Park North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 Fax: (01403) 262985 (Calls may be recorded) DX 57609 HORSHAM - 6 www.horsham.gov.uk
Tom Crowley, Chief Executive
Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North
Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 1ST MARCH 2011 AT 5.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM
Councillors: Ian Howard (Chairman) Liz Kitchen (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey David Jenkins Andrew Baldwin Sheila Matthews Gordon Brown Christian Mitchell Clive Burgess Robert Nye Roy Cornell Linda Pettitt Christine Costin Peter Rowlinson Leonard Crosbie Pat Rutherford Sheila Dale David Sheldon Ross Dye David Skipp Duncan England Claire Vickers Sarah Gray Belinda Walters David Holmes Kyle Wickens Sally Horner You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business
Tom Crowley Chief Executive
AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence
2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 18th January and 1st February 2011 (attached)
3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee – any clarification on whether a Member has an interest should be sought before attending the meeting.
4. To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive
5. To consider the reports of the following officers and to take such action thereon as may be necessary
Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee – Appendix A
Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation
NOTE: (a) Those items which are headed DELEGATION in the recommendation are seeking authority for the application to be decided by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The Committee is not being asked to decide the application as it is unable to do so at this meeting.
(b) The suggested conditions and reasons for refusal may alter from those set out in the agenda.
(c) Applications relating to sites in two or more parishes are shown under the first Parish in alphabetical order.
6. Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances.
AREA NORTH COMMITTEE – 1ST MARCH 2011
The Report by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services contains the following items:
Item Ward Reference Site No. Number
A1 Itchingfield, DC/10/1041 KINGFISHER FARM, WEST CHILTINGTON LANE, BILLINGSHURST Slinfold & Warnham
A2 Roffey South DC/10/2172 246A CRAWLEY ROAD, HORSHAM, WEST SUSSEX
A3 Itchingfield, DC/10/1889 RAPKYNS CARE CENTRE, GUILDFORD ROAD, Slinfold & BROADBRIDGE HEATH Warnham
A4 Itchingfield, DC/10/2551 PLOT 1, STANE STREET, SLINFOLD Slinfold & Warnham
A5 Itchingfield, DC/10/2688 MEAD FARM, STANE STREET, SLINFOLD Slinfold & Warnham
A6 Itchingfield, DC/10/2690 MEAD FARM, STANE STREET, SLINFOLD Slinfold & Warnham
A7 Southwater DC/10/2495 27 MILLFIELD, SOUTHWATER, HORSHAM
A8 Nuthurst DC/10/2205 FURZEFIELD, BROADWATER LANE, COPSALE
A9 Holbrook West DC/10/2448 SQUIRRELS, OLD HOLBROOK, HORSHAM
A10 Nuthurst DC/09/2140 ADAMS FIELD, KERVES LANE, HORSHAM
A11 Itchingfield, DC/10/2643 18 TILLETTS LANE, WARNHAM, HORSHAM Slinfold & Warnham
A12 Trafalgar DC/10/2578 12 THE PLAT, HORSHAM
A13 Forest DC/10/2604 46 GREBE CRESCENT, HORSHAM
A14 Forest DC/11/0011 10 SOUTH GROVE, HORSHAM
A15 Southwater DC/11/0013 POND FARM GHYLL SOUTH OF CEDAR DRIVE, SOUTHWATER
A16 Roffey South DC/11/0020 STRAWFORD CENTRE, BLATCHFORD CLOSE, HORSHAM
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (NORTH) 1ST MARCH 2011
REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
APPEALS
1. Appeals Lodged
I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-
2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service
DC/10/1149 Erection of 1 x 2-bed dwelling with attached garage. Ash Lodge, 1 Cottingham Avenue, Horsham, RH12 5HU. For: Mr and Mrs Gowers
DC/10/2244 Erection of a single storey detached dwelling with garaging to rear of site and minor alterations to No. 19 Guildford Road. The Cottage, 19 Guildford Road, Horsham, RH12 1LU. For: Mr D.L and Mrs C.Brown
DC/10/2306 Variation of condition No. 2 of planning consent Ref. HU/231/89 to permit extension of opening hours Sundays to Thursdays 11.00 - 23.30, Fridays and Saturdays 11.00 - 01.00. 25 Queen Street, Horsham, RH13 5AA. For: Mr Mahmut Gunes
DC/10/0675 Construction of a new 2 bed single storey dwelling. 53 Littlehaven Lane, Horsham, RH12 4JE. For: Mr D Maguire
DC/10/1819 Construction of a 3 bedroom house in garden of 81 Comptons Lane. 81 Comptons Lane, Horsham, RH13 5NU. For: Mr Phillip King
3. Appeal Decisions
I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:-
DC/10/0863 Conversion of building to granny annexe. Southbourne Court, Polecat Lane, Copsale, Horsham, RH13 9DJ. For: Mr and Mrs Nicholl Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)
DC/09/2089 Proposed sports pavilion. Phillips Playing Field, Southwater Street, Southwater, West Sussex For: Mr Mark Ellis Appeal: ALLOWED (Committee)
DC/10/2133 Two Storey Extension to residential dwelling. Lane End, Lyons Road, Slinfold, Horsham, RH13 0QS. For: Mr and Mrs Gardner Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DC/10/1235 Demolition of existing 2-storey office building and construction of a part 3 and part 4 storey, mixed use development with ground floor commercial unit and 9 flats above on levels 1, 2 and 3 (comprising 2 x 1-bed and 2 x 2- bed on 1st floor, 2 x 1-bed and 2 x 2-bed on 2nd floor, 1 x 3-bed on 3rd floor) above on levels 1, 2 and 3. Proposal includes provision for cycle storage, storage for refuse, 2 parking spaces and terraced areas. Change of use from B1 (Offices) to C3 (Dwellings) and A1 (Shops) - (46 and 48 East Street). 46 East Street, Horsham, RH12 1HN. For: Southern Space Ltd Appeal: DISMISSED (Committee)
DC/10/1062 Retention of earth bunding and associated landscaping. Little Park Farm, Charlwood Road, Ifield, Crawley, RH11 0JZ. For: Mr Mark Vickers Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DCN110118
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 18TH JANUARY 2011
Present: Councillors: Ian Howard (Chairman), Liz Kitchen (Vice-Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Clive Burgess, Roy Cornell, Christine Costin, Leonard Crosbie, Ross Dye, Duncan England, Sarah Gray, David Holmes, David Jenkins, Christian Mitchell, Robert Nye, Linda Pettitt, Pat Rutherford, David Skipp, Claire Vickers, Belinda Walters
Apologies: Councillors: Gordon Brown, Sheila Dale, Sally Horner, Sheila Matthews, Peter Rowlinson, David Sheldon, Kyle Wickens
DCN/115 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS
There were no declarations of interest. . DCN/116 ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
DCN/117 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/09/2101 - ERECTION OF 963 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, COMMUNITY FACILITY INCLUDING LAND FOR A PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE, YOUTH AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, OTHER FORMAL AND INFORMAL OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS, TRANSPORT AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS, NEW EAST-WEST LINK ROAD, IMPROVEMENTS TO FIVE-OAKS ROUNDABOUT, REALIGNMENT AND PARTIAL CLOSURE OF EXISTING A264 BROADBRIDGE HEATH BY- PASS AND OTHER ANCILLARY WORKS (OUTLINE) SITE: LAND SOUTH OF BROADBRIDGE HEATH APPLICANT: COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES PLC
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission to establish the principle of the development of 57 hectares of land to the South of Broadbridge Heath which formed part of the strategic development of land as set out in the Horsham District Council, Land West of Horsham Masterplan.
The current application sought to establish the principle of the development of 57 hectares of land to the South of Broadbridge Heath, which formed part of the strategic development of land as set out in the Horsham District Council, Land West of Horsham Masterplan.
Outline planning permission for the principle of the development of the balance of the land within this strategic development location, to the east of the A24, had been granted in August 2010 and permission for the first phase of 196 dwellings had been granted in October 2010 (Development by Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
Berkeley Strategic/Berkeley Homes (Southern) – applications DC/09/2138 and DC/10/006).
Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS7, PPS9, PPG13, PPG17 and PPS25; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP7 and CP14; Local Development Framework, General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC9, DC22 and DC40; and the Land West of Horsham Masterplan and Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included two previous applications, also submitted by the current applicant, in November 2008. The first, application DC/08/2446, had sought permission for a mixed use development comprising up to 1,013 residential units (Class C3), a primary school (Class D1); a neighbourhood centre including doctors surgery (Class D1), six flexible business/retail units (Class B1/A2/A1), a parish office (Class B1), a public house/restaurant (Class A4/A3) and associated car parking; open space including sports pitches and changing facilities (Class D2); allotments; and associated landscaping and infrastructure works (Outline). The second, application DC/08/2447, had sought permission for highway infrastructure work incorporating a new grade separated junction on the A24 south of Farthings Hill; a new east west link road between Five Oaks Road and the A24; and the realignment and downgrading of the existing A264 Broadbridge Heath bypass (Outline).
These applications had been submitted almost one year before application DC/09/2138 was submitted by Berkeley Strategic Land Limited for the development of land to the east of the A24 and the associated highway improvements including the eastern half of the grade separated junction.
The application submitted by the current applicant had been based upon a stand-alone solution with a new grade separated compact junction on the A24, the downgrading of the Broadbridge Heath bypass, the provision of a new single-carriageway road south of the existing bypass and a single- carriageway street between the new southern road and downgraded bypass.
The application was contrary to the highway solution preferred by the Parish Council and adopted within the Land West of Horsham Masterplan. Both of those envisaged the provision of a new grade separated junction on the A24 with linked/overlapping slip roads to Farthings Hill interchange, the closure of the existing Broadbridge Heath southern bypass and the provision of a new dual-carriageway bypass south of the existing road (Option 1).
The application had been subject to consultation and Members of Development Control North were briefed on the application on three
2 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
separate occasions at the meetings on 16 December 2008, 20 January 2009 and 17 February 2009. The application was not brought forward for a decision and has since been held in abeyance.
Detailed consultation responses had been obtained from Natural England, Sussex Police, Countryside Access Forum for West Sussex, Sustrans, British Horse Society, Highways Agency, Southern Water, Gatwick Airport, Environment Agency, Broadbridge Heath Parish Council, Slinfold Parish Council, Warnham Parish Council, the Arboricultural Officer, the Landscape Architect, the Conservation Officer, Public Health & Licensing and West Sussex County Council. These were appended to the committee report.
Eighteen letters of comment had been received. Five members of the public and two representatives from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposals and the applicant spoke in support.
The application site comprised an area of approximately 57 hectares and was located to the south of Broadbridge Heath, approximately 2.3 kilometres west of Horsham Town Centre. The site was located to the west of the A24 and bounded by the A264 to the north west, the River Arun to the south west and the railway line to the south east.
The land immediately to the south of Broadbridge Heath was predominantly flat and gently undulating, with the notable exception of High Wood Hill, which was the location of a species-rich designated woodland and Site of Nature Conservation Interest. The rest of the land was arable farm land. There were a small number of residential properties nearby, including Mill House and properties off Old Wickhurst Lane, which were excluded from the application site boundary.
Mill Lane, a public bridleway (BW1630) and Old Wickhurst Lane provided the key routes linking Broadbridge Heath to the countryside to the south and to Mill House and Broadbridge Farm, including the recently converted Grade II Listed Buildings. Part of the Mill Lane public bridleway ran north of the existing Broadbridge Heath bypass to Thelton Avenue and provided a key link to the village. The trees and hedgerow on the edge of Mill Lane provided an important wildlife corridor. Along with the field boundaries on the northern half and edges of the site and the existing tree cover, they were important to the landscape character of the area.
The current application sought outline planning permission to establish the key principles, as set out by the six parameter plans, which would inform the subsequent detailed individual applications. The parameter plans and the supporting technical reports formed the basis of the following assessment. This assessment also included a critique of the illustrative layout. Although the layout was not a matter for determination as part of the outline application,
3 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
comments made at this stage would help to inform the latter reserved matters applications.
The outline permission proposed the construction of 963 residential units and associated infrastructure.
Highway infrastructure would occupy 5.45 hectares of the site area. This would comprise of the following elements: - The east-west dual carriageway link road, including a new roundabout junction on the Five Oaks Road and the western half of the grade separated junction and associated slip roads on the A24. The balance of the junction on the eastern side would be provided by Berkeleys). - The vehicular overbridge across the A24. - The provision of buffer planting along the road corridor to include planting, banking and fencing. This would be provided for aesthetic and acoustic reasons. - An access to Newbridge Nurseries, including a left in/left out junction onto the new dual carriageway located 50 metres to the east of the proposed new roundabout on the Five Oaks Road. The work would include the provision of a dedicated right turn in from Five Oaks Road and the closure of the existing exit. - An access arrangements along the new east-west link road which would provide a left in/left out junction at the western access and a fully operational signalised junction at the eastern access. - On demand signalised pedestrian crossings at Old Wickhurst Lane and Mill Lane. This would include a Pegasus crossing at the Mill Lane crossing. This crossing would be moved off-line to the west of the definitive line in order to retain as much vegetation as possible and to enable the planting of a semi mature tree in the central reservation, to ensure the existing bat corridor was maintained. It would be designed to allow the movement of equestrians, cyclists and pedestrians across the east-west link road. - The downgrading of the western end of the existing Broadbridge Heath bypass and its use by buses, cyclists and pedestrians. The development layout would provide alternative access for local traffic to access the new neighbourhood centre. - The provision of a grade signalised pedestrian crossing on the existing Broadbridge Heath bypass, not only to serve the occupiers of the early phases of the development but also to provide connectivity to Broadbridge Heath in the longer term. - The provision of a new cycleway route along the southern side of the existing bypass. This would link up with the cycleway routes through the Tesco site and the existing underpass under the bypass leading to Wickhurst Lane North. - Traffic management measures to limit the potential for rat running through Broadbridge Heath and the surrounding area.
4 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
Since the submission of the application in November 2009, the proposed access strategy and the options for traffic management to limit the impact on Broadbridge Heath and the surrounding villages had been one of the key areas of investigation and transport modelling. This had resulted in the modelling of alternative access arrangements for the east-west link road. This had culminated in the adoption by the applicant and the acceptance by West Sussex County Council of a left in/left out junction at the western access and a fully operational signalised junction at the eastern access. An assessment of this option alongside the alternatives was set out in the South of Broadbridge Heath Alternative Access Strategy dated September 2010.
The development of different traffic management schemes to discourage rat running through Billingshurst Road and surrounding rural roads and the use of the new east-west link dual carriageway for non-local traffic had also resulted from the investigation and modelling. Three options for traffic management had been identified and consulted upon. The scheme would be funded by developer contributions secured by means of the section 106 agreement and would be implemented by West Sussex County Council.
An illustrative masterplan and five parameter plans fixed the development principles and land use and gave information relating to the location of highway infrastructure and access routes through the development; landscape features to be retained and integrated into the development; sustainable drainage system (SuDs) features; open space; density; and building height.
The parameter plans provided the baseline for the Environmental Assessment, the findings of which were set out in the Environmental Statement which accompanied the application. Future reserved matters applications would be required, through a statement of conformity, to demonstrate compliance with the findings as set out in the Environment Statement. The application was also supported by a Design and Access Statement (D&A), Environmental Statement (non technical summary), Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Strategy, Energy and Renewables Statement, Sustainability Statement and a Statement of Community Involvement.
The D&A provided key information relating to the evolution of the design concept for the development having regard to local references and examined the following: - The implications for movement through the development and connectivity with Broadbridge Heath whilst having regard to street hierarchy and the principles of design guidance produced by the Department for Transport in Manual for Streets (2007). - The design, location and access/collection arrangements for refuse. - The car parking strategy, with parking spaces accommodated on plot or within parking courts. The Transport Assessment submitted in connection
5 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
with the application explained that the methodology used for establishing residential demand had been guided by the Department for Communities and Local Government Report published in May 2007 entitled ‘Residential Car Parking Research’, the 2003 West Sussex County Council (WSCC) car parking standards and locally derived information from Broadbridge Heath and Horsham on car ownership. The car parking analysis submitted in support of the application had indicated that a total of 1928 residential car parking spaces and 68 commercial car parking spaces would be sufficient for anticipated demand. The WSCC maximum standards would result in a total of 2187 residential car parking spaces and 136 commercial car parking spaces. - An assessment of the environmental impact of traffic noise and the mitigation strategies, including acoustic screening. - The design and mix of units would vary. Houses would generally be two to two-and-a-half storeys in height, with the opportunity to introduce three storey houses at strategic ‘accent’ or landmark locations and three storey corner apartment buildings. - Sustainable design principles through such measures as locally sourced and sustainable materials; the use of SuDs; taking into account the landscape character in the design of the development; the provision of suitable wildlife habitats and implementation of mitigation strategies; providing safe pedestrian and cycleways to encourage alternatives to the use of the private car; providing storage areas for recyclable waste within the home; and collecting and re-using rainwater.
The proposed development would be built over a period of seven years. The build out rate was set out in the Transport Assessment and had been used for the purpose of traffic modelling. The applicant had advised that the build out rate could be between five and seven years depending upon economic conditions and whether the applicant developed the whole of the site or disposed of part to another developer. It was noted that the build out rate on the site to be developed by Berkeley Homes was 12 to 13 years, a much longer time period.
The development would commence on the western half of the site, with access from the A264 and the construction of the proposed Five Oaks Roundabout at the western end of the east-west link road. Subject to the grant of planning permission for the development and the approval of the subsequent application for the east-west link road, the projected commencement of works on site would be May or June 2011. The link road would be constructed as the phases of development proceeded eastwards and once this key infrastructure and the A24 junction had been provided, the existing Broadbridge Heath bypass could be downgraded.
It was considered that the houses to the south of the road which split the development in two would be harder to integrate with the rest of the development.
6 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
a) Compliance with the principles of policy CP7 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Land West of Horsham Masterplan and supporting Design and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document (SPD):
The principle of the development of the application site had been established by the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and the supporting Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document and the Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document. The specific planning policy relating to the site was also to be read in the context of the additional policy guidance provided by the Horsham District Council General Development Control Policies and the supporting Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations.
Core Policy CP7 set out the ten guiding principles for development, which formed the basis of the assessment. These were built upon by the statements within the Land West of Horsham Masterplan, which showed how the development was expected to reflect each principle and the vision for the area.
Principle i - Integration with Horsham and Broadbridge Heath having regard to separate identities and needs of communities in terms of facilities and services:
The highway and sustainable transport strategy was fundamental in setting the framework for integration and the development of facilities and services within the new communities and creating two new communities which would be an extension to Broadbridge Heath on the west side of the A24 and to Denne Neighbourhood on the east side of the carriageway.
The Masterplan required a grade separated junction on the A24 immediately north of High Wood Hill, which results in speed limits being reduced to 60 miles per hour in the vicinity of the development. The current application proposed funding towards the implementation of the western sections of the A24 grade separated junction and the new bridge over the A24. The proposed design of the junction provided for speed limits of 60 miles per hour.
The Masterplan required the provision of a dual carriageway east-west link road to the south of Broadbridge Heath, with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour, which the current application proposed. The design, junction arrangements and crossing points along the new east-west link road had been subject to scrutiny by West Sussex County Council (WSCC), the relevant highways authority. A number of scenarios had been modelled
7 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
and were set out the Alternative Transport Strategy dated September 2010.
The closure of the Broadbridge Heath bypass to the west of the Tesco roundabout was also required by the Masterplan. The current application proposed that the western end of the existing A264 Broadbridge Heath bypass would be downgraded for use by buses, cyclists and pedestrians, with the neighbourhood centre dividing the existing carriageway, providing the opportunity for integration with Broadbridge Heath. A bus gate would be provided to prevent through traffic along the old Broadbridge Heath bypass.
In addition to the measures identified specifically in the Masterplan, several other measures were proposed to facilitate access between the development and Broadbridge Heath.
There was provision for an at-grade signalised crossing on the existing Broadbridge Heath bypass. The design of the new crossing would be installed alongside measures to bring the 85th percentile traffic speed down from their current 53 mile per hour to 50 miles per hour, with anti-skid surfacing on the approaches. The design would include speed activated warning signs until the new east west link road was opened. Once the existing bypass was downgraded it would be possible to introduce a 30 miles per hour speed limit and the Pegasus crossing would be retained to ensure ongoing integration between the new development and Broadbridge Heath.
The current application also contained provision for a new cycleway along the southern side of the existing bypass, to link up to the cycleway routes through the Tesco site and the existing underpass below the existing bypass which led to Wickhurst Lane North.
Improvements to Mill Lane (Bridleway 1630) were also proposed to ensure that it was maintained as a recreational route. An improved surface was proposed to the section south of the existing Broadbridge Heath bypass and also to the north of the bypass to Thelton Avenue, where it was a key route between the proposed development and the existing village.
The proposals also included provision of a new route for Footpath 1633 on the eastern side of the development which would be affected by the transfer of land to the leisure centre. The existing route would be extinguished and the new route would be designed as a three metre wide cycleway along the new east/west link road to Old Wickhurst Lane. This would complement the cycleway provision on the eastern side of the A24 and connectivity to Horsham Town Centre.
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
8 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
Additionally on demand, signalised pedestrian crossings at Old Wickhurst Lane and Mill Lane were proposed, including a Pegasus crossing on Mill Lane.
The layout would be designed to the advice set out in the Department of Transport guidance entitled ‘Manual for Streets’ to ensure a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists, to encourage modes of travel other than the private car.
