The reptile survey identifies that slow worms are found in the vicinity and that the conditions of the site at that time were, and apparently still are, suitable for these protected species ... It appears, having mind to the size of the site and the nature of the eastern end, together with its proximity to truly open countryside, that mitigation measure would be likely to be successful ... and negatively worded conditions could reasonably be employed to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to avoid disturbance to protected species ... Whilst the appellant states that ‘the same trees that were advised for removal in the report are being removed in the proposed scheme’ and refers to the two drawing numbered above, there appears doubt over T16 and T19. Conditions may be a suitable way of addressing this prior to development, but there remains real doubt as to the effect of the development proposal to satisfy the aims of Policy BE13 regarding the loss of trees that cannot be adequately replaced ... There is said to be a foul sewer running across the site ... Little further information appears to be available, and a search at the site inspection revealed no sign of any access on the appeal site ... the line of the sewer appears to coincide with the settlement boundary where it crosses the south boundary of the appeal site, and hence could well be under at least the southern of the two proposed buildings ... There are methods for building over a sewer, or it may be possible to arrange its diversion. Conversely, there may be restraint zones increasing the width to be avoided ... The design and layout of the dwellings would harm the character and appearance of the area, notwithstanding that back land development itself is part of that character and appearance ... There are a number of matters where conditions may be used to overcome doubts, but these doubts, in the absence of further details now, call into question the nature of the development that would result ...”
Planning Committee 208 Reference/Decision Proposal
PS/13/03812/FUL Oak Tree Stores, Plaistow Road, Loxwood – extensions to WR (P Kneen) shop to create a self-contained unit. Part of attached house, ALLOWED currently used for shop purposes, to be returned to habitable accommodation. House to be divided into three habitable units.
“ ... The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Extensions to shop to create a self-contained unit ... The appeal was lodged against the failure of the Council to issue a decision within the prescribed time limit. However, the Council subsequently assessed the proposed development and resolved that, had it determined the application, it would have approved it, subject to conditions ... The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect of the development on highway safety ... The increase in the height of the building ... would be unremarkable, given lack of uniformity in the built development in the immediate area ... Two doors are shown on the south elevation ... with the third front door being in the west elevation. this would create the impression of there being only two units on the site ... each unit would be provided with a private garden area with two parking spaces per unit. Furthermore, the extensions to the shop would not appear cramped. therefore, my finding is that the proposed scheme would not result in the overdevelopment of the site ... My view is that adequate visibility is available to users of this access, as was the view of the Planning Officer, and the development would not result in dangerous highways conditions. Given that there are already windows at first floor level on the north elevation ... distance between the development site and properties to its north ... I do not find that the development would result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy to the occupants of those properties ... In the light of the above, and taking all other matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed ... ”
SDNP/13/02508/FUL Coldharbour Wood, London Road, Rake – change of use of (Rogate) paddock from agricultural use or open countryside to garden WR (J Saunders) land and construction of a tennis court. DISMISSED “ ... the site would be set some distance away from any of the surrounding houses, and would be both physically and visually detached from them. Notwithstanding the measures to minimise the visual impact of the scheme, the proposed court and domestic uses would be an alien and incongruous feature within the woodland and surrounding rural area, at
Planning Committee 209 Reference/Decision Proposal
odds with the landscape and scenic beauty of the NP ... I share the Authority’s concern regarding the incremental effect of spreading isolated residential uses into the countryside, with the consequential erosion of the special landscape and scenic beauty of the existing and proposed trees and shrubs ... I therefore find the proposed tennis court and change of use of the land from agricultural to domestic curtilage would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the NP. It would conflict with LP Policies RE1 and BE11, and also an objective of the Framework and Guidance that seeks to conserve the special qualities of National Parks ...”