Sustainable transport measures through the layout would enable the site to be served by buses. Discussions with the existing bus operator indicated that the bus would loop through the development after visiting the neighbourhood centre, using the new junctions on the east-west link road. The new dedicated service would operate on a 30 minute frequency between 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Saturday and would stop at Horsham Town Centre, Horsham Station and Horsham Hospital on its route. This dedicated route would only be available on the completion of the A24 junction and the east-west link road. A temporary arrangement would be needed to serve the first two phases of the development. This would be provided by diverting the existing Compass bus service 100 into the site until such time as the dedicated bus service could be provided. It was considered that confirmation should be sought that Compass would obtain sufficient funding to enable them to do this. Buses needed to be serving the development as early on as possible to ensure residents did not get in the habit of using cars.
The measures should be viewed together with the measures which would be undertaken to minimise the impact of the development on the wider highway network.
The importance of provision for good community facilities in order to assist the integration of the new development with Broadbridge Heath was noted.
Principle ii - The need to minimise the impact of the development on the existing highway network with the provision of a grade separated junction south of the Farthings Hill Interchange:
The development of land to the east of the A24 by Berkeley Strategic Land Limited proposed a strategy which was subject to a legal agreement. This included a contribution to off-site highway improvements to minimise the impact of the development on the wider highway network. The scope of the improvements had been subject to traffic modelling within the transport assessment. Both a stand alone scenario, meaning the development of the Berkeley site only and a cumulative scenario, meaning the development of both the Berkeley and Countryside sites, had been considered.
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
9 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
The Berkeley scheme had secured contributions for improvements at the Great Daux Roundabout, Farthings Hill Interchange, the Robin Hood Roundabout and Hills Farm Lane/Guildford Road junction. Improvements to the latter would only be required if the full grade separated junction was not delivered and the proposed development was proceeding on the basis of a stand alone solution, with a left in/left out access on the A24.
The Berkeley scheme would also deliver the new pedestrian/cycle bridge over the A24, a left in left/out junction and the eastern roundabout. It was required that these works be implemented by the completion of the 470th dwelling on the Berkeley site. This timing was linked to the completion of the 450th dwelling on the Countryside site, which would have a faster build out rate. The Berkeley agreement also provided for Berkeley to bring the A24 junction/pedestrian bridge works forward, subject to agreement with WSCCC as the highways authority, to ensure that they were completed to a timetable consistent with the Broadbridge Heath works.
The Transport Assessment (TA) in respect of the current application made a distinction between the stand alone works which would be required in direct response to the proposed development south of Broadbridge Heath and the works which supported the delivery of the whole of the strategic location. Since key improvements to off-site junctions had been secured through the Berkeley development, the TA for the current scheme had looked specifically at the highway infrastructure required as a response to the development and how improvements to the network could be phased in with the likely build out; the capacity of the new east-west link road; the Five Oaks roundabout; the new western roundabout; and the Farthings Hill interchange.
The capacity study within the TA had identified that up to 450 dwellings (projected date 2013) could be served from the new western roundabout on the Five Oaks road prior to the completion of the new east-west link road and roundabout junction. However, the TA had also identified that the existing Tesco roundabout would experience increased congestion with background growth at 2013 and would not be able to cope with the proposed 450 dwellings. Minor improvements were therefore proposed to this junction to mitigate the impact of the 450 dwellings in the interim phase. The need for improvements to the Farthings Hill interchange had also been identified.
In preparing the TA regard had been given to discussions with WSCC, during which the transport modelling work required to assess the proposed development and the scope of the TA had been agreed. The need for further modelling to assess the transport implications of the development, particularly the impact on the local highway network and key junctions, had been identified. Additional information confirming that the highways proposals as set out in the planning application had been designed DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
10 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
according to standards was also required. These concerns had been addressed. The transport modelling work had now been validated and agreed with WSCC and a Design Statement and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit had been received and reviewed. However, these would need to be updated to take into account the new access strategy for the east-west link road.
Traffic management measures were also proposed to address the potential impact of rat running through Billingshurst Road and the rural road network.
The issues relating to the capacity of the highway network, the access strategy options for the east-west link road and impact on potential rat running through Broadbridge Heath, Warnham and the lanes north of the village had been investigated along with the concerns raised through consultation on the planning application.
The access strategy for the east-west link had now been amended to reduce the number of traffic signal junctions along the route. The western traffic signal junction at the Mill Lane and Old Wickhurst Lane crossings would be removed and a left in/left out arrangement introduced. This would reduce the potential delays to motorists using the east-west link and would therefore reduce the potential for rat-running.
The applicant had produced a report entitled ‘South Broadbridge Heath – Assessment of Rural Roads – Countryside Properties (July 2010)’ which reviewed the existing speed limits on Bailing Hill, Robin Hood Lane and Byfleets Lane, to establish whether new speed limits along these lanes would be appropriate. The report suggested that only Bailing Hill would be suitable for a 50 miles per hour speed limit, with the other lanes already having low traffic speeds due to their width and alignment. However, WSCC had reviewed speed-related issues on these same roads a few years ago and there had been general consensus at the time that the community did not want to urbanise the area by introducing the necessary signing and lining required to implement a new speed limit.
The applicant had produced another report entitled ‘Assessment of capacity at Five Oaks roundabout and consideration of need for left filter lane between Five Oaks Road and the new A264 east-west link dual carriageway – 16th July 2010’. This had indicated that there would be no queuing issues at the existing Five Oaks Road roundabout, but that some queuing would occur on the Guildford Road arm of the new western roundabout. WSCC had noted this and asked the applicants to review the lane markings on the approach to the roundabout to allow both lanes to go ahead onto the new east-west link. The modelling of this arrangement indicated that if 15% of approaching traffic used the outside lane when approaching the roundabout then traffic queues would be reduced to acceptable levels. DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
11 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
Principle iii - The closure of the western end of the A264 Broadbridge Heath bypass:
It was proposed that the western end of the A264 be downgraded rather than closed.
Principle iv - The need to maximise opportunities for sustainable travel, encouraging alternative modes to the car, providing links to the Town Centre and the railway station from the outset and safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes between the development and local facilities.
One of the issues examined as part of the Alternative Transport Strategy (ATS) had been the impact of the different scenarios for the access to and from the east-west link road and the level of traffic on the internal development roads. The section of strategy relating to internal development links examined the different access scenarios and the impact of traffic flow on the development layout, with particular reference to north-western open space, having regard to noise, road safety and visual amenity.
The ATS had concluded that the number of vehicles forecasted on the internal link under each scenario was of a scale which would not require any specific noise mitigation, even against the World Health Organisation thresholds, which applied only to private amenity space.
The ATS had also considered road safety and the impact of internal links on open spaces, particularly on children being able to access the public space. The report had concluded that the levels of traffic were of a scale which would not typically be associated with specific measures to deal with road safety. On the basis of the preferred junction arrangement, the maximum number of vehicles would be four vehicles per minute which, assuming vehicle arrival would be at regular intervals, would give a crossing opportunity time of 15 seconds. Department of Transport advice stated that the majority of pedestrians would accept a minimum of four to six seconds at normal urban vehicle speeds to cross two lanes of traffic and even shorter gaps at slow vehicle approach speeds. In light of this it was not considered necessary to support the open space through the development by the provision of additional crossings.
It would be necessary to scrutinise the layout at reserved matters stage to ensure that a balance was maintained between facilitating vehicular access through the development with pedestrian/cycle access and a design which was attractive, permeable and framed by a robust landscape structure.
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
12 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
Principle v - The need for the development to have sufficient high quality services and facilities to serve the development
The key facilities proposed as part of the development were: - Neighbourhood Centre – 0.51 hectares had been allocated for a centre which would accommodate a doctors’ surgery covering 1020 metres squared for up to five GPs; five small flexible units measuring 536 metres squared for retail/office use; a parish office covering 110 metres squared; and a restaurant/public house covering 640 metres squared. - Land for primary school – 2.24 hectares had been allocated for the relocation and expansion of Shelley Primary School to provide for 2.5 forms of entry plus a new day nursery. - Youth facilities - Two ball courts covering 700 metres squared - one adjacent to the A24 junction and one to the rear of Broadbridge Heath Community Centre; one skate park covering 506 metres squared, adjacent to the A24 junction. - Two multi-use games areas located to the south of Broadbridge Heath Leisure centre, totalling 1369 metres squared. - Recreational Facilities – Community sports fields covering 3.18 hectares; one hectare allocated for the possible expansion of the leisure centre plus a pavilion with a floorspace of 500 metres squared. - Equipped Neighbourhood Play Spaces – 0.12 hectares to be provided in total comprising a Neighbourhood Play Area (NEAP) of 0.8 hectares within the central area of open to the west of Mill Lane and a Local Equipped Play (LEAP) Area of 0.04 hectares. - Allotments covering 0.35 hectares comprising 40 plots.
Statement 12 of the Masterplan related to open space and recreation and required that one hectare of land be provided to the south of the Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre for an extension to the premises, with a further two hectares in this locality to be identified for formal pitches for community use and/or to facilitate the development of a new leisure centre to replace that existing. It also required that three hectares of land south of the Broadbridge Heath formal sports pitches be provided for community use linked with the Broadbridge Heath Football Club, with a sports pavilion to include changing rooms, storage and social facilities and appropriate parking facilities
The current application proposed 3.18 hectares of formal sports space to the east of Old Wickhurst Lane, to be accessed either via the existing leisure centre site or from the grade separated junction on the A24. In addition an area of one hectare had been identified to accommodate the future expansion of the leisure centre.
This departure from the requirements of the Masterplan had been subject to a Public Open Space Assessment (POSA). The POSA referred to the Horsham District Council PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment. This identified that the main deficiency within the district to be DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
13 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
allotment sites. It was considered therefore that the provision of allotments would occur to late on in the development. The POSA also suggested that there was a need for an additional turf pitch, small play areas, bowling greens and tennis/multi courts combined with youth activity areas. The POSA concluded that the provision of open space in the current application would accord wholly with the Horsham District Council Core Strategy and PPG17. There could be potential to use the playing fields for community use.
The requirement to provide an additional two hectares of land to allow a potential extended range of facilities or formal sports pitches at the Leisure Centre is contrary to the Council’s own PPG17 Assessment requirements.
Statement 13 of the Masterplan related to built community facilities. It required a new neighbourhood centre to be provided at south of the Broadbridge Heath Village Centre and an extension to the existing village centre building. The list of facilities to be provided as part of the neighbourhood centre includes a built youth facility.
The current application would make a contribution towards a community centre through the legal agreement but was silent on the provision of a built youth facility.
The Parish Council had expressed the view that the contributions secured in respect of the development via the legal agreement should be balanced in favour of the provision of facilities for the community and had set out the space requirements and uses for an extension to the existing community building, estimating that the building would need to be trebled in size from that existing. The overall legal agreement package was still subject to negotiation and competing demands for the use of funds.
The Parish Council had also expressed concern regarding the parish office within the neighbourhood centre and it was considered important to ensure that the Parish Council were provided with facilities they were happy with. The specific size of the office was not specified within the Masterplan but it did make clear that the neighbourhood centre should include flexible units for retail or office use. There could be scope to review the accommodation required within the building at the reserved matters stage subject to competing demands at that time.
Principle vi - The need for a comprehensive approach to development, enhancing the quality of the environment and open spaces
The Masterplan required provision of a landscape buffer along the eastern boundary of the A24; a green network to allow for the retention of identified important wildlife, habitat and landscape features and provide opportunities for ecological enhancement; the protection as far as practicable of existing hedges, lanes, important trees, field ponds and watercourses within and DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
14 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
adjoining the site; and the protection and enhancement of areas of the site such as the river floodplain.
More specific guidance was provided by the Design Principles and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document.
The key information in respect of the proposed landscape strategy for the site was set out in the Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application and the landscape parameter plan. This was informed by the Landscape and Visual chapter within the Environmental Statement along with the Arboricultural Report. The provision of open space; green corridors including tree and hedge retention; areas of ecological interest/protection and sustainable drainage features were shown on the landscape parameter plan, which would form the baseline for the assessment of any future reserved matters application, along with the other parameter plans.
Formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works would comprise 1.09 hectares of informal open space; 2.38 hectares of public open space, excluding the area covered by surface water attenuation basins; 10.3 hectares of accessible natural green space, including 2.6 hectares to be allocated as a reptile reception zone; existing woodland covering 0.64 hectares; 360 metres squared of ponds for Great Crested Newts (GCNs); and a landscape buffer covering 2.29 hectares.
Allotments - 0.35 hectares had been allocated for allotments, comprising 40 plots.
The following undertakings had been secured in writing from the applicant: - Trees and hedgerows would be retained wherever possible throughout the development site and houses and garages would have sufficient set back along the existing hedgerows. Additional plans had been submitted to demonstrate the proposed treatment to safeguard the existing hedgerow line in relation to Mill Lane. - Tree loss on the site would be compensated for with the planting of around 14 semi-mature trees of approximately 50-60 centimetres in girth in areas of public open space. - The existing hedgerow on the eastern half of the site would be retained and hedgerow planting would be undertaken at the base of Highwood Hill. - Tree planting would be undertaken on the central reservation of the east- west link road at the junction with Mill Lane to ensure the continuity of the bat corridor. - Planting, landscaping and tree species would be commensurate with the climate of West Sussex and top soil would be reused where possible. - The cellular underground storage units which would be used as SuDs would be positioned to allow for some tree planting within these areas.
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
15 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
- The western balancing pond would be a gateway to the new community and would not encroach on the root protection area of the large oak tree adjacent to the pond. - The overhead cables which cross the development would be diverted below ground within the area of new infrastructure or incorporated into the below ground development supplies as required to service the site.
Concerns were expressed about potential flooding on the site and the potential exacerbation of flooding on nearby sites which could be caused by the development. However, it was noted that the Environment Agency were satisfied with the proposals in relation to flooding.
Principle vii - The provision of a mixed use development of appropriate employment and business uses
The proposed development would deliver a mix of retail and office uses within the neighbourhood centre which would be a focus for both the new development and the existing community of Broadbridge Heath. The detailed design of the neighbourhood centre would be addressed at the reserved matters stage.
viii) The incorporation of sustainable development principles and construction methods
The Masterplan required the development to incorporate sustainable development principles and construction methods, including taking advantage of any changes in technology over the development period. The Masterplan set out principles and requirements considered to be essential for development.
Details of the sustainable strategy for the development were set out in the Design and Access Statement and the Sustainability Statement. The Sustainability Statement had identified that the proposed development would be progressed on sustainable principles through the following:
- The provision of a mixture of residential units ranging from one bedroom flats to five bedroom houses with a percentage to be affordable units. - Homes would be built to a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes or the relevant code in force at the time of construction. This would be secured through the legal agreement. The non-residential buildings would conform to BREEAM Very Good standard. - The provision of a package of community facilities to meet the needs of new residents and the nearby communities. - Measures to integrate the new community with the existing village, such as the layout of the new neighbourhood centre and the location of the new primary school. - Natural surveillance of the area by occupants of residential properties. DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
16 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
- The retention of mature vegetation and key landscape features throughout the site. - The provision of recreational activities and access to the surrounding countryside through existing rights of way. - Measures to improve the biodiversity of the site, such as the replacement of ponds lost to development with a better quality environment for Great Crested Newts. - The introduction of SuDs features. - The downgrading of the existing A264 bypass, which would provide a traffic calmed environment and ease of access to the neighbourhood centre. - Good transport links, including a new bus service and a comprehensive network of Public Rights of Way. - The efficient use of land achieving an average density of 45 dwellings per hectare, with residential buildings generally 2.5 to three storeys in height. - The provision of allotments. - A commitment to achieve a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions through the development using a combination of micro renewable energy technologies. - The provision of approximately 138 full time equivalent jobs through the non residential uses within the development. - A new neighbourhood centre, including several small, flexible units providing approximately 500 metres squared of floorspace.
The proposed measures were consistent with the strategy to promote sustainable development on the site. They would be enhanced through the construction period by measures incorporated into the design of the development, such as the use of sustainably and locally sourced materials and the construction of the homes to Lifetime Homes Standards.
Principle ix - The provision of improved shopping facilities to meet the additional needs of expanded communities
New shopping facilities would be provided within the new neighbourhood centre.
Principle x - The outer boundaries of the development to provide a firm boundary which can be defended against further development
The land to the south of Broadbridge Heath had clear physical boundaries to further development marked by the A24 to the east, the A264 to the west, the existing village to the north and the River Arun and its floodplain to the south.
b) The translation of the parameter plans into the detailed illustrative layout
The illustrative Masterplan sought to demonstrate how the layers set by the parameter plans would be translated into a layout for the development area. DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
17 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
The densities in the different character areas of the proposed development would be higher than the densities specified within the Masterplan. The most significant change would be to the south of the proposed east-west link road, where densities would be up to 50 dwellings per hectare.
The density levels were a reflection of the scheme’s viability. The also sought to incorporate the key design features such as open space, the retention of landscape features, landscape buffers to the east-west link road and the development of a legible layout which was compliant with the Manual for Streets.
Specific issues raised by the layout which would need to be addressed at reserved matters stage included the number and size of rear parking courts and the potential for overlooking between units and the impact of the access routes through the development on the quality of open spaces and landscape features.
It was noted that at reserved matters stage, the number of parking spaces provided should be compared with the new WSCC parking standards as opposed to the old standards and that garages should not be counted as car parking spaces.
The design of the neighbourhood centre and the associated car parking would also have to be considered. Further consideration would need to be given to the design and function of this space and the linkages with the existing village to the north and from within the new development to the south.
Further information on the materials to be used within the development would also be required as this was not adequately shown within the Design and Access Statement.
c) Infrastructure Contributions and the Legal Agreement
The broad package of planning benefits had been identified through the policy framework set out above. The discussions with the developer were shaped by the viability assessment submitted in connection with the application which was subject to independent scrutiny by the District Valuer (DV).
The DV had examined the financial viability of the proposals and in particular the proposals to provide 20% (originally 15%) affordable housing rather than the required 40%. The DV had concluded that the scheme could support the delivery of 40% affordable housing.
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
With regards to affordable housing the following package had been secured:
18 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
- 20% affordable housing (193 units) on site.
- 10% (96 units) offsite payable as a commuted sum to a value of £7.73 million.
The £7.73 million would be subject to indexation and payable in tranches. A review mechanism which would be triggered when values reached £305 per square foot would give the ability to earn £3.33 million (indexed) in the future.
The package would therefore provide provision and funding for 30% affordable housing with the ability to earn £3.33m in the future through the review mechanism.
On the basis of offsite provision costing £40,000 per unit, through registered providers which had secured sites but lacked subsidy, and taking in to account the new regime of affordable rents related to 80% of the market rent, this would secure an additional 8.6% (83 units), taking the total affordable housing to 39% (372 units). In the face of cuts to government grants, commuted sums from developments such as the current proposal would be the only way to fund the registered providers’ schemes.
The applicant had been urged to conclude discussions with Moat Housing Association in order for funding to be secured.
It was considered that more information would be needed on the costs of the dwellings proposed, although this would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.
RESOLVED
(i) That Planning Permission be granted subject to a legal agreement be entered into within six months of the date of this meeting.
(ii) That the content of the legal agreement and the content of the following conditions be agreed by the Head of Planning and Environment, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman in consultation with the Local Member, Sally Horner (or Cllr David Jenkins if the Local Member is not available)
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
01 Applications for the approval of reserved matters
19 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
shall be made to the LPA before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.
02 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of the approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
03 The submission of reserved matter applications pursuant to this outline application shall demonstrate compliance with the following parameter plans submitting as part of the outline application to fix the development principles: (List parameter plans)
04 a) Approval of the details of the layout of the development, the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, access to and within the site and the landscaping of the development (hereinafter referred to as the ‘reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the LPA in writing before the relevant phase of the development is commenced. b) Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition (a) above relating to the layout of the development, the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, access to and within the site and the landscaping of the development shall have regard to the approved parameter plans which establishes the principles of the development, shall be submitted to the LPA. c) The reserved matters application for the landscaping referred to in condition (a) above shall be submitted concurrently with the plans and particulars relating to the other reserve matters. d) The landscaping scheme to be submitted pursuant to condition (a) above shall include the following information: - Location of existing trees, hedges, shrubs and other vegetation; DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
- The layout, structure and character of the proposed planting, together with an
20 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
Indicative Schedule of planting species and an outline planting specification; - The layout and type of all hard landscape features including paving, walls, fences and street furniture; - Details of any earthworks proposed including information on levels and contours to be formed and representative cross/long sections. The scheme shall be in accordance with the approved landscape strategy submitted pursuant to condition 19 and where it incorporates landscape proposals for open spaces and retained green corridors it shall also be in accordance with the approved landscape and open space masterplan submitted pursuant to condition 20.
05 All Reserved Matters applications (whether by phases as indicated on the attached phasing plan or sub-phases) shall be supported by a detailed green infrastructure analysis plan demonstrating how a network of existing/new landscape and habitat features, footpath/cyclepath provision in green corridors, and SUDs drainage features will be provided for multifunctional benefits and will be integrated throughout the development, linked to other phases of the development and provide external links to the surrounding countryside.
06 Dual Carriageway Access and Junctions: The reserve matters application for the provision of the east-west link dual carriageway access, and the A24 and A264 junctions shall include design details of the following: a) Detailed layout, alignment, long and cross sections of the road, roundabout junctions and slip roads. b) Details of the treatments of embankments, acoustic bunds/fencing and retaining walls. c) Signage proposals. d) Lighting proposals. e) Details of the Pegasus and Pedestrian/Cycle crossings
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
as well as the landscape proposals information identified to be submitted pursuant to conditions 4c
21 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
and 4d. The planting and seeding proposals for the central reservation and boundary planting shall also be in accordance with the landscape strategy submitted pursuant to condition 19.
07 Surface Water and Water Reduction Strategy: Development shall not begin on any phase of the development until a surface water drainage scheme for that phase of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The submitted scheme shall: a) Demonstrate compliance with the sustainable drainage principles including sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs). b) Include an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development (showing compliant with the FRA prepared in connection with the outline connections). c) Include details on how the SuDs shall be maintained and managed after completion. d) Include details of how the development has been designed for exceedence events and flood flow paths e) Demonstrate in the case of those open spaces where cellular underground storage is proposed how these have been designed to leave space for small areas of specimen tree planting, to be coordinated with the landscape and open space masterplan submitted pursuant to condition 20. - Above addition re trees subject to confirmation from Countryside that they are able to make allowance for this. - Note EA recommended condition wording seems to be updated from the one previously used above with additional requirements. - A water reduction strategy shall be submitted and agreed by the LPA in accordance with the recommendations in the ES to minimise water consumption and contribute towards achievement of the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. Level DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
3 should be achieved as a minimum unless Government requirements have imposed
22 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
higher levels at the commencement of development in which case the higher levels should be achieved. This level should be agreed in writing at each of the reserved matters stage as part of the agreed strategy and each phase of the development shall demonstrate compliance with the strategy. 08 Contamination Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the LPA) the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with the contamination of the site each be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. a) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - All previous uses. - Potential contaminants associated with those uses. - A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors. - Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. b) A site investigation scheme based on a) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected including those off site. c) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
23 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the LPA. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
09 A verification report shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the LPA at each phase of the development. The verification report shall: a) Demonstrate the completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy. b) Demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation strategy. c) Include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. d) The plan for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action (i.e. a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the LPA. 10 Ecology Development shall not begin in any of the phases of the development as indicated on the phasing plan until a scheme for the provision and management of a buffer zone of at least 8 metres, or within the extent of the floodplain (whichever is greater) alongside all watercourses and wetlands is submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the LPA. The scheme shall include: - Plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone. - Details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term. - Details of any footpaths, fencing, lighting etc. 11 Development shall not begin until an up to date Water Vole, Otter, Dormice, Badger pre- construction survey has been carried out prior to any construction phase, as recommended in the Landscape Framework and Biodiversity Management Plan, dated Nov 2009. Survey details, and if the presence of any of the above DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
24 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
species is confirmed, appropriate mitigation details (as set out below), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be approved in writing with the LPA. The survey and mitigation details shall: - Identify the presence or absence of these species. - Identify the impacts of the scheme. - Demonstrate how the development will avoid adverse impacts. - Propose mitigation for any adverse ecological impacts or compensation for loss. - Propose wildlife/habitat enhancement measures. - Propose post-project appraisal, management plans and management responsibilities with details of how biodiversity enhancement for this species will be incorporated into the development and maintained over the long term, to be incorporated in the overall Landscape Management Plan. 12 Each reserved matters application shall include evidence that the trees identified for removal in the supplementary statement on bat survey methodology dated January 2010 and plan titled “Bat Roosting habitat and development proposals” dated January 2010 have been subject to survey to determine the presence of bat roosts and the outcome of the survey shall be submitted to the LPA as part of the baseline information for the detailed bat mitigation strategy pursuant to Condition 12. 13 Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect bat species and to support all Reserved Matters applications, detailed bat mitigation plans in accordance with the Bat Survey Report , chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement, and the submitted Framework Biodiversity and Landscape Management Plan dated Nov 2009, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The mitigation plans shall include: - Measures to be implemented during tree felling works to reasonably avoid injury or killing of bats present.
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
25 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
- Measures to protect and enhance bat foraging habitat. - Design of green corridors and how these will be protected against impacts such as disturbance. This design shall include planting and tree protection barrier details (collision restraint system) for the provision of 1 no semi-mature size oak tree (to be a minimum of 50-60cm girth) to be planted in the widened central reservation of the east-west link dual carriageway at the Mill Lane Pegasus crossing and provision of appropriate planting of the severed ends of hedgerows, along the line of the Mill Lane Bridleway (to be coordinated with the landscape details submitted pursuant to conditions 4d and 6). - Provision of a bespoke bat house and of bat boxes (to be erected on retained trees within the green corridors and on new properties close to these corridors). - Lighting scheme, including measures to prevent light spill into areas of bat habitat. - Proposals for any monitoring or long term management of habitats. - Following the approval of bat mitigation plans all works shall proceed in accordance with the approved plans with any amendments agreed in writing. 14 Prior to the commencement on any works which may affect reptile and amphibian species or their habitat, detailed translocation and habitat mitigation plans ,together with a programme for these works, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the LPA. These plans shall be in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 10 of the environmental Statement, the submitted Framework Biodiversity and Landscape Management Plan, dated Nov 2009, including translocation to receptor sites on Highdown Hill and East of Wickhurst Lane and associated habitat creation and management measures at these sites. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the agreed plans and programme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA. 15 The reserve matters submission for the proposed east-west link dual carriageway shall include DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
26 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
details of a culvert terrestrial connection suitable for wildlife species such as badgers, otters and amphibians to be provided and located where the central watercourse passes under the East-West link road in the east of the site near Old Wickhurst Lane. All works shall proceed in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA. 16 Each phase of the development shall demonstrate how the ecological mitigation proposed for the individual phase complies with the ecological mitigation set out in Chapter …. of the Environmental Statement and how this will contribute to the overarching strategy for the ecological mitigation for the site. 17 Development within each phase shall not begin until the following additional details of habitat enhancements and their long term management have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA at each reserved matters stage: - Enhancements to existing wetland features. - Creation of new wetland features. - Provision of habitat enhancements through SUD’s. These may include swales, dry and semi-dry wetland area and balancing ponds incorporating species rich grassland, native flood plain scrub, emergent plant communities and reed beds which will help store and clean surface water. These habitat enhancements details shall be with coordinated with the landscape and open space masterplan proposals, and landscape management plan details, submitted pursuant to conditions 20 and 21. Thereafter the scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans. 18 Any removal of bird breeding habitat shall be undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March-August inclusive), unless a suitably qualified ecologist confirms absence of breeding birds. Prior to the commencement of each development phase details of appropriate mitigation measures to replace and enhance nesting opportunities ie new tree, shrub, hedge planting and bird boxes to be located on retained mature trees or on buildings close to green
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
27 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
corridors will be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. 19 Landscape Strategy Not withstanding the landscape design principles identified in chapter 7.0 of Design and Access Statement within 6 months of the date of this permission a comprehensive landscape strategy for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority, This landscape strategy document shall set out the guiding landscape design and sustainable landscape construction principles to be followed for all landscape proposals submitted as part of reserve matters applications for each residential development phase, the leisure site and associated sports pitches , the neighbourhood centre, and for the primary school. The landscape strategy shall include: - Landscape design principles for green corridors, open spaces, streets, mews, and lanes, squares and car parking areas. - A diagram to show the different heights of planting that can be achieved within the central reservation and at roundabouts of the east- west link road, taking account of highway visibility requirements. - Sustainable design principles and themes for street tree, amenity, naturalistic and native species structure planting, wildflower seeding. - A site wide soil re-use and conservation strategy in accordance with the relevant codes of best practice. - Hard landscape palette for paving, fencing, walls, street furniture, lighting columns/lanterns. - Sustainable sourcing of hard and soft landscape materials. - Approach to be adopted for equipped play areas to include opportunities for provision of natural play features. 20 Landscape and Open Space Masterplan Within 6 months of the date of the outline planning permission a landscape and open space masterplan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The masterplan shall cover all proposed open spaces within the development, including the retained green corridors of Mill Lane DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
and Wickhurst Lane, the open space of Highdown Hill, the allotments and the open space area
28 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
adjacent to the mill pond at Broadbridge Farm. The masterplan shall: - Show the layout, types and character of the proposed planting and include an indicative planting species list. - Make provision for further structure and succession planting within the existing retained green corridors, together with the inclusion of a significant number of large growing native trees-located to allow the development of their full, natural shape. - Show locations for 10 large semi-mature size (min 50-60cm girth) oak trees to be planted in the green corridors and open spaces in compensation for those lost along the east- west link road route. - Maximise opportunities for native structure planting. - Incorporate details of the design and layout of balancing ponds submitted pursuant to conditions 7 and 17. - Provide details of the location, layout and surfacing of paths, street furniture, interpretation boards and any low level lighting. The reserved matters applications shall demonstrate compliance with the approved Landscape Masterplan. 21 Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan Within 6 months of the commencement of the development a long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for the whole development site covering its amenity green spaces, sports pitches, allotments, retained green corridors and other natural greenspaces, structural landscaping, and street tree and other amenity planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The plan shall include: - Aims and Objectives. - A description of Landscape Components. - Management Prescriptions- incorporating measures identified in the submitted Framework Biodiversity and Landscape Management Plan, dated Dec 2009. - Details of maintenance operations and their timing. DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
- Details of the Parties who will be responsible for maintaining different areas of the site.
29 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
It shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of landscaping and open space shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan, unless any variation is approved in writing by the LPA. 22 Tree and Hedge Protection Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development (as show on the phasing plan numbered 1709-A-1128M) details of the tree and hedge protection proposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA along with details of existing levels in the vicinity of existing trees and hedges to ensure that the vertical alignment of no-dig construction areas relate to surrounding finished levels. No-dig construction techniques in the RPA of existing trees and hedges to be retained must be carried out in accordance with BS5837 and the methods set out in the Arboricultural Survey are adequately followed through into the detail design stage to the satisfaction of the LPA. 23 Other than agreed as part of this planning application no trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled/removed, topped or lopped without the previous written consent of the LPA until 5 years after completion of the development herby permitted. Any trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, whether within the tree protective areas or not, which die or become damaged during the construction process shall be replaced with trees, hedging plants or shrubs of a type, size and in positions agreed by the LPA. 24 Archaeology The Developer shall arrange for an archaeological organisation or appropriately qualified archaeologists to observe the excavations and record archaeological evidence that may be uncovered as a result of the development in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA prior to the commencement of development.
30 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
25 Highway, Access and Rights of Way No more than 200 dwellings shall be occupied on the development unless and until drawings and specifications for the new A24 junction arrangement serving the site to include a detailed construction programme for these highway works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. 26 Public Transport Provision and Green Travel Plan Prior to the implementation of each phase of the development herby approved on the attached Phasing Plan, the following details relating to bus provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA: - Full design details of the width, alignment and construction of the proposed bus access routes to serve each phase of the development showing compliance with the vehicular access and circulation parameter plan (Drawing number 1709-A-13020L). - The location of bus stops and bus shelters to serve each phase of the development. - The design of the bus stops and shelters and timetable for delivery. - The delivery of “Real Time Passenger Information” to be provided as part of the Green Travel Plan for the development. 27 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, a Green Travel Plan shall be submitted for approval by the LPA setting out details of the proposed sustainable transport initiatives. 28 Parking and Cycle Parking Facilities Each phase of the development as shown on the phasing plan numbered 1709-A-128-M shall not be commenced until plans have been submitted indicating the location of car, motorcycle and cycle parking spaces to serve each phase of the development in accordance with the parking strategy as set out in the Transport Assessment. The parking spaces shall be designed, laid out and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted for approval to the LPA. 29 Construction Programme Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
31 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
Authority and thereafter implemented and maintain throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall include: - Details of the design and location of the construction access. - Details of proposed wheel washing facilities located adjacent the construction site access. - Details of an area for the storage of materials, parking for construction traffic and an appropriate turning area has been provided within the site clear of the public highway. - Details of a routing agreement for the site construction traffic and HGV traffic associated with the movement of bulk material to and from the site. - Details of means of suppressing dust during the construction process to include the regime for dust deposition measurement at the site boundaries. - Measures for tree and hedgerow protection throughout the development programme. 30 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays include and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA. 31 No burning of materials shall take place on the site- Will has a better condition to use. 32 No external lighting or floodlighting in connection with the construction process shall be installed without prior written approval of the LPA. Any that is installed with the permission of the LPA shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. 33 Details of the service strategy and details of the underground services at each phase.
REASONS
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
32 Development Control (North) Committee 18th January 2011
DCN/117 Planning Application: DC/09/2102 (cont.)
ITHP1 The proposed works to form the access would not affect the character and amenity of the area or the convenience and safety of other highway users.
ITHP2 The proposal includes satisfactory provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and would not impinge upon the safety and convenience of other highway users.
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
The meeting closed at 8.31pm having commenced at 6.30pm.
CHAIRMAN
33 DCN110201
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011
Present: Councillors: Ian Howard (Chairman), Liz Kitchen (Vice-Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Clive Burgess, Roy Cornell, Christine Costin, Leonard Crosbie, Ross Dye, Duncan England, Sarah Gray, David Holmes, David Jenkins, Sheila Matthews, Christian Mitchell, Linda Pettitt, Pat Rutherford, David Sheldon, Claire Vickers, Kyle Wickens
Apologies: Councillors: Gordon Brown, Sheila Dale, Sally Horner, Robert Nye, Peter Rowlinson, David Skipp, Belinda Walters
DCN/118 MINUTES
The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 11th January 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DCN/119 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS
Member Item Nature of Interest
Councillor Ross Dye DC/10/2398 Personal and prejudicial – he was a member of Southwater Parish Council Councillor Ian DC/10/2398 Personal – he was co-opted onto Howard Southwater Parish Council in order to sit on the Youth Steering Group – did not partake in any other business of the Parish Council Councillor Claire DC/10/2398 Personal and prejudicial – she was a Vickers member of Southwater Parish Council . DCN/120 ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
DCN/121 APPEALS
Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:
Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service
Ref No Site Appellant(s)
DC/10/2133 Lane End, Lyons Road, Slinfold Mr and Mrs Gardner Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/121 Appeals (cont.) Appeals Lodged - Written Representations/Household Appeals Service (cont.)
DC/10/1623 1A Gardeners Green, Rusper Mr S Batley DC/10/1339 Sussex Stationers Plc, 42 - 43 Swan Ms Amanda Hall Walk, Horsham
Informal Hearings
Ref No Site Appellant(s)
DC/09/1249 Land West Of Blakes Farm Cottage, Mr J Hyatt Southwater Street, Southwater
Appeal Decisions:
Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision
DC/10/0148 4 Comptons Lane, Horsham Mr and Mrs Allowed Searle DC/10/0089 Stanford House, The Street, Mrs S Jozwiak Dismissed Slinfold DC/10/0090 Stanford House, The Street, Mr and Mrs S Dismissed Slinfold Jozwiak
DCN/122 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2554 - ERECTION OF 44 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED GARAGING AND PARKING, NEW ACCESS ONTO BLAKES FARM ROAD WITH NEW INTERNAL SERVICE ROAD, AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE AND OUTBUILDINGS (OUTLINE) SITE: MARTINDALE FARM, WORTHING ROAD, SOUTHWATER APPLICANT: MR PETER CROSDILL AND AXA REAL ESTATES
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the principle of replacing the existing dwelling and outbuildings on the site with a residential development comprising 44 dwellings.
Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, PPG24 and PPS25; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP14 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.
A previous outline application (DC/04/2751) for the erection of 71 dwellings had been refused. At the time of the application the site had been located outside of the defined built-up area of Southwater and had been within the
2 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/122 Planning Application: DC/10/2554 (cont.)
Horsham-Southwater Strategic Gap. It had not been considered there was an overriding need for further housing and the mix of dwellings had not been considered appropriate. There had been concern about the form, siting and scale of the development and relationship with the character and visual amenities of the area, the resultant loss of trees of high amenity value and the impact on adjacent residential properties. There had also been no transport assessments carried out and no contributions had been secured. There would have been a loss of industrial land and no flood risk assessment study had been submitted.
A further application (DC/10/0766) for the erection of 46 units had been refused as it had been considered that it the proposals would result in an overdevelopment of the site in addition to there being no provision for contributions and no mechanism to provide for affordable housing.
The Spatial Planning Manager, the Engineering Section, the Arboricultural Officer, the Design & Conservation Adviser, the Head of Public Health & Licensing, the Environment Agency, West Sussex County Council and the Parish Council raised no objections to the proposals, subject to conditions. The Housing Strategy & Development Officer, the Crime Prevention Design Adviser of Sussex Police raised no objections to the proposals. The comments of Southern Water were noted. Four letters of objection had been received. The agent of the applicant spoke in support of the proposals.
The site was located in the northern part of Southwater on the eastern side of Worthing Road, within the built-up area, and comprised an area of 1.45 hectares. It was currently occupied by an existing chalet bungalow (Martindale Farm) together with a range of outbuildings to the rear, including stables and sheds. The remainder of the site comprised land associated with Martindale Farm, including a tennis court, sand school and paddocks. The application site also included an undeveloped piece of land to the rear of the existing properties known as Robin Hood and Carrick, which themselves were outside of the application site.
There were a number of preserved trees (TPO1280) both on and adjacent to the site. They were positioned on and along the northern boundary, eastern boundary and internal to the site. They comprised both individual trees and a shelter belt consisting predominantly but not exclusively of deciduous woodland, including hazel coppice. Newlane Wood, an area of Ancient Woodland, was located to the north west of the site.
Public footpath 1669, which led from Worthing Road to the lower roundabout on Blakes Farm Road, ran through the wooded area which separated Martindale Farm from Oakhurst Business Park.
3 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/122 Planning Application: DC/10/2554 (cont.)
There was a triangular shaped piece of land to the north east, set between the application site, Newlane Wood and Blakes Farm Road, and a similarly shaped piece of land between the eastern boundary and Blakes Farm Road. These comprised landscaping areas associated with Oakhurst Business Park.
Carrick and Robin Hood were detached properties on comparatively large plots located to the north of Martindale Farm. Opposite the site, on the western side of Worthing Road, were a number of detached properties in linear form. The A24 dual carriageway was located to the east, beyond Blakes Farm Road.
Oakhurst Business Park was a designated Employment Protection Zone. Newlane Wood and land to the north was within the countryside and within the Horsham-Southwater Strategic Gap.
Development Plan Policies encouraged new development to take place on previously-developed land and within defined built-up areas. Whilst the site was partly residential garden which no longer fell within the definition of "previously-developed land", the proposal was located within the defined built-up area of Southwater. It was considered therefore that the demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle.
The applicant’s agent has advised that the site had been re-measured and actually comprised 1.5 hectares as opposed to the 1.45 hectares as stated under the previous application. The proposed development would result in a density of 29.33 dwellings per hectare. The last application DC/10/0766 for 46 dwellings, with the previously stated site area, would have resulted in a density of 31.7 dwellings per hectare. Had that calculation been based on the re-measures site area, the previous proposal would have resulted in a density of 30.66 dwellings per hectare.
The Local Development Framework Site Specific Allocations of Land document stated that densities of 30 to 35 dwellings per hectare would be acceptable on a site similar to the current application site.
It was noted that planning permission had been granted for 11 dwellings on land to the rear of Trollslund, a site virtually opposite Martindale Farm, in June 2010. Unlike the current application site, the Trollslund site was not located within the settlement.
In principle in was considered that a residential development on this site and to this density would not be unacceptable subject to the form and layout
4 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/122 Planning Application: DC/10/2554 (cont.)
of the development being satisfactory and having due regard to the on-site constraints in relation to trees. The current application contained provision for 16 affordable units and 28 units for private occupation. The 40% affordable housing requirement set out in Policy CP12 would require 17.6 units to be affordable. The shortfall of 1.6 units would be made up with a commuted payment of £96,000.
The affordable units would comprise six two-bed flats, three three-bed flats, two two-bed houses and two three-bed houses. It was considered that this proportion and mix addressed the previous concerns of the Committee by providing for houses as well as flats and would be satisfactory. The tenure and occupation of these units could be covered by the legal agreement.
The proposed private units would comprise six two-bed maisonettes, five two-bed terraced houses, seven three-bed terraced houses, two three-bed semi-detached houses, three three-bed detached houses and six four-bed detached houses. It was considered that this mix of dwelling sizes and types would be appropriate.
When viewed from Worthing Road, the site frontage formed part of the group of three residential properties located on the eastern side of the highway, with Robin Hood being the northernmost dwelling and abutting the built up area boundary and Newlane Wood. The site widened out to the rear to include the remainder of the curtilage of Martindale Farm and also the land to the rear of Carrick and Robin Hood and at this point accorded with the northern boundary of the built-up area and one of the landscaped areas of Oakhurst Business Park. The site touched Blakes Farm Road at its north eastern corner. This was where the new access point would enter the site. The southern boundary abutted a wooded area which adjoined the business park.
The site had attractive and substantial wooded boundaries. There was vegetation along the site frontages to the north east, east and south, which contained a number of significant preserved trees. It was important that the character of this part of the village was retained and not eroded by unsympathetic built form. The trees in Newlane Wood would not be affected by the proposal and those along the northern boundary and set within the application site would be retained. The trees along the eastern boundary, adjacent to the area of landscaping within the Oakhurst Business Park, would be retained and would form amenity areas for the occupiers of the flats in the development.