SB/13/02964/FUL 61 Stein Road, Emsworth – three dwellings and associated WR (P Kneen) works including new access and landscaping. ALLOWED “ ... The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area and highway safety ... Although most of the dwellings front onto Stein Road there are examples of housing schemes that have been erected on land to the rear of the frontage development. Thus, the proposal would not be the first of its kind within this predominately residential area. The terrace of properties would be perceived as being two storeys and its height, scale, size would not be out of place with some of the larger residential buildings found in the locality. Nor would the stated approximately 2 m (minimum) degree of separation between the end of the new terrace and its side boundaries be inconsistent with other gaps seen along Stein Road. As with some of the frontages along the main road, the development would enjoy a generous amount of landscaping but, also, in terms of space around the building, it would benefit from the open nature of the land beyond its southern and northern boundaries ... It is reasonable to assume that the nearby railway crossing would reduce traffic speeds and that southbound vehicles wishing to turn right into the site would indicate so as to warn other drivers of the impending manoeuvre. Accordingly, I see no reason why drivers would traverse and wait on the crossing for such a manoeuvre to be completed. Even was this to occur, the evidence indicates that the station is equipped with cameras to ensure that the level crossing is clear before the lowering of the barriers can take place ...”
Planning Committee 210 Reference/Decision Proposal WE/13/01932/LBC Little Horner, 1A River Street, Westbourne – removal of 2no WR (C Boddy) existing staircase and replacing with 1no staircase and other DISMISSED internal alterations.
“ ... Effect of the proposal on the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade II listed building ... Cottage retains much of its original character with good internal beams, lath and plaster, vertical planked doors, stairs and other joinery ... The significance of the cottage lies in its plan form and retention of the proportions and materials which are valuable evidence of its simple vernacular origins as a pair of modest dwellings of that era ... That the building has been altered but the interior still retains considerable historic interest. The pair of staircases is evidence of the earlier subdivision and previous extensions can be clearly distinguished from the original core which remains relatively intact. Removal of the two staircases would significantly harm not only the plan form but also the proportions of the building because the new staircase would be unduly dominant and would occupy almost half the width of a principal ground floor room. I also find that the proposed reconfiguration of the first floor rear rooms would result in a loss of historic fabric and a blurring of the plan form of the former pair of cottages, including further loss of the original party wall. Taken together with the insertion of double doors into the lounge the works would seriously harm the intimate enclosed character of the core of the cottage ... No doubt the alterations would help to meet the needs of an elderly relative and provide an opportunity to provide an en-suite bathroom. I also acknowledge that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks inclusive design from all development and the proposed layout facilitates this benefit. Similarly I accept that the stairs are relatively narrow and steep but that is typical of cottages of this age. However, because they are enclosed by lath and plaster walls and have sturdy handrails, I do not agree that they are dangerous. Neither is there evidence before me of any requirement to alter the stairs to comply with building regulations. Appellant’s arguments are of a transitory nature and have little weight … Main issue that the proposed works fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest the cottage possesses. Works would seriously harm the significance of the heritage asset, albeit that this harm is less than substantial, this harm should be balanced against public benefits. Limited benefits of the proposed new access arrangements are outweighed by the significant harm to the central core of the listed building. Nor is there cogent evidence that without works to the stairwells and layout the continued occupation or viable use of the dwelling would be untenable ...”
Planning Committee 211 Reference/Decision Proposal
WH/13/01681/LBC 8 Westerton, Chichester - internal alteration including WR (R Sims) removing and re-building of chimney breast and flue. ALLOWED “ ... I allow the appeal and grant listed building consent for internal alterations including removing and rebuilding of chimney breast and flue at 8 Westerton, Chichester, West Sussex ... The appeal property has been altered in the past to form, among things, an outward extension beyond the outer wall containing the chimney breast. As a result, the fireplace is left in its original position, but has clearly had a degree of structural alteration to support walls above, has fire openings to both the front and back and is isolated in the middle of the now extended space with a passageway on either side ... The proposed relocation of the chimney breast to the side wall would not strike at the significance of the listed building, which now resides mainly in the external appearance where the change from the original part to the side extension is clearly discernible but well executed in matching materials as required by Policy BE5 ... The moving of the chimney breast would retain evidence of the original plan form and would not unduly disrupt original fabric ... In conclusion, due to the works previously carried out, the further works to the chimney breast now proposed would not cause harm to the significance of the listed building, and hence the statutory test in the 1990 Act, the aims of the Framework and those of Policy BE5 would be satisfied ...”