The development would be set to the north of the existing footpath, so the residential properties would not protrude into the woodland area.
5 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/122 Planning Application: DC/10/2554 (cont.)
Martindale Farm was the third property in from the northern boundary of the built-up area along this section of Worthing Road. The scheme would not therefore change the initial approach into the village. The redevelopment proposed three new detached houses within the existing frontage of Martindale Farm. This was considered to reflect the character of this part of Worthing Road. The access would serve these three dwellings alone off of Worthing Road. This was considered to be appropriate for this part of the site.
The development of the remainder of the site would be internal to the site boundaries and contained within the treed boundaries to the north, east and south. There would be a new access point off Blakes Farm Road serving the remainder of the development, which would then lead around the central oak tree to form a central feature on the site. The dwellings would be arranged in a square around this feature on the northern, eastern, southern and western sides. Parking would be internal to the site, provided on curtilage or within a parking court layout. This was considered to be an appropriate approach given the treed nature of the site and the relationship with the existing built and natural environment of the locality.
Whilst scale was a matter to be dealt with at reserved matters stage, the layout plan indicated which of the units were two-storey or which were three- storey. The majority of the units would be two-storey, except for the terrace of three houses, which would be two and a half storey and the block of affordable flats along the southern boundary which would be three-storey. Given the containment of the site and the existing screening, it was considered that these elements of the scheme would not be unsympathetic or unduly prominent in the wider setting of the site and its surroundings.
The fine detail of the scheme with regard to the appearance of the units, precise roof heights, styles, design and materials would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage. In particular the scale and massing of the three- storey block of flats would need careful consideration at that time.
The neighbouring properties affected by the development would be Carrick and Robin Hood. The rear gardens of proposed plots 12 to 18 would be set to the rear of the rear gardens of these properties. There would be a separation distance of some 47 metres between the rear walls of the properties. The rear boundary of these two properties was screened by significant landscaping and it was considered that there would not be any mutual loss of privacy in this respect.
The side elevations of plots 1 and 4 would adjoin the side boundary with Carrick. The side elevation of plot 1 would be situated 2.5 to three metres from the boundary and the side elevation of plot 4 would be located four
6 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/122 Planning Application: DC/10/2554 (cont.)
metres from the boundary, with the side elevation of Carrick itself being set a further 11 metres away. It was considered that this would be a satisfactory relationship between the properties. Given appropriate boundary treatment and existing landscaping, together with the presence of a detached garage in the rear garden of Carrick, it was considered that the amenities of the occupiers of Carrick would not be adversely affected by the proposals.
Concern had been expressed with regard to the impact on Carrick in relation to the previously refused scheme DC/04/2751, since the rear gardens of the proposed dwellings would have adjoined the side boundary of Carrick and the distances involved would have given rise to overlooking and an overbearing impact. Five dwellings in the 2004 scheme would have been set along this side boundary, all looking northwards towards Carrick, whereas in the current scheme two dwellings would have their side elevation parallel to that of Carrick.
The proposed layout was considered to result in an appropriate relationship between the properties, with acceptable separation distances and orientations.
The site was located in close proximity to the A24. It was important to consider the potential noise impact this could have on future occupiers. The eastern part of the site would be most affected. The internal layouts of the units and the design/treatment of the northern/eastern elevations of plots 24 and 25 to 28 would need special treatment. Such details would need to be submitted at the reserved matters stage and should ensure that there would be no windows to habitable rooms in these sensitive areas. Furthermore, an acoustic fence would also be required. Appropriate conditions would cover these issues.
There would be a total of 77 parking spaces provided and eighteen garages. This was within West Sussex County Council standards and was considered to be acceptable.
The current proposal comprised the resurfacing and widening of the footpath to three metres along the southern boundary of the site and to 1.5 metres thereafter towards Blakes Farm Road, subject to the locations of the trees to be retained along its route. Details of this would be included in the legal agreement. The scheme also included a pedestrian link from the existing footpath to the central focal space of the development, which would run between the house at plot 41 and the flats at plots 29 to 40.
The scheme proposed an appropriate setting for the central oak tree, with limited parking spaces set in its vicinity. The previous scheme had originally showed this area all to be hardstanding. The details of the surfacing around
7 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/122 Planning Application: DC/10/2554 (cont.)
and underneath the tree and the delineation of such spaces were to be covered by conditions.
The current scheme also proposed the retention of the important trees around the boundaries and within the site, particularly the extensive wooded area along the eastern boundary, which was to serve both as a screen and an amenity area for the flats and maisonettes. This area would also contain the car parking spaces for the flats. Easier access into the amenity area directly from units 29 to 46 would be facilitated through the car parking spaces being split into two separate areas. The scheme as originally proposed would have resulting in the occupiers having to walk through the parking area to reach this amenity space.
The site was located within Flood Zone 1. A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy had been submitted, as required by PPS 25. The underlying ground conditions comprised Horsham stone underlain with Weald clay, which would not support the use of conventional soakaway infiltration systems. A system of attenuation was therefore proposed, including cellular attenuation systems and permeable paving. A management company would maintain and manage the surface water control system.
Concern had been expressed at the time of the last application about foul water drainage and the adequacy of the proposed connection of drainage into the private system at Oakhurst Business Park. The applicant’s agent had provided more information from consulting engineers stating that there was sufficient capacity in the existing private system on the business park to accept the proposed flows and those from the commercial development. He had also advised that Martindale Farm was to be connected into this system. It was considered that appropriate conditions should be imposed to require the submission of drainage details.
A legal agreement will be required for the provision and tenure of the affordable housing on the site and the commuted sum in lieu of the shortfall in the affordable housing total. The works to upgrade the width and surfacing of the footpath would also need to be included in the agreement.
Previous application DC/04/2751 had also been refused on the grounds of the loss of employment/industrial land. However, since that time, the Local Plan had been superseded by the Local Development Framework. The site did not lie within the Employment Protection Zone of the Oakhurst Business Park and therefore this refusal reason would no longer be applicable.
The applicant’s agent had confirmed that the development would be constructed to achieve a minimum standard of level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. A condition could be imposed to this effect.
8 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/122 Planning Application: DC/10/2554 (cont.)
RESOLVED
(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure the relevant infrastructure contributions, affordable housing provision and works to the footpath.
(ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above, application DC/10/2554 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCN/123 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2398 - CHANGE OF USE FROM COMMUNITY FACILITY TO USE AS AN INFANT SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY FACILITY, WITH SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AND ERECTION OF FENCING SITE: EASTEDS BARN, EASTEDS LANE, SOUTHWATER APPLICANT: THEA BREDIE (Councillor Ross Dye declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item as he was a member of Southwater Parish Council. He retired from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item; Councillor Ian Howard declared a personal interest in this item as he had been co-opted to Southwater Parish Council in order to sit on the Youth Steering Group; Councillor Claire Vickers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item as she was a member of Southwater Parish Council. She retired from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item).
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the change of use to a combined community facility and “infant school” use, a single storey extension and the erection of fencing.
Government policies PPS1, PPS4, PPG13 and PPG17; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP3 and CP14; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC3, DC9 and DC40; and policies CC1 and CC4 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
9 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/123 Planning Application: DC/10/2398 (cont.)
SQ/14/92 Outline planning permission for the erection of Granted 135 dwellings (including 15 social units), conversion of barn to meeting room, car park, open space, access, associated works (outline) SQ/61/95 Erection of a community building and 23 space Granted car park DC/10/0468 Change of use to infants school and single Refused storey extension and erection of fencing
The comments of the Access Officer were noted. Public Health & Licensing and West Sussex County Council Highways raised no objections to the proposals, subject to conditions. 85 letters of objection and 52 of support had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the proposals and one member of the public, the applicant and the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposals.
The application site contained a single storey, timber-clad, barn-like structure with a brick-built outshot and a clay-tiled roof. Vehicular access to the site was from Easteds Lane, directly to the west of the existing building. Pedestrian access was from Nutham Lane to the east. A car park containing 23 parking spaces adjoined the building. Recycling facilities were also provided on the site, adjacent to the hedging which ran along the southern boundary of the site.
The surrounding area was predominantly residential although a playground and large area of open space was situated to the south of the site. The site was within the built-up area boundary of Southwater.
The proposed extension would provide a garden room and WC. A maximum of 37 children would be catered for in the proposed infants’ school, with 28 children in the main part of the building and nine children under two year of age in the extension. The ages of the children would range from six months to eight years. Although the description of the application proposed an “infants’ school”, it was noted that the application had been submitted by a Montessori School and the details of the application outlined the operation of a Montessori School.
The applicant currently operated the Montessori School at Church Lane, Southwater, where the lease was due to expire in August 2012. The applicant has stated that the lease was not to be renewed and therefore alternative premises were required.
10 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/123 Planning Application: DC/10/2398 (cont.)
The application was a resubmission of the previously refused application, DC/10/0468. The previous application had been considered by the Committee on 8th June 2010 where the Committee had resolved to refuse the proposal for the following reason: “The proposal would result in the loss of a valued community meeting room, that would be detrimental to the community facilities available to serve the wider community, in particular of Southwater, contrary to Policy CP14 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and it has not been demonstrated that the continued use for such wider community facility purposes is no longer feasible.” The applicant had now amended the description of the proposal and provided detailed information in how the proposal would operate to try and overcome the previous refusal reason.
The use of the building was restricted by condition 10 of application SQ/61/95, which stated that “The meeting room hereby approved shall not be used other than as a meeting room and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class in the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987)”. Changes of use ordinarily allowed by the Use Classes Order were thus restricted by that condition, necessitating this application for the change of use. Without this condition, an application for the proposed use would not be required in these circumstances.
Meeting rooms can fall within a D1 use class, defined as Non-Residential Institutions. This class included medical and health services, clinics and health centres, crèche, day nursery, day centres and consulting rooms (not attached to the consultants or doctors house), museums, public libraries, art galleries, exhibition halls, non-residential education and training centres, places of worship, religious instruction and church halls.
It appeared that some of the current uses of the building undertaken also included D2 uses, defined as Assembly and Leisure. This class included cinemas, dance and concert halls, sports halls, swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums, bingo halls & casinos and other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure uses, not involving motorised vehicles or firearms.
It was important to understand the use of the facility and also to examine the definition of a “community facility”. The building had originally been granted planning permission in 1995 to be used as a meeting room facility for the community. “Community facility” was defined in the Local Development Framework Core Strategy document as “Facilities or services for the community, including open space, sport and recreation facilities, community halls and buildings, doctors’ surgeries, libraries, pubs, churches and children’s play areas”. The building subject to the application was currently used as a meeting room or a hall, which would satisfy this definition. Considering the wide definition, it was considered that the
11 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/123 Planning Application: DC/10/2398 (cont.)
proposed use as set out by the applicant could also be regarded as a community facility.
PPG17 stated that “development proposals that would result in the loss of sites and premises currently or last used for the provision of community facilities or services, leisure or cultural activities for the community will be resisted”.
With the proposed operation of the infant school, during the mornings and afternoons the barn would no longer be available for community uses such as the classes and meetings currently held there. It had been stated in the application documents that the barn could remain available for alternative community uses in the evening. However, it was considered that due to the inflexibility of the hours of use which would be available to the wider community, the proposals would be detrimental to the community facilities available to serve the wider community.
The PPG17 Assessment stated that community halls and community centres were often the focus of community life and suitable for a wide variety of purposes, from public meetings to playgroups. As such, accessibility was more important than quantity. Such facilities should be no more than 1000 metres, as a straight line, in distance from the dwellings they served. Southwater Sports Centre was approximately 450 metres from the application site. The village centre, including Beeson House, was approximately 580 metres from the application site.
CP14 stated that in order to change the use of a community facility “it will be necessary to demonstrate that continued use as a community facility or service is no longer feasible having regard to appropriate marketing, the demand for the use of the site or premises, its usability and the identification of a potential future occupier”. Such a loss may be considered acceptable provided that an alternative facility of equivalent or better quality and scale to meet community needs was available, or would be provided at an equally accessible location within the vicinity.
Details had been provided by the applicant showing the continuing decline in usage and income generated by the barn. However, it was considered that this could be due to the fact that not enough advertising of the facility had taken place and that therefore the figures provided did not provide sufficient evidence that the barn’s use as a community facility was no longer feasible.
The Southwater Bridge Club had approximately 60 members and used the barn as a meeting place on Tuesday afternoons from 2pm. The applicant had provided suggestions of six other possible locations for the Bridge Club
12 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/123 Planning Application: DC/10/2398 (cont.)
to use in the locality, including the Cricket Club in Church Lane, which had indicated that it would welcome such a use of the facilities in this location. However, it was considered that the alternative facilities proposed were not of a better quality or scale and would be provided at less accessible locations for the members of the Bridge Club.
Certain community activities which already took place on the site generated certain amounts of noise, activity and traffic movements. A maximum of 37 children would be provided for in the infant school. It was not considered that the nature and scale of the new use as compared to the existing use would justify a refusal of planning permission in this instance in respect of residential amenities.
The change of use would change the nature of traffic movements to and from the site. Currently the existing uses gave rise to people entering and leaving the site at the same time. A nursery school would tend to concentrate these movements to the beginning and end of a session, but the applicant had indicated that due to the nature of how the Montessori would operate, with parents dropping off and picking up children at different times, a more dispersed use of the access would result. It was not considered that the change in the pattern of use would raise any significant highways concerns.
The proposed single storey extension would be constructed parallel to the existing single storey outshot. It would measure 10 metres in length and 4.5 metres in width. It would be set down from the ridgeline of the main building and have a roof height to match the existing single storey outshot. Due to the scale and positioning of the proposed extension, it was not considered that the structure would have any material adverse impact on the character of the area or the visual amenities of the streetscene.
As part of the proposal, a footpath would be re-routed and a small section of new path would run between the proposed barn extension and the playground to the south. These works were considered to be relatively minor in nature. The recycling facilities that were provided within the site boundary would also be retained as part of the scheme.
It was considered that there had not been any changes to the scheme as compared to that previously refused which would justify granting permission on this occasion.
RESOLVED
That application DC/10/2398 be refused for the following reason:
13 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/123 Planning Application: DC/10/2398 (cont.)
The proposal would result in the loss of a valued community meeting room, that would be detrimental to the community facilities available to serve the wider community, in particular of Southwater, contrary to Policy CP14 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and it has not been demonstrated that the continued use for such wider community facility purposes is no longer feasible.
DCN/124 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1937 - RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION FOR STATIONING OF MOBILE HOME AS A TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL DWELLING SITE: CLAYFIELD FARM, VALEWOOD LANE, BARNS GREEN APPLICANT: JOHN FORSTER
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought retrospective planning permission for the stationing of a mobile home as a temporary agricultural dwelling together with a hard standing area and septic tank.
Government policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC27 and DC40; and policies CC1, CC6 and C4 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included: I/24/02 Erection of six stables, tackroom/feed store Granted and hay store, track and alteration to access BL/151/01 Erection of six stables, one tack room and Withdrawn haybarn, track and access DC/07/1056 Construction of hay barn (Agricultural Prior Refused Notification) DC/07/1566 Erection of an agricultural building for storage Granted (Agricultural Prior Notification)
The Agricultural Adviser, West Sussex County Council Highways and the Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal. Nine letters of objection and four of support had been received. The applicant and a member of the public spoke in support of the proposal.
The application site was located on the north side of Valewood Lane, approximately one kilometre to the south west of Barns Green, within the Parish of Itchingfield. The land surrounding the application site, which
14 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/124 Planning Application: DC/10/1937 (cont.)
formed the agricultural holding, extended to approximately 5.7 hectares, which was mainly grassland. The wider area surrounding the application site was predominantly agricultural in nature, with sporadic residential and commercial development.
The applicant held an interest in approximately 95 hectares of other agricultural/farm land, of which 45 hectares was within the Barns Green area.
Outside of the application site area there was a modern, steel-framed agricultural shed measuring 50 metres by nine metres, clad in green profiled steel. This was currently used for the storage of hay and agricultural machinery. Additionally, concrete foundations measuring 9.14 metres by 3.05 metres were in place for the previously approved stable building. However, the main structure was yet to be completed. The applicant owned a variety of dogs which were kennelled and were currently sited on this concrete pad. There was also a large container on site which was used for storage purposes.
The application site was owned by the applicant’s father. However, it had been farmed by the applicant and his partner since June 2009 and was rented under a long-term agreement. The applicant also had access to another holding of 32.4 hectares at Yew Farm, Fontwell, approximately 17 miles away. This land did not wholly support the livestock enterprises at Clayfield Farm as it was used for forage and hay production for sale. The applicant also had access to other areas of rented grasslands near to Clayfield, currently rented on a summer or winter basis under various grazing and forage agreements. These were used for grazing ewes and lambs and producing forage. The applicant’s livestock enterprises consisted of pigs, sheep and geese.
The applicant’s supporting statement had advised that the pig enterprise comprised 12 sows, two boars, six maiden gilts for replacements and between 95 and 100 piglets ranging from piglets to weaners and fat pigs. Progeny were sold as either seven kilogram live weaners or finished carcasses to three local butchers, slaughtered weekly at Morley Farm, or in butchered packs at six farmers’ markets. The number of pigs viewed on site when an officer carried out a site visit accorded with the number advised.
The sheep enterprise comprised 72 ewes, two rams, 20 ewe lambs and 33 fat lambs. When an officer visited the site the majority of the sheep were not on site and were grazing on other local land rented by the applicant. The applicant accompanied the officer to the site where the sheep were grazing to view the flock and the numbers accorded with the information submitted. It was advised by the applicant that the progeny were also slaughtered at
15 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/124 Planning Application: DC/10/1937 (cont.)
Morley Farm and all fat lambs were sold privately through the local butchers or farmers’ markets.
The geese enterprise last year comprised 80 geese reared from five days old, reared for the Christmas market. All geese had been sold at the time of the site visit. However, evidence of the temporary enclosure constructed from straw bales which the geese had been reared in was observed.
There was an existing agricultural building located on site which measured approximately 50 metres by nine metres which was used for the storage of feed and machinery. This had been approved as a Prior Notification under permitted development rights (DC/07/1566). The applicant intended to use this building as the sheep enterprise grew in order to lamb the flock inside in the spring. The applicant intended to use the barn to rear the geese when it was not being used for lambing. The bulk of the chicks would be incubated to hatch in May, in order to finish them before Christmas. Some would also be hatched through June/July before lambing in March /April. As this structure was located within 400 metres of a protected residence, a planning application to allow the use of the structure for livestock purposes would be required.
The mobile home subject to the current application had been brought onto the site for security purposes during the construction of the agricultural shed but was now used by the applicants for residential purposes. The applicants sought temporary permission to retain the mobile home.
The mobile home was a single-storey structure with a low pitched roof which measured 9.8 metres by 3.7 metres and was 3.41 metres at its highest point. It was located against a backdrop of trees. To the south of the mobile home the land levels rose. The mobile home was partially screened from view across the site and was away from public vantage points.
Vehicle access to the temporary dwelling was via a farm track with an unmade surface which led from the public highway to the agricultural building and then northwards to the temporary dwelling.
PPS7 stated that new house-building in the countryside should be strictly controlled. Isolated new houses would require special justification relating to the essential need for a worker to live at or near their place of work in the countryside. In relation to agricultural, forestry and other occupational dwellings, applications for new permanent dwellings within the countryside should be scrutinised thoroughly, in particular to establish whether the intention to engage in rural-based enterprises was genuine, reasonable, likely to materialise and capable of being sustained for a reasonable period of time.
16 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/124 Planning Application: DC/10/1937 (cont.)
Such proposals would have to comply with both the functional and financial tests. If a new dwelling was essential to support a new farming activity this should normally be provided in the first instance by way of a temporary structure such as a caravan, or one which could be easily dismantled or removed from site, until the enterprise had been proven to be viable. Clear evidence that the proposed enterprise had been planned on a sound financial basis and a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned would have to be shown. The need to live on site would have to be essential for the needs of the enterprise concerned and not based on the personal preference or circumstances of the individuals involved. It would also need to be demonstrated that the need for residential accommodation could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area.
Policy CP15 stated that development in the countryside which maintained the quality and character of the area whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity would be supported in principle. Any development should be appropriate to its countryside location and should not harm the rural character of the area by virtue of the nature and level of activity involved and the type and amount of traffic generated, or other effects such as noise and pollution.
The applicant had submitted a three-year business plan in relation to the business enterprises as set out within the applicant’s Design and Access Statement and supporting information. This had been independently assessed by a qualified agricultural consultant.
The business plan proposed that the number of pigs kept on site would likely remain the same although maiden gilts would be replaced. The sheep flock would increase to 225 breeding ewes and the geese enterprise would increase to 300 birds (100 each year over the next two years), reared for the Christmas market. Rather than purchasing the goslings at five days old, the applicant intended to purchase an incubator and fertile eggs to hatch and also rear the goslings for the Easter Market. Full financial details had been submitted as part of the business plan.
Details provided by the applicant stated that all the labour for the livestock enterprises at Clayfield Farm and the hay enterprise at Yew Park Farm in Fontwell was provided by himself, his partner (part time) and a part time employee. In order to satisfy welfare requirements, the applicant considered that it was essential for them to attend to the needs and welfare of the livestock, particularly the farrowing of pigs and lambing of ewes, as well as transporting livestock for slaughter three days per week and managing the farmers’ markets and marketing of livestock products They would also need to be available for the future incubation and hatching of goslings.
17 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/124 Planning Application: DC/10/1937 (cont.)
The Agricultural Advisor commented that the applicant had clearly established ‘a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned’ based upon the level and evidence of livestock on site, the level of fencing to stock-proof the site and the installation of water at a cost of £3,500, as well as the agricultural storage building erected at cost of £12,000 and other improvements to the floor at a cost of £2,000.
The Agricultural Advisor had also confirmed that there was sufficient land available for the outdoor pig enterprise and sufficient rented land for the sheep flock. Standard agricultural practices were being complied with.
The Agricultural Advisor considered that there was a functional need for staff to be readily available for the various types of animals on the unit throughout the year for a variety of activities, including the care and management of pigs at farrowing (approximately two per month) and the ewes at lambing in March and April each year; the care and management of the sows whilst with the boar; the rearing of piglets and lambs up to weaning to ensure they received adequate milk and solid feeds; the general welfare of piglets and lambs; the care and daily management of the goslings from five days old to slaughter at approximately eight months; and the future incubation and hatching of goose eggs.
The Agricultural Advisor considers that based on the stock levels there is a functional requirement for the applicant to be available at most times and that the mobile home could be occupied by a full time worker. It was considered that the functional test had been adequately met to require on- site accommodation.
The financial test required evidence that the business had a sound financial basis. This required cash flow forecasts to be provided for consideration. Based upon the financial information submitted the Agricultural Advisor had advised that the projected income would, in theory, be likely to meet the financial test for a permanent dwelling in three years’ time, be sufficient to support one full time and one part time worker and would provide a return on capital.
A further planning application would need to be submitted at the end of the three year period, with the relevant information to test this assertion and to seek permission for a permanent dwelling. Should the proposed enterprises not meet with the tests for a permanent residential dwelling, then consideration would be given at that time to the need for the removal of the temporary residential dwelling.
The Agricultural Advisor had stated that based on the information submitted and knowledge of other similarly-sized operations producing for this sector
18 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/124 Planning Application: DC/10/1937 (cont.)
in the market, the business enterprise had good prospects and was capable of being sustainable in the future.
Information submitted by the applicant’s agent had suggested that there was no other alternative accommodation available that could meet the identified needs of the applicant. The Agricultural Advisor had stated that upon investigation there were approximately 22 residential properties to rent within a three mile radius of Clayfield Farm. However, it was considered unlikely that any of these would meet the needs of the applicant to be on the site and readily available at most times. It was recognised that onsite accommodation could reduce any risk relating to suffering or distress of the livestock in the event of a problem.
It was considered that the expiry of any temporary permission and the occupation of the mobile home in accordance with the agricultural occupancy restriction would need to be monitored.
RESOLVED
That application DC/10/1937 be granted, subject to the following conditions:
01 A6 - Temporary Permission (31st January 2014). 02 B1 - Agricultural Occupancy ‘The occupation of the temporary agricultural dwelling…’
REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
DCN/125 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1117 - ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS DWELLING (OUTLINE) SITE: NEW BARN, COLTSTAPLE LANE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR J DICKSON
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission to establish the principle for the erection of a single storey agricultural worker’s dwelling.
19 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/125 Planning Application: DC/10/1117 (cont.)
Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS7 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC8, DC9, DC27 and DC40; and policies CC1, CC4, CC6, CC7, C4, H4, C4, GAT1 and GAT2 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included: SQ/89/95 Retention of access track and creation of Granted hardstanding SQ/76/97 Use of agricultural building for over-wintering of Granted livestock SQ/63/98 Use of existing agricultural building for over- Granted wintering of livestock SQ/59/99 Use of agricultural building for over-wintering of Granted livestock DC/05/2409 Erection of six-bay agricultural building for Granted storage and over-wintering of cattle
West Sussex County Council and Public Heath & Licensing raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. The Agricultural Advisor raised no objection to the proposal. The Parish Council objected to the proposal. Ten letters of support and six of objection had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the proposals and the applicant’s agent spoke in support.
The application site was located on the southern side of Coltstaple Lane at the junction with Kerves Lane. There was an existing access to the north- eastern of the site. A public right of way traversed the site on a northwest to southeast axis and a high pressure gas main traversed the site on a southwest to northeast axis.
The application site formed part of an agricultural holding measuring approximately 3.65 hectares. It formed part of a larger beef rearing enterprise which the applicant undertook on a further approximate 283 hectares of land, which were rented and used predominately as grazing land.
The application had been amended since the original submission following discussions with the applicant. The amendment related to the location of the application site and hence residential cartilage, which was now located along the western boundary of the site and to the south of the existing barns associated with the existing agricultural use. The precise siting of the dwelling within the curtilage would be determined at Reserved Matters stage.
20 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/125 Planning Application: DC/10/1117 (cont.)
New dwellings in the countryside had to meet both the functional and financial tests in order to be permitted. Annex A of PPS7 set out a number of criteria to be met in order to demonstrate that the proposal complied with the requirements of both. New permanent dwellings should only be allowed to support existing agricultural activities on well-established agricultural units and needed to justify that there was a proven need for one or more workers to be readily available at most times on site to enable the essential and proper functioning of the enterprise. It also had to be shown that the need for residential accommodation could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which was suitable and available for occupation. Finally the applicant would have to show clear evidence that the proposed enterprise had been planned on a sound financial basis.
Policy CP15 stated that sustainable rural economic within the District would be encouraged in order to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to local communities. Development in the countryside which maintained the quality and character of the area whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity would be supported in principle. Any development would need to be appropriate to the countryside location.
The land the subject to the current application was owned by the applicant, who traded as JH Dickson and Son and had owned the site since the early 1990s. The site was the base for the beef enterprise which was also undertaken on a further approximate 283 hectares of land split between six sites which had been rented for between three and ten years. The six additional sites were located within a radius of ten miles of the application site. The nearest, Chesworth Farm, was located one mile from the application site.
Members considered whether a temporary permission may be more appropriate considering the relatively small size of the site and the need to utilise the additional sites. However, since the viability of the enterprise had been established for at least three years, in line with PPS7, a permanent permission was considered to be more appropriate.
The full-time labour on the farm was provided by the applicant’s son. The applicant, who was semi-retired, worked on a part-time basis. Both the applicant and his son lived approximately three miles from the application site. As previously mentioned, the business had been owned and run since the early 1990s and had expanded considerably since its conception and since the applicant’s son took on full time involvement. The proposed dwelling would be for the applicant’s son to facilitate the ongoing development of the business together with onsite animal welfare.
21 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/125 Planning Application: DC/10/1117 (cont.)
The business enterprise had been independently assessed by a qualified agricultural consultant. At the time of the independent assessment, the business had a total of 203 beef cattle, comprising a breeding herd of 32 suckler cows, ten replacement heifers, two bulls, 12 calves at foot, 121 stores and 26 strong stores. The business also purchased up to 150 cattle which were fattened and sold as finished cattle at between 30 months and three years and were sold on a monthly basis.
Calving took place on the site. The suckler herd was split into two main calving periods, these being late spring (April/ May) and late summer (August/ September). The applicant had supplied calving records for the holding for the previous three years, which had been independently assessed.
There were two existing open-bayed livestock buildings located within the north-western corner of the application site, adjacent to the dwellinghouse called Oaktrees Cottage. These two barns had been subject to separate planning applications, which had been granted. They were used for the over-wintering of the beef livestock, limited to 1st October to 31st May. The suckler herd was over-wintered on pastures at Denne Park.
Following a detailed assessment of the information submitted together with a site visit the Agricultural Advisor had confirmed that there was a functional need for staff to be readily available throughout the year and not just during the period when the beef cattle were over-wintered. This took into account the spring and summer calving periods, to ensure the welfare of the applicant’s livestock.
The Agricultural Advisor had confirmed that based on the stock levels and standard man days, the livestock unit would require 2.2 workers. As such it was considered that the functional test had been adequately met to require a permanent dwelling on-site, particularly given the increase in livestock numbers.
The financial test set out in PPS7 required the applicant to demonstrate that the unit could sustain a permanent dwelling such as that proposed. It further advises that a realistic approach should be taken to assess the profitability of the business based on the nature of the enterprise concerned.
The applicant has supplied financial information to demonstrate that the existing business had been profitable for a period in excess of three years, was based on a sound financial basis and that there was a clear intention by the applicant and his son to continue the enterprise. The financial information had been reviewed by the Agricultural Advisor, who had
22 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/125 Planning Application: DC/10/1117 (cont.)
commented that the turnover had doubled and profit increased three-fold in the previous three years. This was reflected in the increased cattle numbers. The Agricultural Advisor had concluded that the enterprise could sufficiently support a full-time worker and was economically viable.
Information submitted by the applicant’s agent did not provide details on whether alternative existing accommodation had been sought within the vicinity. The applicant’s existing accommodation in Horsham had previously been sufficient and met the functional requirements of the business. However, considering the increase in cattle numbers and the semi- retirement of the applicant, the Agricultural Advisor had come to the conclusion that permanent on-site accommodation was required.
The applicant sought outline approval under this application for the access to the proposed dwelling. This would be taken from the existing entrance to the site, which was located within the north-eastern corner, adjacent to Coltstaple Farm House.
The second matter which the applicant sought formal outline approval for was the scale of the proposed dwelling, which would be single storey. The final design detail would be assessed under a subsequent Reserved Matters application. A condition would be required to limit the floorspace the proposed dwelling could cover.
It is considered that given the amended location of the dwelling, along the western boundary, the visual impact of a single storey dwelling from any public vantage point would be significantly reduced. The amended location of the dwelling would allow a distance of approximately 170 metres between Oaktree Cottage and 140 metres from Coltstaple Farm House. It was considered that siting the proposed dwelling closer to the existing barns may be more appropriate. However, it was also noted that the currently proposed position of the dwelling could allow for further expansion on the site between the existing barns and the proposed dwelling. It was considered that further consideration should be given to the siting of the proposed dwelling.
DC8 expected dwellings be designed to take account of their impact on the environment, by way of reducing unnecessary draw on water and energy resources and reducing the amount of waste created from the development during its lifetime. Any new dwellings would be expected to meet a minimum standard of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The applicant had not confirmed whether the proposed dwelling could meet this expectation. The requirement to meet Code Level 3 could be secured by condition.
Contributions to infrastructure would be sought by way of a legal agreement.
23 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/125 Planning Application: DC/10/1117 (cont.)
RESOLVED
That application DC/10/1117 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Local Members, to enable consideration of the resiting of the proposed dwelling closer to the existing barns. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCN/126 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2350 - FELL ONE OAK, SURGERY TO ONE OAK, ONE ASH SITE: NORTH HEATH COPSE (LAND TO REAR OF 118 COOK ROAD), HORSHAM APPLICANT: HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the felling of one oak tree and light surgery to an ash and an oak.
TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice was relevant to the determination of this application.
The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposals.
The application site was designated Ancient Woodland and was also protected by Tree Preservation Order 647, confirmed on 10th October 1989.
The trees in question were growing on the eastern edge of the woodland area, on land owned by Horsham District Council and managed by the Leisure Services department. The two trees targeted for surgery were within 1.5 metres of the site boundary which was contiguous with the rear gardens of the properties in Cook Road. The oak to be felled was a little further into the woodland.
The surgery works would involve light clearing of low epicormic stem growth to five metres above ground level on tree 785 and the removal of two small low limbs overhanging the adjacent garden from tree 781. This work would be minor and would not harm the trees, which were fair woodland edge specimens of reasonable amenity value. The works were justified as they would increase light levels into the adjacent residential garden. No amenity loss would result.
The oak tree to be felled was sited slightly further into the woodland, and accordingly had far lower amenity merit. A suppressed specimen, it had a restricted canopy and was exhibiting extensive dieback. Its trunk exhibited
24 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/125 Planning Application: DC/10/1117 (cont.)
extensive vertical wounding which appeared to have been caused by an old lightning strike. It was in moribund condition and was likely to die over the next few years. In line with good practice it was intended that the stump of the tree be retained at a height of four metres to provide a standing wildlife habitat.
RESOLVED
That application DC/10/2350 be granted, subject to the following conditions:
01 TR2 - Time limit 02 TR3 - Treeworks limit: Undertake treeworks as specified on schedule of works submitted with application 03 TR4 - Surgery standards
REASON
ITRE1b The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area
DCN/127 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2545 - SURGERY TO TWO LIME TREES SITE: CHEQUERS COURT, AYSHE COURT DRIVE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for surgery to two lime trees.
TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice was relevant to the determination of this application.
The trees in question were protected by virtue of their position within Area Tree Preservation Order 90, confirmed on 25th August 1964.
The trees in question were growing on the open space to the south of the large residential block, 1 to 12 Chequers Court, close to the junction of Depot Road and Burford Road. This land was owned by West Sussex County Council. The trees were sited around seven metres apart and 3.5 metres from the highway edge.
25 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/127 Planning Application: DC/10/2545 (cont.)
The trees in question were very tall and highly impressive semi-mature limes. In close proximity to busy Depot Road, they were prominent specimens of very high amenity value.
Both trees were exhibiting clear signs of basal decay. The fungus causing this had been identified as Kretschmaria deusta, a particularly aggressive decay fungus of broadleaved trees, well known on lime. By preferentially destroying cellulose, while failing to degrade the most heavily lignified parts of the wood cell walls until a very late stage, the fungus usually induces a brittle, ceramic-like fracture. The extent of decay had been illustrated by an internal tissue examination using a Picus© Tomograph, an ultra-sonic device, which had shown that both trees were exhibiting fairly extensive degrees of internal decay.
The trees had a worryingly busy target zone should they fail. Only 3.5 metres from the highway edge and 5.7 metres from the building to the north, the area had a high pedestrian use. Many of those pedestrians were schoolchildren.
The only sure way to eliminate the risk of structural failure was removal. However, the applicants were aware of the very high public amenity value of these trees and had sought a way of minimising the chance of failure whilst seeking their retention. It was intended therefore to crown reduce the trees at this stage, by around five metres in terms of height, and then by around two to three metres in terms of lateral growth. This would limit the ‘sail area’ of each tree, reducing its wind resistance.
It is considered that these works would not result in any great loss of amenity, nor any great harm to the trees, which may need to be felled in the near future should the fungus continue and the decay worsen, as was likely. The works proposed were therefore considered prudent and justified.
RESOLVED
That application DC/10/2545 be granted, subject to the following conditions:
01 TR2 - Time limit 02 TR3 - Treeworks limit: Crown reduce each tree by up to 5m in vertical height, and by up to 3m laterally, where appropriate, whilst retaining good shape and form 03 TR4 - Surgery standards
26 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/127 Planning Application: DC/10/2545 (cont.)
REASON
ITRE1(b) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area
DCN/128 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2558 – CROWN REDUCE ONE OAK TREE SITE: LAND NORTH OF 21 HAYBARN DRIVE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for extensive surgery to an oak tree.
TPOs - A guide to the Law and Good Practice was relevant to the determination of this application.
The tree was individually protected under Tree Preservation Order 579, confirmed on 10th October 1989.
The tree was growing on the southern edge of a wooded area, which was owned and managed by Horsham District Council, between 21 Haybarn Drive and the northern town bypass. It was sited 1.5 metres north of the boundary fence contiguous to the wooded area and 21 Haybarn Drive.
The tree was a tall semi-mature oak, likely to be around 75 years of age. The houses in Haybarn Drive had been erected in the late 1980’s on what was originally open land, at which time a zone of buffer planting had been inserted between the closest house (no. 21) and the northern bypass. The buffer planting had grown considerably, to a height of around 16 metres and, in some cases, overtaking the height of the tree in question. Accordingly, the tree could only now be seen from the residential area to the south, where it was of moderate, restricted amenity value.
21 Haybarn Drive had been erected in close proximity to the tree and, as a result, the property owner was faced with a constant battle to prevent the tree’s lateral growth fouling the roof and dwelling. Despite regular extensive efforts in this respect, the tree was once again representing a nuisance and fouling the roof and gutters. Moreover, light levels on this side of the dwelling, which were comprehensively shaded by the tree, were exceedingly and intolerably low.
At this stage it was considered prudent and necessary to considerably
27 Development Control (North) Committee 1st February 2011
DCN/128 Planning Application: DC/10/2558 (cont.)
reduce the size of the tree to limit its water demand and abate the nuisance to the adjacent householder so far as could be achieved. Hence a 40% crown reduction was proposed. This would reduce the tree’s amenity value but was considered necessary in the circumstances and best practice.
RESOLVED
That application DC/10/2558 be granted, subject to the following conditions:
01 TR2 Time limit 02 TR3 Treeworks limit: Crown reduce tree by up to 40% 03 TR4 Surgery standards
REASON
ITRE3 The proposal will have an adverse impact upon the character and amenities of the local area for a limited period, but is justified in this case and represents best arboricultural practice
The meeting closed at 7.31pm having commenced at 5.30pm.
CHAIRMAN
28 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Use of the land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 11 no. gypsy pitches together with the formation of an additional hardstanding and utility/day rooms ancillary to that use
SITE: Kingfisher Farm, West Chiltington Road, Billingshurst
WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham
APPLICATION: DC/10/1041
APPLICANT: Mr Maurice Black
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development.
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application is for full planning permission and shows the use of the existing access point of West Chiltington Lane with a track running across the field, west to east leading to the main application site area which is to be hard-surfaced and laid out with 11 gypsy pitches. Each pitch has a position for a mobile home, a touring caravan and a utility/day room.
1.2 The Design and Access Statement ( DAS) states that: ‘the proposed caravans will conform to the definitions within Section 29. 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and Section 13. 1 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and therefore plans and elevations of individual units are not required.’
Contact: Val Cheesman Extension: 5163 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.
1.3 In respect of the day rooms the DAS states that: ‘the single storey utility day rooms are positioned to allow convenient access to the stationed caravans during the day. The utility day rooms will provide facilities that enable the occupants of the caravans to minimize the recognised hazards associated with cooking and fire in the close confines of caravans and provide facilities for washing and bathing and the maintenance of basic hygiene’.
1.4 Details of the day rooms have been supplied which are marked as indicative and show units of 5m x 8m, with an internal layout of a day room, kitchen, bathroom and wash room. The units have a pitched roof with height to eaves of 2.5m and of 4.5m to ridge. The walls are render and a reconstituted slate roof is proposed. The DAS states: ‘The materials, overall scale and form of the utility day room building are appropriate to a countryside location with features typical of the tradition of agricultural buildings of this scale in the countryside’.
1.5 In terms of surfacing and associated drainage the application proposes extending the existing hardstanding entrance way into the site with a tarmacadam surface up to a set of gates and then a driveway ( shown as ‘hardstanding’) will cross the land to the eastern side, leading to the area of the pitches themselves ( this whole part is shown as ‘hardstanding’). The pitches are accessed off the track which is centrally placed with a tarmacadam turning head at the southern end.
1.6 Each mobile home is shown connected to a foul drainage system, which leads to a package treatment plant and then to a soakaway in the south eastern corner of the site.
1.7 The DAS advises that: ‘The proposed development does not propose significant areas of impermeable surfacing and discharges of roof drainage to ground soakaways from mobile homes, caravans and dayrooms will not significantly concentrate any run off. Surface water from the site access road will also discharge to ground via percolation along its edge. Foul drainage will be via an appropriately sized private package treatment plant discharging to a ground soakaway and located in the paddock on the northern side of the access road. The site is designed on the highest part of the site in the north east allowing run off to the south west of the site.’
1.8 The plans also show landscaping, tree planting and the creation of a pond and provision of an ‘amenity space’.
1.9 On the matter of the occupation of the site/units and the weight to be given to Government advice, the agent is of the view that:
‘Local need This should not be considered in terms of local personal need but in terms of local need in the same way you would assess what numbers of houses are necessary to satisfy local need for bricks and mortar housing. i.e. you would not ask a housing developer to explain either his personal local links or who would be living in his houses but those houses would still address part of the local need for housing in Horsham. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.
Circular 01/06 In July 2010, the Coalition Government announced that it intended to replace Circular 01/06 with a new ‘light touch’ document. The revision is clearly necessary as the reference to the RSS processes will need to removed. GPS LLP suspect that other revisions to Circular 01/06 will be very minor although it will be press released as a major change, much as the way the Secretary of State trumpeted the ‘end to garden grabbing’ with a minor change to the definition of previously developed land which in practice has only slightly reduced the likelihood of gaining consent for additional dwellings within domestic curtilages.
However much as he would like to think otherwise the Secretary of State’s intention is currently just that, an intention, which has to be lawfully accorded limited weight. Circular 01/06 continues to carry full weight as adopted national policy with the exception of where it refers to the RSSs which have now been revoked.’
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.10 The application site has an area of approximately 2.06 hectares. The site lies on the eastern side of West Chiltington Lane, from which access is gained via an existing access point. It is hardsurfaced with road planings and a gate set back some 10 metres. The site is immediately opposite the access to Eastlands. Visibility to north good, less so to south due to overhanging vegetation and bend in road. A mature oak tree is on the southern splay of the access point.
1.11 The access continues into field as a trackway along northern boundary and is of rubble construction. Halfway along, the top layer appears to have been removed, but in effect continues across, although at a slightly lower level. Rubble and other materials still evident and it remains as a hardened surface with some weed growth, as opposed to the grass/vegetation on the remainder of the field. There is no evidence of any active agricultural or horticultural use of the land.