WW/13/03772/FUL 44 Marine Drive, West Wittering, Chichester – the demolition WR (M Tomlinson) of an existing dwellinghouse and garage and the construction DISMISSED of a new two storey dwellinghouse and garage.
“ ... Often, the weight to be attributed to the amenity gained in front gardens is limited. However, from the evidence submitted, and from what I saw on site, the front garden to No 42 provides a good quality, and very private, south-facing space, that is valued and well-used by its occupants. There is also a conservatory on the front elevation of this dwelling ... It is proposed to include a first floor balcony on the front elevation of the proposed dwelling, running across the whole of its width, coming close to the boundary with No 42. Despite the presence of the hedge along the boundary with No 42, users of the balcony would be afforded a clear view down across the majority of the front garden to No 42 as well as towards its conservatory. This would have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No
Planning Committee 212 Reference/Decision Proposal
42 through overlooking and a consequent loss of privacy ... It has been submitted that the overlooking that would result could be mitigated by the use of a condition requiring the provision of screens at the ends of the balcony. Whilst this might improve the situation to a degree, with reference to No 42, much of its garden would still be directly overlooked from first floor level. Furthermore, even were a screen to be erected, the use of this first floor balcony in such close proximity to the boundary would be likely to lead to the perception of being overlooked, again to the detriment of the occupants of No 42. Therefore, the use of a condition in the manner suggested would not provide sufficient mitigation to overcome the harm that I have identified. Similarly, whilst No 42 has a rear garden that its occupants could use, this does not provide sufficient reason to set aside the position I have reached with regards to the balcony. I saw dwellings in the street with balconies on their front elevations, but these were adjacent to properties that had little or no privacy in their front gardens and thus the impact was significantly different. Whilst the proposal would result in a two-storey dwelling in close proximity to the boundary with No 42, the storey portion of the new dwelling would be positioned close to that dwelling’s flank wall. The area between this wall and the boundary is narrow and does not provide any meaningful amenity space for its occupants. The resultant relationship here would not be at all unusual in an urban setting, and would not result in an overbearing impact that would justify refusing permission ... In conclusion on this issue, whilst no harm would arise to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings as a result of the two storey nature of the proposed dwelling, its proposed garage of proposed fenestration, the proposed balcony would lead to a significant degree of overlooking of No 42, both actual and perceived, with a resultant loss of privacy to its occupants. This would cause significant harm to the living conditions of its occupants, contrary to the aims of LP Policy BE11 and paragraph 17 of the Framework ... There are many different architectural styles along Marine Drive, and whilst I did not see another the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings as a result of the two storey nature of the proposed dwelling, its proposed garage of proposed fenestration, the proposed balcony would lead to a significant degree of overlooking of No 42, both actual and perceived, with a resultant loss of privacy to its occupants. This would cause significant harm to the living conditions of its occupants, contrary to the aims of LP Policy BE11 and paragraph 17 of the Framework ... There are many different architectural styles along Marine Drive, and whilst I did not see another double gable here, it would
Planning Committee 213 Reference/Decision Proposal
be seen as another form in this eclectic scene. The use of these gables would have the dual outcome of reducing the height and bulk of the building to levels that would not be harmful to the street scene ... In conclusion, I do not find that the proposed dwelling would result in the form of ‘town cramming’ that LP Policy BE13 seeks to avoid, and it would comply with the terms of LP Policy BE11 that aims to achieve appropriate design and to protect the surroundings of development sites. The Council also referred to LP Policy BE 12 in its decision ... In conclusion, I find that the proposed development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of 42 Marine Drive through overlooking and loss of privacy. Whilst I do not find that it would harm the character and appearance of the area, this does not outweigh my findings on the first main issue. Similarly, that the dwelling is in a poor condition and its replacement would be more efficient does not outweigh this finding either ...”
SDNP/13/05576/FUL Rosemary Park Nursing Home, Marley Lane, Marley WR (SDNPA) Common – construction of single storey side extension to (Fernhurst) create 12 en suite bedrooms and ancillary facilities. WITHDRAWN (Resubmission)
3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS
Reference/Status Proposal
BI/12/04141/OUT Land south east of Coppice Barn, Church Lane, Birdham – I (V Colwell) development of 46 dwellings with ancillary parking, Awaiting decision landscaping and open space with access from Church Lane.
BI/13/01773/FUL Yendor Farm, Hundresteddle Lane, Birdham, Chichester – to WR (M Pickup) clear all existing buildings from the site and erect two, single- In progress storey detached dwellings.
BO/13/01846/FUL Burnes Shipyard Ltd, Westbrook Field, Bosham – demolition H (S Harris) of existing buildings and structures, erection of employment Hearing – to be held floor space (Use Class B1) and four dwellinghouses (Use Tuesday 2 and Class C3), with associated car parking and hard and soft Wednesday 3 landscaping works, including formation of a new footpath September 2014 at across Mill Meadow and associated works. CDC, East Pallant House
Planning Committee 214 Reference/Status Proposal
BO/13/02946/P3JPA The Mill, Ham Farm, Main Road, Bosham – change of use WR (C Boddy) from B1(a) office to C3 residential. In progress
SDNP/12/00426/ Warehead Stud, Thicket Lane, Halnaker, Boxgrove – erection UNAWKS of a pole barn, unauthorised container, hardstanding – appeal (Boxgrove) against Enforcement Notice. WR (R Hawks) In progress
SDNP/13/01909/HOUS Old Cottage West, The Street, Bury - proposed new driveway. (Bury) WR (R Sims) In progress
CC/13/02543/FUL 5 East Pallant, Chichester – construction of office space to WR (P Kneen) rear of existing flats. In progress
CH/13/03157/OUT Pottery Field, Main Road, Nutbourne – erection of 26 WR (J Bell) dwellings (2no 1 bed apartments, 3no 2 bed bungalows, 5no In progress 2 bed houses, 12no 3 bed houses, 4no 4 bed houses and new access from A259, landscaping, children’s play area, open space and junior sports field.
SDNP/13/02269/HOUS Stonechat, Butchers Lane, East Dean - alterations and (East Dean) additions to dwelling. WR (M Pickup) In progress
EWB/13/03196/FUL Stables north east of Marula Cottage, Church Farm Lane, WR (N McKellar) East Wittering – change of use from stables including In progress alterations and extension to holiday let unit.
EWB/13/03397/FUL Seagull Rest Home, 131 Stocks Lane, East Wittering – two WR (M Tomlinson) storey and 1st floor extensions to provide additional bedrooms In progress and recreational facilities with alterations to existing vehicular access.
EWB/13/03422/FUL Land south of 78 Stocks Lane, East Wittering – demolition of WR (P Kneen) existing detached double garage and 3 space garage block. In progress Erection of 1no 1 bed/2 person bungalow and associated external works.
Planning Committee 215 Reference/Status Proposal
EWB/14/00457/OUT Land south of Clappers Lane, Bracklesham Bay – erection of I (J Bushell) 160 residential dwellings, new vehicular access, open spaces Public Inquiry to be held and other ancillary works. on Wednesday 29- Friday 31 October 2014 at City Council, Assembly Rooms at 10.00am
SDNP/13/04315/LDE Stable Cottage, Dunford Hollow, West Lavington – continued WR (R Sims) use for over 10 years of land as residential curtilage. (Fernhurst) In progress
SDNP/13/01979/FUL Three Cornered Piece, East Harting Hollow Road, East (Harting) Harting - change of use to traveller site, including retention I (D Price) and provision of concrete hardstandings and hardstanding for Awaiting decision parking.