1.12 The field is one entity, but the application site itself is only part of that field, comprising the access and the eastern third. The land rises slightly from the road, then forms a plateau across the central section and dips towards the eastern boundary. Levels also fall from north to south down towards Valewood Lane.
1.13 There is a tree and hedge screen along the western boundary with West Chiltington Lane, to the north with the adjacent field and to the east with Clayfield Farm. The site can be seen from the access point itself, up to the level central section. However due to the extent and nature of the boundary trees and hedges, views of the site from a wider area, either from West Chiltington Lane or the public rights of way [PROW] are very limited. Views of the site from the PROW to the north are unlikely due to the boundary vegetation. Similarly from the east along Valewood Lane, because the land falls away and there is a wooded area intervening and there are trees and hedges along the boundary with Clay Field Farm, means no views available from the PROW or Valewood Lane. Due to the siting of the units on APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4.
Greenfield Farm close to the road, glimpses of that site are obtained from the highway. Whist from the joint access off Valewood Lane ( at bend in road ) which leads to Clay Field Farm and small triangular piece of land between this site and field to rear of Greenfield Farm is visible, views of the site itself from this point are not achievable.
1.14 In the centre of the field (and within the application site) are two dilapidated touring caravans, the remains of a mobile home and other sheds/building/structures. Otherwise the field is clear of any buildings. From this point clear views south towards Greenfield Farm in Valewood Lane are obtained. The southern boundary of the application site is a post and wire fence. There is an intervening field/paddock between the 2 sites, but with no trees or buildings to screen/obscure any views. It is also possible to see across to south-eastern corner of the site, which leads to the access off Valewood Lane ( mentioned above).
1.15 On the application site blue and black pipes/conduit have been installed at various intervals as well as timber marker posts with yellow lines. These would seem to coincide with the 11 pitches shown on the plans, but no plots or boundaries have been delineated etc. On northern part of the site the existing electricity line follows eastern boundary, crosses over into Clayfield Farm land. There is a separate line and pole in south eastern corner and a further pole lying in the field with wires/conduit attached.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.16 BL/12/89 Refused for retrospective mobile home
BL/119/89 Refused for retrospective siting of a mobile home
EN/04/0579 Complaint regarding gates and fence at the entrance – no breach identified.
EN/08/0086 Enforcement Notice served 18.6.2009 for hardstanding to form an extension to existing track. The Notice has been partially complied with in that most of the unlawful track has been removed (part of the track was lawful) and much of the site was cleared of rubbish (though not everything has been removed).
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2.2 Housing Act 2004.
2.3 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2.4 Equality Act 2010 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.5 PPS 1 (Delivery of Sustainable Development) PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) PPG13 (Transport)
2.6 OPDM Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites
2.7 DCLG document ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide’ (May 2008)
2.8 South East Plan 2009.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.9 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007): CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15, CP16, and CP19
2.10 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007): DC1, DC2, DC7, DC9, DC32, and DC40
2.11 Local Development Framework Gypsy and Traveller Sites – Issues and Options Document (November 2006).
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Strategic and Community Planning ( comments dated September 2010) This application needs to be considered against policies in the Local Development Framework, in particular the Core Strategy (2007), and the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD . Policy DC32, Gypsies and Travellers is the most relevant policy and sets out the criteria against which to consider applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Other policies, particularly those relating to landscape character and design, are also relevant. It is noted here that the Council is pursuing a review of the Core Strategy as required by the Inspectors at the original examination. The Core Strategy Review Consultation Document was published and consulted on in the autumn 2009. A Preferred Strategy, which was due to be published in the autumn of this year (2010) and which will include a strategy for moving forward with the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, will now not be produced until autumn 2011. Note that this will not prevent evidence based work progressing in the interim.
National policies are considered relevant to the consideration of the application, in particular those within PPS3: Housing, PPG13: Transport and PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, alongside the guidance contained in Circular 01/06, Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. However, the new Government APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6.
has advised that guidance will be changing. Already the targets and requirements being considered at Regional level have been scrapped. This “now allows councils to decide for themselves how many traveller pitches are necessary in their area according to local need and historic demand”. Guidance issued on the 6th July 2010 stated that this should still be in line with current policy: Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) have been undertaken by all local authorities and if local authorities decide to review the levels of provision these assessments will form a good starting point. However, local authorities are not bound by them. We will review relevant regulations and guidance on this matter in due course.
The latest Ministerial speech, 29th August 2010, indicates that Circular 01/06 will also be revoked: “to be replaced with light-touch guidance outlining Council’s statutory obligations”. The Government regard the circular, that it is said many local Council’s have criticised and some have said that it has compelled them to build on the countryside and compulsorily purchase land, as flawed. It is claimed that such rules have undermined community cohesion by creating a perception amongst many people of ‘different’ planning rules for the travelling community and for the settled community. The intention is that planning rules should be same for all. New site provision will be part of the New Homes Bonus scheme under which council’s will be paid for properties they allow to be built in their area and due to be set out in a public consultation later in the year. This approach, then, all fits with the Government’s overall ‘localism agenda’ and although the Circular 01/06 has not yet been revoked, needs to be taken into account when considering this application. (Note that the Decentralisation and Localism Bill is due to be published in late October(2010) and should set out more clearly the actions to be taken).
Within this new and emerging context, it is considered that although the GTAA raises a case for pitches within the District and therefore the issue of local need in a wider sense, the ‘local need’ for the Parish, and the immediate community, has been addressed by the recent granting of permanent permission for 4 pitches on the Valewood site. There is no community support for this proposal; with the Parish Council objecting and over 100 letters of objection, including one from the neighbouring Billingshurst Parish Council. This lack of community support, then, goes against the desire to work with communities when considering developments and goes against the localism objective.
Within the GTAA, there are a couple of points raised which should be considered when considering this proposal which would be a ‘neighbour’ to the Valewood site. Table 3-58, What Is The Maximum Number Of Pitches A Site Should Have?, shows of those interviewed (County wide)19.4% wanted a site of 1-5 pitches; 26%, 6-10 pitches; and 31.8%, 11-15 pitches. A quote from the Select Committee of ODPM report on Gypsy and Traveller Sites 2004 in paragraph 3.18.3 states “…all sites should be small and not disproportionate to the size of the community in which they are placed..”. It is argued that one relatively small site of 4 pitches meets a need; however, a total of 15 pitches on two different sites in this location would be disproportionate to the size of the community. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7.
Policy DC32 requires sites to be reasonably close to schools, shops and other local services and community facilities. This site is not ideally located in this respect, and this was acknowledged in comments relating to the neighbouring Valewood site; however, children on that site were attending local schools and on this basis taking a more pragmatic approach was suggested. As Valewood has been permitted, it may be hard to sustain an objection of the grounds of unsustainability per se in this case. However, in the sense of paragraph 3.9 of the CLG document, Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide (May 2008), which states “the site must be sustainable, offering scope to manage an integrated co-existence with the local community”; there is concern that this additional larger site in the vicinity of the Valewood site would not be sustainable in this sense. There is a risk that the existing balance between the relatively small cluster of residential properties and the existing small family group of Gypsies, could be harmed. Moreover, the general amenities afforded to both the existing settled and existing Gypsy and Traveller site, in terms of noise and disturbance, may be affected, which would impact on the co-existence of the groups.
Recommendation This proposal does not appear to accord with the advice coming from Government in respect of Travellers within the context of the ‘localism’ agenda; and indeed, the provision of a second site, with no identified local occupants, and in close proximity to an existing, now permanent site, adjacent to only a small cluster of residential property does not, in my opinion, fit with existing good practice guidance for sites. This is not, therefore, considered to represent an adequate way of meeting any District –wide need as it would have a significant impact on the very immediate locality and local community contrary to the aims of Policy DC32.
3.2 Public Health and Licensing
I have concerns about the drainage from the proposed, comparatively large, installation of 11 mobile homes which could house around 50 people on this site. The adjacent site at Greenfield Farm, in the field immediately to the South of this proposal, has only 4 mobile homes and has been the subject of complaints about smell and leakage of effluent to the surrounding ditches. These have largely been addressed, but the nature of the subsoil, clay, has made the problems surrounding treatment of the effluent difficult to overcome for the much smaller amount of effluent produced on this neighbouring site.
I would advise that full details of the proposed scheme of sewage treatment be required before planning permission is given for this site, and that no permission is given unless we can be certain that there will be no pollution of the area, if such a condition is legally permitted. Percolation tests will be required for any scheme which involves discharge of effluent to the ground, and the full results of these must be made available to us as well as the detail of the proposed treatment system before approval is given. The new drainage provision may need permission from the Environment Agency for any discharge, but I would in addition recommend that they are consulted about any scheme proposed.
The mobile homes must be provided with a wholesome water supply. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8.
The site will require a Fire Risk Assessment, which is enforced by the Fire Authority, so I would recommend consulting them about this. In particular, they may have a requirement about what fencing material is permitted to ensure fire does not spread along it. Our Caravan Site Licence requires that a distance of 6 metres is maintained between mobile homes, and 3 metres between the boundary and each home.
The Mobile Home Site will need to be issued with a Caravan Site Licence if permission is granted. This will detail a number of requirements including spacing of the mobile homes and hygiene and safety measures with which the applicants must comply. I can provide the applicant with information about the Licence conditions if required.
3.3 Engineering Section – Corporate Support Services
This application should have been accompanied with a Flood Risk Assessment, as required by Planning Policy Statement 25 (Ref E9). An FRA would have provided details that the applicant had investigated the site and was able to support the following statement in the Design & Access Statement submitted with this application;
'4.02 The proposed development does not propose significant areas of impermeable surfacing and discharges of roof drainage to ground soakaways from mobile homes, caravans and dayrooms will not significantly concentrate any run-off. Surface water from the site access road will also discharge to ground via percolation along its edge.'
Part of the above statement proposes soakaways as a means of Surface Water Drainage disposal. The adequacy for these is a Building Control matter in accordance with the current Building Regulations. Early indications based on Geological Ordnance Survey map details of the underlying bedrock geology for this area confirm that this will be a difficult option to implement without storage / attenuation.
Therefore drainage conditions should be imposed on this application so that the applicant/developer can prove to the LPA that the method of surface water disposal proposed does not impact on the local drainage network and has demonstrated that opportunities to implement sustainable drainage techniques at the site have been maximised.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.4 Environment Agency
The Environment Agency has assessed the planning application as having a low environmental risk. The proposals include a sewage treatment plant which may be subject to an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9.
3.5 West Sussex County Council:
Highways - Initial comments The County Council does not object to the principle of access from the site to West Chiltington Lane. However there are a number of issues on which further information is required before a full response can be given:
1. Information on the trip attraction of the proposed use to enable the impact on the local highway network to be evaluated
2. Illustration that the proposed turning head can accommodate refuse, emergency and any other vehicle likely to make use of the site
3. Confirmation in the form of a preliminary design drawing that the proposed access to the highway will be safe for all users of West Chiltington Lane and that the access will meet current standards and best practice eg in terms of visibility.
Subsequent comments
HDC has requested information from the county council on the precise level of detail required at this stage for the access and track, what could be covered by condition and an updated response on the accident situation and suitability of the lane to deal with the type and level of projected traffic.
The access and track would need to be illustrated by means of preliminary design drawings accompanied by a road safety audit, designer’s response and exception report. A road safety audit would not normally be required for this size of development. However, given the level of local concern about road safety one would be required in this case
The accident situation has been reviewed. WSCC Local Development was provided with accident records via a concerned local resident and these give data for 10 and 20 year periods. The maximum normal period for consideration of accidents is 5 years, and a 3 year period is normally taken. Our current records for the three year period to 2009 show no significant accident issue on West Chiltington Lane or Bashurst Hill. It is therefore considered that both roads may be able to cope satisfactorily with the likely level of traffic from the proposed development, although this cannot be confirmed without the trip attraction data requested on 7 July.
For the purposes of this response it has been assumed that the trip attraction from the site may be only slightly above the usual daily variation in traffic on the roads. It may therefore be unlikely that the junctions with the A264 and A272 would be significantly impacted by development traffic. It has also been assumed that the nature of the traffic may be lighter than heavy goods vehicle traffic and the impact of this on the West Chiltington Lane and Bashurst Hill may not be significant. Again, it is difficult to confirm this without further information from the applicant.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10.
The County Council would not normally condition the access arrangements without agreeing a preliminary design with the applicant. Conditions would be likely to be required to ensure implementation of the access as agreed, possibly prohibiting drainage of surface water onto the highway and a construction management plan to minimise inconvenience to highway users.
It is essential that the further information previously requested is provided before the county council makes further comments on the application.
3.6 Fire and Rescue Service
‘Have reviewed the application and see no immediate issues. We have a hydrant at the entrance to the complex at 150 mtrs distance which will be compliant and access looks reasonable. We would not look to seek a hydrant on site as this may lead to irregular use of free water supplies. With regards to fire prevention I would assume it would be dealt with as with any other caravan site and fire extinguisher points should be available. Spacing between vans would be expected as prescribed under the same regulations. (Model Standards 2008 for Caravan Sites in England Section 5)’
3.7 Itchingfield Parish Council
The Itchingfield Parish Council strongly objects to the above application for the use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 11 no. gypsy pitches together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility dayrooms ancillary to that use
The reasons for the objection are as follows:
1. The land at Kingfisher Farm is currently agricultural land and the proposed application would require a change of use. Application for normal development for a similar number of houses would be refused See application numbers DC/07/1183 ; DC/0/ 0107 and DC/09/0989 - Water Farm, Bashurst Hill- which were turned down as being out of keeping with the area, unacceptable increase in traffic and unsustainable due to lack of local infrastructure All above reasons are contrary to Government Guidelines Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide 2008 sections 3.1 and 3.2
2. The area of the application site which is shown as hard standing or tarmac will be relatively impervious and is estimated to cause run of some 712,500 litres of rainwater in an average month. In addition there will be some 316,000 litres of domestic water used each month based on 4 occupants per pitch. This water is to be processed by a Klargester treatment device at a low point on the site near Valewood Lane. This will pass all the treated water into a soakaway. The soil is heavy clay under a thin layer of topsoil and is relatively impervious which will cause surcharging of the sewage system from time to time and consequent flooding into Valewood Lane. The combined effect of the run off and site consumption will amount to l,028, 5001itres per month or about half the volume of an Olympic sized swimming pool! There is recent experience of a similar sewage system causing just such problems from the much smaller Greenfield Farm site in Valewood Lane. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11.
During the recent winter the natural run off from Kingfisher Farm and nearby Clayfield Farm caused Valewood Lane to become flooded and at times frozen causing several road traffic accidents and making the road almost impassable. The flooding problems in Valewood Lane were brought to the attention of West Sussex Council Highways Dept some 18 months ago and negotiations are still ongoing to resolve the existing problems. Clearly the extra volume and increased speed of runoff water caused by the proposed development will exacerbate the problem and with the extra children and both pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the proposed application it will only be a matter of time before a fatality occurs. The above renders the site unsuitable under Government Guidelines Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide 2008 sections 3. 4, 3.14 and 3.15.
3. Although the application site is only a few hundred yards from a local bus route providing an hourly service during daytime only, it is some 3 miles from the nearest urban area with a selection of shops secondary school and medical provision Primary and Junior schools are 2 and 3 miles away respectively in the opposite direction. The Weald Secondary School in Billingshurst is currently oversubscribed and Itchingfield Primary Junior Schools are also up to capacity in some year groups. The site will be heavily car dependant for the transport of adults, their children and will hinder the integration of occupants with the local community and is contrary to Government guidelines as laid out in Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good practice Guide 2008 sections 3.1, 3.2, 3. 4, 3.7, 3. 9 and 3. 10
4. The proposed site entrance has poor sight lines onto West Chiltington Lane which is as the name indicates is a country lane and will render entering and particularly leaving the site dangerous. This is very important as the design and access plan allows for at least 2 vehicles per pitch of up to .7 5 tonnes GVW and implies the regular use of commercial vehicles and SUV’ s towing trailers with plant and equipment to carry out the business of the occupants. Daily vehicle movements could be up to 100 movements of all types This is in excess of the expected vehicle movements connected to the previous refused Applications on the same road listed in paragraph 1 above.( N B West Chiltington Lane becomes Bashurst Hill to the north of the application site. )
5. We understand that the owner of the site lives in Cranleigh and the Applicant in Woking. We do not know who the proposed new occupants of the site will be but consider that they are from outside the area. They do not as yet form part of the need for gypsy pitches in the Horsham District and even allowing temporary permission will establish that need and increase the total number of pitches that HDC will be required to find. It is clear that the blue area of the site could accommodate another 25 pitches and with other adjacent land owned by Gypsy Traveller families could accommodate 100 pitches. This would be far in excess of the capacity of local power, water drainage and roads to accommodate and would blight an area of agricultural farms and holdings large domestic and equestrian properties thus ruining a large part of the local environment and community.
6. The parish of Itchingfield is quite small with approximately 2000 inhabitants and we are one of 32 parishes in the Horsham District Council area. We understand that HDC will be responsible to find accommodation sites for some 50 Gypsy APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12.
Traveller families and if these were shared around the parishes it would equate to 1. 5 families per parish. The HDC have recently allowed 4 families to remain within the Itchingfield parish near the application site. We have therefore already taken 12. 5% of the total allocation for the HDC area. Should permission be given to this application then Itchingfield would be shouldering 47% of the total allocation which is unsustainable and unfair on this community. As stated above in paragraph 5, by giving this permission, the way would be open for up to 100 pitches to be occupied either legally or illegally on adjacent land which would be catastrophic for this community and totally unsustainable.
7. Regarding the local community at the June 28th meeting of the Itchingfield Parish Council some 62 members of the affected community voiced their vehement objection to the application and at the time of writing some 70 letters of objection have been lodged with HDC planning dept . The application therefore has already clearly failed to win the approval of the local community which is a key element of Government policy in deciding the suitability of Gypsy Travellers sites.
8. Although the Applicant has stated in the application that no work has taken place on the application site, pitches have been marked out and power and water have been laid to them the latter despite Stop Orders being placed by HDC Planning Enforcement Department.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.8 145 letters of objection from the occupiers of 109 households have been received, together with letters of objection from Save Our Countryside Group, Billingshurst Parish Council, British Horse Society and Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
The points raised are:
Contrary to planning policy for the countryside and DC32 Contrary to recent Government advice Contrary to Good Practice Guide Locality has had its quota of such sites, no local need Disproportionate impact on parish No justification for the development No local connection Unsustainable location, no public transport No benefit to the local community Detrimental impact on rural character of the area, visual amenities, residential amenities Loss of privacy, impact on quality of life, light and noise pollution, anti social behaviour Highway safety, narrow lanes, increased traffic volumes, speeding vehicles, no lighting Over-development APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13.
Query use of remainder of the field, potential to develop whole of field as a gypsy site Impact on trees and landscaping Local schools already full, local services over burdened Impact on wildlife Would set a precedent Units are not mobile homes, would be permanent houses Lack of adequate infrastructure Drainage problems in locality – both foul and surface water – would be made worse by proposal – affects roads and railway Work has started and vans are already there Detrimental effect on local house prices Residential and commercial use of field not acceptable Other applications in area refused
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
The following sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application:
Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial Article 8: Right to respect of a private and family life. Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination.
Article 1 of The First Protocol: Protection of Property Article 2 of The First Protocol: Right to Education
Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
On the information available to the Council it is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main considerations in this planning application are the policy considerations relating to the provision of gypsy pitches; whether the site is in a sustainable location; access, parking and highway safety issues; impact on the landscape and rural character of the area; impact on residential amenities.
Policy Context
6.2 The application needs to be considered against the policies in the Local Development Framework in conjunction with National policies. In respect of applications relating to gypsy and traveller proposals, the current situation is complex, particularly with regard to the progress of the review of the Core Strategy, the changing status of the South East Plan and evolving Government advice.
6.3 The current position in law is as follows: The Housing Act 2004 requires Local Authorities to assess the accommodation needs of gypsy and travellers. ODPM Circular 01/2006 requires Local Authorities to undertake a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). The information from the GTAA should then be taken as a key component in the overall assessment of need, which should inform housing policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy (the RSS) i.e. the South East Plan. The RSS would identify the number of pitches required for each Local Planning Authority, but not their location.
6.4 The number of pitches set out in the RSS must then be translated by Local Authorities into specific site allocations in a DPD forming part of the suite of documents that make up their LDF. The policy criteria will also be used to meet unexpected demand.
6.5 The preparation of any such DPD is complicated by the need to set the spatial planning context, in terms of what is trying to be achieved and the resultant contribution to ‘place shaping and delivery’; this should be done through the Core Strategy, or in Horsham’s case the Core Strategy Review.
6.6 In respect of the situation for the South East, the South East Plan was submitted to Government in March 2006, shortly before the publication of Circular 01/2006, which sets out the need to include information on the number of gypsy and traveller pitches required in the region. As it was not possible to include this data before the South East Plan submission deadline, the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) launched a part review of the plan in respect of gypsies and travellers. A draft policy by SEERA was submitted to the Government in June 2009 and was independently examined in the first week of February 2010. That recommended for the period of 2006-2016, 1,064 permanent residential pitches were provided for gypsies and travellers within the South East as a whole, of which an additional 50 authorised pitches were to be required in Horsham District.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15.