KD/13/03703/FUL Cedar Farm, Kirdford, Billingshurst – provision of tennis court H (S Locke) and associated fencing (2.75m chain link fence). Hearing to be held Tuesday 8 July 2014 at East Pallant House, Committee Room 2
KD/13/04201/P3JPA The Workshop, Village Road, Kirdford – change of use from WR (P Kneen) office (B1a) to dwelling (C3). In progress
SY/13/01324/ELD Helmieh, Chichester Road, Selsey – lawful installation of WR (C Boddy) fences to front of property. In progress
SI/10/00472/CONENF Green Lane Piggeries, Ham Road, Sidlesham – change of I (R Hawks) use of a building and stationing of a caravan for residential Inquiry to be held on purposes. Appeal against Enforcement Notice. Tuesday 29 July and (TO BE LINKED WITH SI/10/00473/CONENF) Wednesday 30 July 2014 in Committee Room 1, EPH
Planning Committee 216 Reference/Status Proposal
SI/10/00473/CONENF Green Lane Piggeries, Ham Road, Sidlesham – change of I (R Hawks) use of land for the stationing of a mobile home for the Public Inquiry to be held purposes of residential accommodation. Appeal against Tuesday 29 and Enforcement Notice. (TO BE LINKED WITH Thursday 20 July 2014 SI/10/00472/CONENF) at CDC, East Pallant House
SI/13/00503/ELD Magnolia Cottage, Cloverlands, Chalder Lane, Sidlesham – WR (V Colwell) extension to building completed outside terms of original In progress permission SI/04/01221/DOM.
SDNP/13/03175/FUL The Corner Cottage, Cobblers Row to The Grove, Singleton – (Singleton) proposed extension of garage to provide a one bedroom WR ( M Mew) cottage. In progress (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/03373/LIS)
SDNP/13/03373/LIS The Corner Cottage, Cobblers Row to The Grove, Singleton – (Singleton) proposed extension of garage to provide a one bedroom WR (M Mew) cottage. In progress (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/03175/FUL)
SDNP/14/00227/HOUS Rotherbridge Farm House, Rotherbridge Lane, Petworth – WR (M Mew) two storey rear extension with pitched roof incorporating (Tillington) existing single storey rear extension with flat roof. In progress
WI/13/02747/ELD Greenleas, Itchenor Road, West Itchenor – use of land as WR (M Tomlinson) garden land. In progress
WI/13/03435/FUL Land north of The Oast, Itchenor Road, West Itchenor – WR (P Kneen) erection of 2 bedroom dwelling. In progress
WW/12/04318/FUL Bramber Plant Centre, Chichester Road, West Wittering – WR (S Harris) proposed demolition of A1 Retail Garden Centre and In progress redevelopment as a B1 Business Park.
WR/12/00207/CONAGR Greenways Nursery, Kirdford Road, Wisborough Green – Public Inquiry to be held unauthorised works. Tuesday 18 and Wednesday 19 (TO BE LINKED WITH WR/13/00744/FUL) November 2014 in Committee Room 2, EPH
Planning Committee 217 Reference/Status Proposal
WR/13/00744/FUL Greenways Nursery, Kirdford Road, Wisborough Green – the I (R Sims) use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential Procedure as above purposed for 10no plots together with the formation of additional hard standing. (TO BE LINKED WITH WR/12/00207/CONAGR)
WR/13/02108/EXT Harsfold Manor, Harsfold Lane, Wisborough Green – WR (N Langford) extension of time of extant planning permission In progress WR/10/02412/FUL. Repair and change of use of building to allow usage as holiday let.
4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS NONE
5. CALLED IN APPLICATIONS
Reference Proposal Stage NONE
6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS
Injunctions
Site Breach Stage NONE
Prosecutions
Site Breach Stage
Land at Garnet Failure to comply with a Court proceedings issued. Adjourned Cottage, Hunston Planning Enforcement to 14.4.14 so that compliance can be Notice. monitored. Compliance not achieved – mode of trial hearing due to take place on 19.5.14. Defendant failed to appear. Warrant for arrest issued.
Decoy Farm, Failure to comply with Court proceeding issued. Matter Aldingbourne Planning Enforcement adjourned at direction of the Court to 5 Notice. August 2014.
Planning Committee 218 Site Breach Stage
Old Mill Farm, Failure to comply with Court proceedings issued. Hearing in Lurgashall Breach of Condition Worthing Magistrates Court on 4 April Notice. 2014. Court adjourned to 27 May as tenant provided evidence work is being progressed. Site visit could not confirm works have started – no evidence. Matter being returned to Court.
High Court
Site Matters prohibited by the Stage Order Planning injunction: NONE
Magistrates Court
Site Breach Stage
NONE
7. POLICY MATTERS
NONE
Planning Committee 219