6.7 The change in Government led to the decision of the Secretary of State last summer to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies, including the South East Plan. The South East England Partnership Board ( the replacement for SEERA) who had developed the draft gypsy and traveller policy was also abolished, and the Inspector’s Report into the Partial Review was abandoned. Subsequently, the revocation of the RSS’s has been found unlawful; although Government has made clear that it still intends to abolish them.
6.8 For the moment then the South East Plan remains but without any policy relating to gypsy and travellers. At the same time the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies can then be taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ when considering applications for new gypsy and traveller sites, although this point is currently subject to a further legal appeal/challenge.
6.9 The Government has also made clear its intention to abolish Circular 01/2006 and replace with new light touch guidance. Moreover, the Government is also set to build on its ‘localism agenda’; encouraging local authorities to provide, in consultation with the local community, an appropriate number of traveler sites that reflect local and historic demand.
6.10 The Council has always intended to progress issues through a plan-led approach and there remains a commitment to producing a separate Site Allocations DPD. Evidence of this goes back as far as November 2006, when the Local Development Framework Gypsy and Traveller Sites Issues and Options Document was published for consultation. Since that time further local policy advances on the matter have appeared limited, but this has been due to the implications of wider changes in planning policy, centred around the South East Plan and the need for an early review of the Core Strategy, as required by the Inspector at the original examination.
6.11 Background work to support a future DPD has begun, and in September 2009, the results of a Stakeholder Consultation with local Gypsy and Travellers were published, supporting a preference for small family run sites. It is also the intention to carry out an initial site search, with the help of independent consultants, and involving key local stakeholders, in the coming months. Moreover, the ‘tone’ for a potential future approach has been set by the granting of permanent approval for sites, such as, Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane (DC/10 /0721). These themes will be explored later in this report.
6.12 In the meantime, the Council does have an adopted criteria based policy, Policy DC32, Gypsies and Travellers of the General Development Control Policies (2007) against which to assess the application. The issues also need to be balanced against the advice in PPS3 (Housing), PPG13( Transport), PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), along with the guidance contained in ODPM Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, as well as case law and established practice with regard to gypsy and traveller cases.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16.
6.13 Policy DC32 is set out below and offers the starting point of this application:
“Proposals for sites for caravans for gypsies and travellers will be granted planning permission provided that
(a) the Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting this established need; and
b) an identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing site within or outside existing settlements.”
If the need cannot be met at any suitable alternative sites as set out above, the following criteria will apply:
1) The site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities;
2) a satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site; and
3) the proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles.
Occupation of the site will be restricted to gypsies and travellers and may be limited to a temporary period and/or for the benefit of named occupiers. Applicants must comply with other relevant policies, particularly those relating to landscape character and design.’’
6.14 With regard to criterion (a) and whether there is an existing local need for such sites to be provided, Paragraph 58 of Circular 01/2006 states: “… considerations for gypsies and traveller site applications are likely to include the likely impact on the surrounding area, the existing level of provision and the need for sites in the area, the availability (or lack of) the terms of accommodation for the applicants and other personal circumstances.’’
6.15 Thus the existence of local need is a consideration in dealing with such applications. However, Circular 01/2006 advises that local planning authorities should not refuse private applications solely because the applicant has no local connection. This is relevant to this case as it is not known who the occupants will be.
6.16 The GTAA completed in 2007 showed a need within the District for 39 new pitches to 2011 (although it should be noted that as part of the RSS, this was potentially to be increased to 50 by 2016).
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 17.
6.17 However although this shows evidence of a general need across the District , specific localised needs have not yet been established and this was not broken- down further into particular areas or Parishes within the District. Such detailed work is to be undertaken as part of the preparation of the Sites DPD. It should also be noted that a proportion of this need arises from the District’s existing unauthorised encampments, and sites such as Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane, Barns Green which have now been granted permanent permission, and therefore this need comes from the existing gypsy and traveller population. The Local Planning Authority is not aware of any substantial localised unmet need in the vicinity , either in terms of unauthorised developments or encampments of other planning applications for gypsy sites in the immediate locality.
6.18 Moreover recent Government advice and guidance on such gypsy and traveller issues together with the emerging general approach to planning issues and the Government’s localism agenda means that there is a changing situation, with more emphasis and focus being given to local neighbourhood views and needs and this will guide the preparatory work of the Sites DPD.
6.19 In respect of recent Government advice and guidance, in July 2010, when the Government believed that it had abolished the RSS’s, it issued the following advice through a letter from the Chief Planning Officer: ‘Local councils are best placed to assess the needs of travellers. The abolition of Regional Strategies means that local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand, and for bringing forward land in DPDs. They should continue to do this in line with current policy. Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) have been undertaken by all local authorities and if local authorities decide to review the levels of provision these assessments will form a good starting point. However, local authorities are not bound by them. We will review relevant regulations and guidance on this matter in due course.’
6.20 Whilst the situation with regard to the South East Plan has been changing in recent months, this particular guidance retains relevance as the Decentralisation and Localism Bill (which provides for the abolition of RSS’s) has been published, and because the work under the South East Plan relating to Gypsy and Travellers was abandoned on the basis of it. There never have been RSS figures for new gypsy caravan pitches in district in the South East, nor are any such figures likely to be provided in the foreseeable future.
6.21 In this respect (2010) recent Government advice in relating to gypsy and traveller caravan sites states that: “This now allows Councils to decide for themselves how many traveller pitches are necessary in their area according to local needs and historic demand ‘’ Furthermore, given Gypsy and traveller accommodation assessments have been undertaken by all Local Authorities and if Local Authorities decide to review the level of provision, these assessments will form a good starting point. However Local Authorities are not bound by them. We will review relevant regulations and guidance on this matter in due course.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 18.
6.22 The CLG website (at today’s date) reinforces this approach by stating that ‘it is encouraging local authorities to provide, in consultation with the local community, an appropriate number of traveler sites that reflect local and historic demand. Exploring incentives for site provision and innovative ways in which traveler sites can be funded and maintained’. The focus, then, is on working more closely with local communities as part of the wider ‘localism agenda’. There is also the future potential for ‘neighbourhoods’ to address the issue through the production of their own neighbourhood plans.
6.23 It is therefore necessary to consider the application in the light of this developing context and the situation pertaining to Horsham District and Itchingfield Parish. The following paragraphs take these themes further.
6.24 Arising from the work undertaken as part of the GTAA, one of the factors considered was the maximum number of pitches a site should have and shows of those interviewed County-wide, 19.4% wanted a site of 1-5 pitches, 26% wanted 6- 10 pitches and 31.8% wanted 11-15 pitches. The stakeholder consultation process with local gypsy and travellers indicated that support was for small family-run sites.
6.25 In this respect with regard to local need within the Parish itself and small family run sites, it should be noted that permanent planning permission was recently granted for the four pitches at Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane (DC/10/0721). A local need was said to have existed as the occupiers had been present since 2003, having previously been on another site elsewhere within the district, and had settled into the community and were seeking to convert a temporary permission in to a permanent one.
6.26 Furthermore the Select Committee on the ODPM Report on Gypsy and Traveller Sites 2004 states at paragraph 13.18.3: “All sites should be small and not disproportionate to the size of the community to which they are placed”.
6.27 In this regard, and having regard to the fact that four pitches have been provided at the Valewood site, if this application were permitted there would be a total of 15 pitches on 2 separate sites within close proximity to each other within this part of the Parish of Itchingfield. In this particular part of the Parish, which is not within a defined built up area boundary, the area comprises sporadic and scattered agricultural, residential and commercial development, with a total of 26 residential properties within a 0.5km radius of the application site. Therefore 11 pitches would result is a 42% increase in residential accommodation in this rural area. It is considered that such a scale and concentration of development would be disproportionate to the size of the existing community in this rural part of Itchingfield Parish.
6.28 It should be noted that no specific occupiers or any local connection have been identified by the applicant or similar justification put forward to set aside these concerns.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 19.
6.29 Thus it is considered that whilst there is a need for pitches within the District as a whole as revealed by the GTAA, at a more local level, looking at the ‘local need’ within the parish itself, and the immediate community, it could be said that this need has been addressed by the recent granting of permanent permission for the 4 pitches at Greenfield Farm. The granting of that permission was a pragmatic response to the local need identified in the GTAA in light of the delays in the ability of the Council to adopt a proper plan-led approach through the LDF process.
6.30 In addition it should be noted that there is no community support for the scheme, with objections from Itchingfield Parish Council and also neighbouring Billingshurst Parish Council; plus 148 letters of objection from the occupiers of 109 properties and 3 interest groups. It is considered that this lack of community support goes against the desire to work with communities when considering such developments and runs counter to localism objectives.
6.31 This is contrasted to the situation with the Greenfield Farm application, as whilst it is acknowledged that Itchingfield Parish Council objected to that application, in respect of other representations there were 3 letters of objection, a petition of support signed by 11 people and letters from the schools, playgroup and clubs attended by the children living at that site.
6.31 Thus to grant permission for the application site, in such close proximity to Greenfield Farm, for the needs of families with no identified local connection and outside of the plan- led process, and with no local support appears to go against the thrust of this new ‘radical reform of the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants live’ (CLG website, Planning, Building and the Environment).
6.32 Turning to the other criteria:
1) Site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities
In this respect the site is outside any built up area is 2 km approx from Barns Green village and 3.5km approx from Billingshurst and 9km approx from Horsham. The immediate road network comprises narrow, unlit country lanes with no street lighting. Thus most facilities are not within walking distance from the site, with the closest schools and railway station being located at Billingshurst. It is considered that the occupants are most likely to use the private car for most journeys.
6.32 PPG13 (Transport) indicates that walking is more likely to replace short car trips, if the distance is under 2 km, whilst cycling has the potential to substitute short car trips and to form part of a longer journey by public transport, particularly if under 5km.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 20.
6.33 This issue was examined for the Valewood application. In that case the children were attending local schools and evidence was presented about the families’ use and connection with other local facilities and a more pragmatic approach was suggested in those circumstances. Moreover, the application related to 4 pitches to be occupied for the benefit of a specific family, and so the scale of the use and the impact on the local area and issues of sustainability were considerably less than in the current application which relates to 11 independent pitches.
6.34 Guidance on the approach to sustainability of caravan sites in rural areas is given in Circular 01/2006, which states that in assessing the suitability of such sites, local authorities should be realistic about the availability, or likely availability, of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Local authorities should also consider the issue of sustainability not only in terms of transport modes and distances to services but also having regard to the benefits that a settled existence can bring gypsies and travellers. DCLG document ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide’ (May 2008) states at para 3.9 , ‘the site must be sustainable, offering scope to manage an integrated co-existence with the local community’ which is emphasised at para 1.11 ‘… it is important to ensure that these sites:
Are sustainable, safe and easy to manage and maintain Support harmonious relations between gypsies and travellers and the settled community’
2) A satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site
6.35 The site has an existing access and track. WSCC Highways have no objection to the application subject to clarification on visibility splays and works to upgrade the surfacing of the access track.
6.36 With regard to concerns of residents regarding traffic levels, accidents in the vicinity and the suitability of the local road network, WSCC Highways have advised that: ‘the accident situation has been reviewed. WSCC Local Development was provided with accident records via a concerned local resident and these give data for 10 and 20 year periods. The maximum normal period for consideration of accidents is 5 years, and a 3 year period is normally taken. Our current records for the three year period to 2009 show no significant accident issue on West Chiltington Lane or Bashurst Hill. It is therefore considered that both roads may be able to cope satisfactorily with the likely level of traffic from the proposed development, although this cannot be confirmed without the trip attraction data requested…For the purposes of this response it has been assumed that the trip attraction from the site may be only slightly above the usual daily variation in traffic on the roads. It may therefore be unlikely that the junctions with the A264 and A272 would be significantly impacted by development traffic. It has also been assumed that the nature of the traffic may be lighter than heavy goods vehicle traffic and the impact of this on the West Chiltington Lane and Bashurst Hill may not be significant’ They do however consider that further details should be supplied.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 21.
3) The proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles
6.37 In respect of parking and turning, sufficient space is available within each pitch to accommodate vehicles and their associated turning and manoeuvring, and there is a turning head at the termination of the access tack, which runs down through the centre of the site as a whole. WSCC Fire and Rescue Service have no objections.
Other Development Management issues
Impact on Landscape Character
6.38 The site lies within a rural area, which is characterised by open countryside with sporadic residential, agricultural and commercial development. The impact of the built form of the development on the visual amenities and rural character of the area is an important consideration. In this respect the key issue is how visible the site is from public vantage points.
6.39 The site is reached via a trackway and access off West Chiltington Lane, but the main body of the site is the far (eastern) third of the field. In these circumstances whilst it is possible to see across to the north eastern part of the site from the access point, due to the variations in land levels and the existence of hedges and trees around the site and along the road frontages of West Chiltington Lane and Valewood Lane, wider views of the whole site from the highway and public rights of way are limited.
6.40 Thus in the wider context the site is relatively enclosed and it is not considered that the development of the site would individually have a material adverse impact on the visual amenities of this rural area given the position and configuration of the site itself and existing trees and vegetation in the locality.
Residential Amenities
6.41 The relevant properties in this regard would be those that lie closest to the application site being those at Greenfield Farm and Clayfield Farm which are on the north side of Valewood Lane and the properties on the south side of Valewood Lane.
6.42 In respect of Greenfield farm, there is an intervening field between the 2 sites. On Kingfisher Farm the hardstanding area is to be set a distance of 40m to the southern boundary and it is within this southern part of the application site that the treatment plant would be located and landscaping undertaken. There is then a further 140m approx across the field to the northern boundary of the land where the units at Greenfield Farm are located.
6.43 In view of the distances involved and proposed landscaping around the perimeter of the hardsurfaced part of the site, it is not considered that issues regarding loss of privacy or direct overlooking can be raised. Similar conclusions apply to Clayfield APPENDIX A/ 1 - 22.
Farm, due to the distances and existing vegetation between the 2 properties, as well as to the properties on the southside of Valewood Lane.
Drainage
6.44 Foul Drainage – associated with the application is a treatment plant, shown set to the south of the hardsurfaced pitches. Public Health and Licensing have advised that full details of the proposed scheme of sewage treatment are required. The Environment Agency comment that the application is of a low risk category and that the sewage treatment plant may require an Environmental Permit.
6.45 The principle of installing such a system is acceptable; the key issue is whether the details of the system are appropriate. The details can be required to be submitted pursuant to a condition and the specialist consultees would advise on the suitability of the system.
6.46 Surface Water Drainage - the site lies in Flood Zone 1, which is land at low risk of flooding. The site is over 1ha in area, being 2.06ha and so requires a Flood Risk Assessment as required by PPS25. The accommodation to be provided here would fall into the classification of ‘highly vulnerable’.
6.47 Concerns have been expressed about increased run off from the site, and subsequent implications for highway and railway safety and impact on water courses, if it is to be developed with the creation of the hardsurfaced area, upon which the various units and structures for the 11 pitches will be placed.
6.48 The matter can be controlled by the imposition of conditions requiring suitable methods to be used to ensure the surface water drainage system is appropriate, of sufficient capacity and complies with current sustainable construction criteria so as not to cause drainage problems in the locality.
Ecology
6.49 Representation letters have referred to impact on wildlife, including local flora and fauna, in particular stag beetles. WSCC (ecology) has been asked for a response to these issues.
Race relations
6.50 Although the proposed occupiers of the site are unknown, it is likely that some of them at least will be from a recognised racial group, either Romany Gypsies or Irish Travellers. The guidance in Circular 01/2006 on race relations, although written when the Race Relations Act 1976 was in force rather than the Equality Act 2010, is still relevant. In particular, members should have regard not only to the prohibition on racial discrimination but also to the public sector equality duty on local authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations in all they do.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 23.
Conclusions
6.51 The policy situation, both locally and nationally, is complex and evolving in respect of gypsy and traveller applications and has been so especially during the course of the consideration of this application.
6.52 Of particular note is the Coalition Government’s general objective with respect to localism, and more specifically with regard to gypsy and travellers. In this regard the Government states on the DCLG website that it will replace Circular 01/2006 with ‘new light touch guidance’ and is ‘encouraging Local Authorities to provide, in consultation with the local community, an appropriate number of traveller sites that reflect local and historic demand’.
6.53 In this new and emerging context, the previous ‘top down’ and prescriptive rules regarding the provision of such sites are to be replaced by policies/criteria that are more reflective of local needs and aspirations of communities.
6.54 In this respect evidence from the GTAA shows that small family run sites are the preferred option. It is thus considered that the current proposal for a separate site of an additional 11 gypsy pitches in the Parish of Itchingfield runs counter to these localism objectives and wishes of local people. As set out above, there is no community support for the scheme, with Itchingfield Parish Council having a strong objection, and a total of 149 letters of objection from local residents and local groups have been received, including one from the neighbouring Parish Council (Billingshurst). It is considered that the identified needs of gypsy and travellers in the area have been met by the grant of permanent permission for the Greenfield Farm site DC/10/0721).
6.55 With the local opposition to this scheme, the small scale nature of the immediate local residential community, and the existence of a small permanent gypsy site within 140m of this site, it is considered that the existing balance could be disrupted and the overall resulting gypsy population would be disproportionate to and out of character with the current situation in this part of Itchingfield. It is not considered that the proposal would give rise to an opportunity to enhance or improve an integrated co-existence with the local community.
6.56 Although the application is for a permanent permission, Circular 01/2006 advises that where there is unmet need but no available alternative gypsy and traveller site provision in an area but there is a reasonable expectation that new sites are likely to become available within a period of time in the area which will meet that need, local planning authorities should give consideration to granting a temporary permission. The Circular goes on to say: “Such circumstances may arise, for example, in a case where a local planning authority is preparing its site allocations DPD. In such circumstances, local planning authorities are expected to give substantial weight to the unmet need in considering whether a temporary planning permission is justified. The fact that temporary permission has been granted on this basis should not be regarded as setting a precedent for the determination of any future applications for full permission for use of the land as a caravan site.”
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 24.
6.57 Looking at the local area, such unmet need as there was has been met by the grant of permanent permission for the Valewood site. Furthermore, future provision is unlikely to be made in the locality, for the reasons given in this report. Thus the basis for considering the grant of a temporary permission is not made out.
6.58 If, however, it is correct to look at the position across the district, then there remains an unmet need, which is expected to be met by the adoption of an allocations DPD which would closely follow the published adoption date of Spring 2013 for the Review of the Core Strategy. In those circumstances, members should consider whether the objections to the proposed development are such that a temporary permission should be rejected.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is considered that the proposal runs counter to current Government advice and intentions in relation to gypsies and travellers, especially in the context of the Localism agenda, and furthermore is contrary to the aims and spirit of good practice guidance for such sites. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused for the following reason:
1. The proposed development for an unidentified group of gypsy and travellers, in this rural location, in such close proximity to an existing permanent gypsy and traveller site in the Parish of Itchingfield, would be out of scale and character with the surrounding residential development and would be disproportionate to the size of the existing community and would lead to an unacceptable intensification of development in an unsustainable location. Moreover, the proposed development would constitute a concentration of pitches which does not reflect what is considered to be a ‘local need’ for the locality/parish. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the Development Plan, in particular policy DC32, the guidance in DCLG ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites – Good Practice Guide‘ and the emerging localism agenda through the Localism Bill.
Background Papers: DC/10/1041 Contact Officer: Val Cheesman vrc11pink/wk1/jlt APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1 March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing house at 246A Crawley Road, to form proposed access road to 11 No. new houses within land to the rear of Nos 246 - 256 Crawley Road, to include car-ports, hard standing and associated external works
SITE: 246A Crawley Road, Horsham, West Sussex
WARD: Roffey South
APPLICATION: DC/10/2172 APPLICANT: Knightford Homes Ltd
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement relating to contributions.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 11 new private dwellings, and associated carports and access routes at land on and to the rear of 246 to 256 Crawley Road, Horsham. The proposal combines elements of back land and infill development.
1.2 The proposed scheme has been amended since the original submission in order to address concerns relating to neighbour amenity, overdevelopment and the living conditions of future occupants. As a result a residential unit formerly located in the south west corner of the site has been omitted reducing the number of dwellings proposed from 12 to 11. The private amenity area serving plot 11 has also been increased in size. Accordingly neighbours and consultees were re-consulted on the 1 February 2011.
Contact: Jamie Forsman Extension: 5258 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2
1.3 11 new dwellings in total are proposed and include a combination of detached and semidetached houses. The mix and type of these new units in conjunction with the range of net floor areas proposed is summarised in the table below (P.T.O)
Unit Type Private units Total
2 bed 4P house @ 71.6 – 75.0 sqm 5 5 3 bed 5P house @ 85.0 – 99.70 sqm 6 6
Total 11 11
1.4 The existing detached dwelling at 246a Crawley Road is to be demolished in order to accommodate a new two bedroom dwelling and allow for the formation of a vehicle access route. The proposed access to serve the development would result in a cul-de-sac formation terminating in the south east corner of the site.
1.5 Private parking areas are provided through a combination of attached and detached carports and open parking areas within the site with the specific allocation per dwelling summarised in the table below. The table also shows which units would be allocated tandem car parking arrangements which would be situated in two of the three carport areas. The table does not include the proposed car parking allocation for the existing properties at 250,252 and 254 Crawley Road which are each provided one car parking space (3 in total).
Plot number No. bedrooms Spaces Car park type allocated
1 2 (4 persons) 1 standard 2 2 (4 persons) 1 standard 3 2 (4 persons) 2 stacked 4 3 (5 persons) 2 stacked 5 3 (5 persons) 2 stacked 6 3 (5 persons) 2 stacked 7 3 (5 persons) 2 stacked 8 3 (5 persons) 2 stacked 9 3 (5 persons) 2 standard 10 2 (4 persons) 1 standard 11 2 (4 persons) 1 standard visitor N/A 4 standard Total 22
1.6 A number of trees have been identified for removal however none of these are subject to Tree Protection Orders. The majority of mature boundary vegetation is shown to be retained, with indicative landscape proposals showing further vegetative planting both within the site and along its perimeter.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3
1.7 The proposal aims to achieve level 3 for the Code for Sustainable Homes and proposes a range of sustainable design features and renewable energy technologies to achieve this which including photovoltaic panels to utilise solar energy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.8 The 0.35 hectares site is located within the built up area boundary of Horsham and comprises part of the rear garden areas serving no’s 246,246a,248,250,252,254 and 256 Crawley Road and 6 Wellwood Close. The existing boundary demarcation between properties is generally well defined by fence lines and boundary vegetation providing a clear distinction between properties. The existing rear garden area currently serving 246A Crawley Road is substantially larger than that of adjoining properties and forms a z shape configuration. The existing two storey hipped roof dwelling that occupies this property is to be demolished.
1.9 There are number of mature and semi mature trees on site with dense screening along part of the sites south boundary and most of the east boundary. A number of these trees are subject to Tree Protection Orders. A row of evergreen trees along the west boundary is to be removed,
1.10 The surrounding location is predominantly residential and comprises of semi detached and detached dwellings of varying periods and designs. Crawley Road forms part of a primary bus route and there is a bus stop next to 246A Crawley Road, allowing for good access to public transport links. In terms of existing educational facilities and services Northolmes Junior School is situated approximately 200 metres to the north east of the site and there is a Co-operative supermarket and Tesco Express service station further east along Crawley Road.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.11 There are a number of planning applications relating to alterations and ancillary buildings in connection with 246A Crawley Road.
In 1977 planning permission was refused for the erection of two bungalows on land to the rear of 246A Crawley Road (HU/289/77).
In 1991 outline planning permission for the erection of one dwelling to the rear of 246A was refused (NH/26/91).
An application for the demolition of 246 and 246A Crawley Road and the erection of 10 dwellings was withdrawn in 2005 (DC/05/0774).
In 2008 an outline application for the demolition of 246 and 246A Crawley road, and erection of 8 dwellings (outline) was withdrawn (DC/05/2577).
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPG13 and PPG24 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) - Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13, CP14, CP16 and CP19.
2.4 Local Development Framework Development Control Policies (2007) - Policies DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Strategic Planning (original comments)
The Council's Strategic and Community Planning Section note the site is within the built-up area boundary of Horsham, a Category 1 settlement where the principle of development is acceptable.
Policy DC18 (Smaller Homes/housing mix) is applicable to developments proposing over 5 homes and requires that the mix and type meets the identified need for smaller homes in the District, that is, 1 and 2 bed properties; and that the percentage of these should be at least 64%. This is not achieved in the proposed mix and it is suggested that you consult the latest Housing Needs Survey undertaken by the Parish Council and also the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, to establish what the need for smaller homes in this area is, to assess whether the percentage of smaller homes on this site needs to be increased.
The site is within the built up area of Horsham and has good links to public transport and local amenities, as demonstrated by the applicant, and therefore appears to be in conformity with Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy.
The Strategic and Community Planning Section in conclusion would not wish to raise a strategic policy objection to the development subject to compliance with the aims of relevant policies.
(Additional comments on revised scheme. Any additional comments on the amended plans can be reported verbally to committee verbally)
3.2 Parish Council (original comments)
The North Horsham Parish Council has raised no objection to the proposal. The Parish Council were contacted in response to comments from the Councils Strategic Planning Department with respect of Policy DC18 and are generally satisfied that the range of 2 bed and 3 bed units proposed in this location.
(Additional comments on revised scheme –Any additional comments on the amended plans can be reported to verbally to committee)
3.3 Conservation and Urban Design Officer (revised comments)
Informal comments have been obtained from the Councils Conservation and Urban Design Officer who was generally satisfied with the detailing and design of the proposed units, and general layout subsequent to the omission of the unit formerly located in the south west APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5
corner of the site. The Design Advisor recommends that standard conditions requiring the submission of sample materials be imposed should the application be approved, to ensure sympathy with the surrounding built environment and appropriate treatment of external elevations.
3.4 Arboricultural Officer (comments on amended scheme)
The Council's Arboricultural Officer notes that the trees targeted for removal are of poor quality and does not object to their loss. The officer notes that principal specimens which include three large Oak trees along the southern boundary and two Ashes, a Hornbeam and two Silver Birches along the eastern boundary have amenity value, but the scheme has been designed to take account of their root protection areas in accordance with best practice as set out at BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005). Tree protection measures on the site are satisfactory. No details of proposed drainage have been provided and it is crucial that routes for service trenches do not pass through Root Protection Areas of retained trees.
The rear gardens of plots 4, 5 and 6 will not be affected by shade from the trees to the south, but these gardens will benefit from late afternoon and evening sunshine and light from the west, and hence it is not anticipated that the likelihood of future resident pressure to remove the trees is unacceptably high. The officer raises no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to tree protection fencing, undertaking of arboricultural works and co-ordination with underground services.
3.5 Landscape Architect (comments on amended scheme)
The officer has viewed the application and is generally satisfied with indicative landscape proposals however comments that further detail would be required at the condition discharge stage to finalise the specifics of the landscape proposals (planting species, densities, management of landscape plantings etc).
3.6 The Public Health and Licensing Officer
The Public Health and Licensing Officer has provided preliminary comments however has requested further more detailed noise assessments against PPG 24 be submitted. At the time of writing this report the applicant is preparing these documents for submission to the Public Health and Licensing Officer.
EXTERNAL CONSULTEES
3.7 Crime Prevention Officer (original comments)
The officer makes a number of detailed comments highlighting positive and negative aspects of the scheme from a crime prevention viewpoint.
3.8 Southern Water (original comments)
A formal application for a connection to the public sewer will need to be made and suggest conditions be imposed which require the submission of details which demonstrate proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal. The consideration of these details should be undertaken in consultation with the Councils Technical services department.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6
(Additional comments on revised scheme – Any additional comments on the amended plans can be reported to verbally to committee)
3.9 Highways (original comments)
The WSCC Highways Officer has provided detailed comments in respect of the proposal's highway implications and in particular analysis of the applicant’s transport statement and Road Safety Audit raise no objections subject to the imposition of conditions.
“The scheme currently submitted does appear to propose similar access arrangements to those previously considered, with access into the site by way of a new priority give way junction. The access has been considered by way of an independent Stage One Road Safety Audit. The Audit raises two problems relating to pedestrian facilities across the proposed access and within the site itself. The Designer has addressed both problems raised with these being able to satisfied by way of appropriate conditions. The Auditor has also made a comment relating to the achievable visibility at the point of access and particularly the X distance. An X distance of 2.4metres would typically be required but which can’t be achieved without requiring 3rd party land for the respective Y elements of the splay. An X distance of 2metres is achievable, which for a scheme of this size with resultant low traffic flows does seem appropriate. It should be noted in any case to provide visibility splays based on a 2.4metre X distance would only encroach marginally into 3rd party land. Also, recent guidance published within Manual for Streets 2 does enable the visibility splay to be drawn to the path of oncoming vehicles (i.e. away from the kerb edge) rather than the nearside kerb edge. It is advised that adequate visibility can be achieved from the proposed vehicular access.
The proposed access is situated close to the signalised junction at Roffey Corner. Visibility from the proposed access eastwards towards the junction does amount to 38metres. A 38metre visibility splay would (based upon the formula within Manual for Streets) equate to a vehicle approach speed of 29mph. Given the layout of the carriageway and the speed reducing effect of the horizontal alignment, it is considered that the distance between the access and the signalised junction is adequate and the operation of the access would not generate any detriment to highway safety. The Safety Auditor has also not raised the location of the proposed junction in relation to the traffic signals as a problem.
A degree of on-street parking does occur within the vicinity of the access and this was considered through the last withdrawn application where it was advised that waiting restrictions should be introduced to ensure adequate visibility. The current scheme has been viewed against the advice within MfS, which states that parking within visibility splays is common but does not appear in practice to create any particular problems. Given the presence of the bus stop ‘cage’ and no stopping restrictions during peak hours across the site frontage parking should not occur. Additional parking spaces for nos. 248, 250, 252 and 254 are also provided within the site, and hence this should aid to minimise on-street car parking. Again if visibility splays are drawn to the track of on-coming vehicles, then the presence of parked vehicles should have no detriment to visibility. The provision of waiting restrictions to protect visibility at the access is not considered necessary.
The internal site layout does provide for sufficient turning space for a refuse vehicle, which is anticipated to be the largest vehicle visiting the site on a frequent basis.
The location of the site should encourage and promote the use of sustainable transport in accordance with current sustainable transport policies. Two cycle parking spaces are also proposed per unit and details should be secured via condition.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7
In conclusion, it is considered that there are no grounds to refuse this application on highway safety or capacity grounds.”
Additional comments received on the 28/01/2011
“The majority of the revised scheme remains unchanged, hence I will not add to what I've already written within my formal planning consultation response. The only difference is the reduction of the number of units and alterations to the parking provision. I note that the parking provision does now fall short of the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator by a single space. Any surplus demand will need to be accommodated on-street, however given the presence of visitor parking spaces within the site, I would assume that residents may use these spaces and then subsequently displace visitor parking on-street. Visitor parking will be short term and should not add greatly to on-street parking pressures. It should be remembered that only a single parking space is being referred too in any case. On that basis, I see no justifiable safety reason to resist this proposal on the basis of this very minor short falling. The Planning Authority may wish to consider the implications of this upon on-street parking”
3.10 West Sussex County Council Planning Services have advised that the proposal would generate a requirement for infrastructure contributions comprising primary education (£23,906) secondary education (£25,730) Libraries (£ 2,120) Fire and Rescue (£930) and TAD (£18,270).
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.11 Letters of objection based on the original scheme have been received from the occupiers of two local properties on the grounds of:
Overlooking Loss of privacy Loss of amenity due to light and noise Overdevelopment Detrimental impact upon highway safety and parking Detrimental to neighbours health due to existing medical condition
3.12 No neighbour representations relating to the amended application have been received at the time of writing this report however previous objections are considered to remain relevant and will be given due consideration. Any further representations can be reported to the Planning Committee verbally.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any significant implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development on the site, its impact on the character of the area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety, access and parking, and existing trees and vegetation.
Principle of the development
6.2 The site lies within Horsham Town, a Category 1 settlement. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location with good access to a range of services and facilities available within the town centre and its links to public transport and locally within Roffey. Category 1 settlements are capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.
6.3 Recent Government guidance in respect of amendments to PPS3, has removed (at Annex B) private residential gardens from the definition of previously developed land. Furthermore, the national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare has also been deleted from PPS3. The Government have advised that this is to prevent the overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and ‘garden grabbing’.
6.4 Development Plan policies, in particular policy CP3 and CP5 of the Core Strategy encourage new development to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas. In light of the amended PPS3 and the site being residential garden, no longer comprising ‘previously developed land’, the proposal meets the latter requirement being within the defined built-up area of Horsham, and therefore, the main issue is considered to be the appropriateness of the development and whether the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site or is out of keeping with the character of the area.
6.5 The mix of units proposed falls short of the 64% target identified under policy DC18 with 45% of the overall development comprising of smaller units. The Parish Council having been further consulted on this matter is comfortable with the level of smaller units proposed, it is also noted that there is no Parish level housing market assessment that identifies a significant shortfall in this location.
6.6 Section 7.2 of the West Sussex Strategic Housing Market Assessment states the following
“In Horsham District there is a need for a greater mix of both type and tenure of housing. There continues to be a demand for larger housing (three or more bedrooms), due to both the large number of families with children in the area and the decline in provision of this type of housing in recent years as smaller, flatted developments have come forward.”
In light of the above and the sites close proximity to local primary schools and community facilities it would not be unreasonable to anticipate a higher demand for family size accommodation in this location in affect the housing mix is considered acceptable.
6.7 The site has a total area of 0.35 square metres resulting in a proposed residential density of 31 dwellings per hectare. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location, and therefore the principle of residential development on the site is acceptable and does not conflict with the overarching principles of PPS3 and meets the objectives of the policies within the LDF, subject to an assessment against all other development management criteria.
6.8 The existing dwelling at 246a Crawley Road is a two storey hipped roof property with a projecting gable and bay window on the front elevation. The building is unique in terms of APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9
its design and form when viewed within in conjunction with adjoining properties. While the loss of this building would be regrettable it is not located within a conservation area or considered to be of significant architectural merit that would warrant the Local Planning Authority to resist its proposed demolition.
Design and siting
6.9 Development Plan policies require that new residential development should be of a high standard of design and layout. In support of the application the applicant makes the following comments
“The design team paid careful consideration to the proposed placing of buildings, taking into account the orientation and outlook of the adjacent dwellings with particular reference to the rhythm of the existing street scene along Crawley Road.”
“High quality materials and construction will produce a scheme which is unobtrusive and architecturally attractive,”
6.10 The general design, form and detailing of the proposed development is considered to draw from the architectural vernacular of the existing Crawley Road street scene. This is evident throughout the proposed scheme from the pitch roof designs, symmetrical fenestration detailing and incorporation of subsidiary elements such as front porches. The introduction of both semidetached and detached properties is in keeping with the wider pattern of development. In terms of design the general approach is supported by the Councils Conservation and Design Officer; however the officer comments that the final treatment of external elevations should be secured by way of a materials condition which would require the submission of sample materials. This would ensure a consistent approach throughout and promote greater sympathy with the surrounding built environment.
6.11 The original scheme for 12 units sought to create a mews/courtyard type layout orientated over the primary access route. This raised a number of issues with regards to neighbour amenity and overdevelopment and resulted in what was considered to be a significantly urbanised frontage, with limited visual relief between properties. An amended layout and design was subsequently submitted to address these concerns and resulted in the omission of a unit formerly located in the southwest corner of the site. In addition units 4 and 5 were separated to form two detached properties. This provided visual breaks between what was formerly a visually dominant façade while providing greater areas of open space in the south west corner of the site.
6.12 The form and appearance the existing dwellings at 246a Crawley Road in conjunction with the bungalow at 246 Crawley Road constitute anomalies in design terms in an otherwise uniform street scene. The proposed replacement dwelling draws from the architectural form and style of neighbouring terraces and semidetached properties and is sited in sympathy with the established front building line. The replacement dwelling by reason of its architectural style would reinforce the rhythm of the existing street scene and is considered to be an appropriate replacement.
6.13 Three carports are proposed throughout the development and provide a more suitable alternative to enclosed garages as they introduce more open style structures into the sites internal street scene. Mindful that there could be future pressure to enclose these carports to form garages it is recommended that subject to the granting of planning permission a condition be imposed with the intention of preventing their alteration/enclosure. The tandem parking arrangements while not ideal do not raise any significant amenity concerns. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10
Residential amenities
6.14 The layout of the development has been designed with private garden areas backing onto neighbouring boundary lines with the rear garden areas of adjoining properties beyond. Plots 6 -10 would benefit from substantial boundary screening due to retained vegetation. The degree of physical separation between the neighbouring and proposed dwellings would be considered sufficient in terms of mitigating against any adverse effects associated with overlooking, access to light and obstruction of outlook. This is considered in more detail.
6.15 Concerns have been raised by an adjoining neighbour at 252 Crawley Road with regard to the impact of plot 10 (formerly plot 11) upon their residential amenities. This neighbouring occupier comments that the proposed dwelling would have an adverse impact upon their privacy and result in overshadowing to their property. It is noted that part of the dwelling is within 3 metres of their rear boundary which is a result of the application sites boundary configuration; however there is a substantial rear garden area serving this neighbouring unit. Any shadow effect imposed by the proposed buildings would only affect the upper reaches of this neighbour’s rear garden. A back to back separation distance between dwellings of approximately 29 metres would be achieved and exceeds the 21 metres guideline recommended in Horsham Councils Design guidance. No adverse overshadowing to this neighbouring property would be anticipated as a result.
6.16 The applicant has amended the first floor layout of plot 10 to address neighbour concerns regarding overlooking. The rear dormer window which overlooks this property has now been omitted. Views from the remaining dormer window would be orientated over the rear garden area of plot 10 and screened by retained boundary vegetation. Furthermore this window serves a bathroom and could be obscure glazed effectively removing any degree of overlooking.
6.17 The living conditions and residential amenities of future occupants of the development are considered satisfactory. The layout and orientation of the units ensures sufficient distance between front elevations (plots 6-11), while the absence of side elevation windows at first floor levels ensure no direct views into neighbouring dwellings. The Councils tree officer is satisfied that retained tree specimens along the north, east and south boundaries will not result in impose adverse shadowing upon private amenity areas.
6.18 The private amenity areas are considered sufficient in terms of serving the occupants of the proposed 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom dwellings.
6.19 Detailed noise assessments against PPG 24 Planning and Noise are still pending consideration at the time of writing this report. Satisfactory comments from the Councils Public Health and Licensing Department are required prior to the granting of planning permission.
Highway safety, access and parking
6.20 The WSCC Highways Officer has provided detailed comments which make specific reference to the submitted Stage One Road Safety Audit which seeks to identify safety related problems that may be introduced by the proposed works. Specific reference is made to the site access road at its junction with Crawley Road and Pedestrian access across the proposed access itself.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11
6.21 The visibility splays from the proposed junction with Crawley road are considered acceptable. The Highways Officer has noted that the reduced x distance (refer to diagram below for further definition) of 2.0 metres as opposed to 2.4 metres is achievable. This would potentially result in vehicles partially entering the Crawley Road carriage way before exiting; however no adverse impacts upon highway safety would be anticipated due to the width of the Crawley Road carriageway, existing traffic calming features, low anticipated traffic volumes from the development and moderate traffic flows along Crawley Road itself.
6.22 It is noted that there is an existing bus stop to the front of the site with bus stop markings extending across the whole frontage of the development from the junction with Harwood Road to the boundary between 240 and 242 Crawley Road. The existing bus stop pole would be relocated to accommodate the access. The WSCC Highways officer is satisfied with this approach and comments that
“ There is also the matter of the existing bus stop across the site frontage and that stopped buses would obstruct the proposed access. This has been considered previously. It is acknowledged that stopped buses would pose an obstruction to vehicles waiting to enter and exit. However, given the low anticipated traffic flows from the site access, this obstruction would have more of an amenity rather than safety issue, and as such is not considered a justified reason to resist this proposal. The bus stop markings themselves would remain as is with only the flag and pole relocated so as not to conflict with the access. These works should be included as part of the s278 works.”
On the basis of these comments no significant highway safety concerns are raised in respect of the existing bus stop; however it is noted that this does not result in an ideal situation in terms of vehicle entering and exiting the proposed access junction.
6.23 Due to the level of development proposed and the sites spatial constraints car parking spaces serving units 3, 4, 5,6,7,8 would be in a tandem formation as opposed to a standard side to side parking layout. The method of allocating the tandem car parking spaces is clearly depicted on the plans and is considered adequate in terms of functional viability.
6.24 The revised layout has resulted in the loss of one parking space and revised comments from WSCC Highways Officer now identify a parking shortfall of one space based on the 11 unit scheme. The Highways Officer comments that
“I note that the parking provision does now fall short of the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator by a single space. Any surplus demand will need to be accommodated on- street, however given the presence of visitor parking spaces within the site, I would assume that residents may use these spaces and then subsequently displace visitor parking on-street. Visitor parking will be short term and should not add greatly to on-street APPENDIX A/ 2 - 12
parking pressures. It should be remembered that only a single parking space is being referred too in any case. On that basis, I see no justifiable safety reason to resist this proposal on the basis of this very minor short falling. The Planning Authority may wish to consider the implications of this upon on-street parking”
6.25 This part of Crawley Road is not within a controlled parking zone/ resident parking permit area, therefore on-street parking in the wider area is available. It is also agreed that the proposal provides on-site parking for the existing properties at 250,252 and 254 Crawley Road which contributes to a reduction in on street parking demand. In light of the short term nature of visitor parking requirements and the identified shortfall of one space only it is agreed that the implications of the parking shortfall in this location are minor in nature and would not warrant refusal of the application.
Trees, vegetation and Landscaping.
6.26 The site benefits from a number of mature and semi mature trees with principle specimens situated along the eastern boundary to be retained as identified in the Tree Officers comments. These trees in particular will help screen the development and would partially screen Harwood Road immediately to the east.
6.27 The Councils Tree Officer has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of standard tree protection conditions. Subject to further discussions the Tree Officer has also recommended that a condition be imposed showing effective co-ordination between underground services and root protection areas. This is unlikely to be problematic due to the siting of key specimens along the east and north boundaries, thus removed from likely drainage routes and trenches.
6.28 Landscaping proposals are supported in principle by the Councils Landscape Architect who makes the following comments
“I have no objection to this scheme as amended by the recently submitted plans. Whilst the scheme is back land development it allows for the retention of the most important surrounding mature trees and sufficient space for new planting to integrate the development. I do however have some concerns about the appropriateness of some of the specific tree and shrub species shown on the submitted planting plan. I will provide some further advice shortly for you to forward to the applicant to enable the submission of a revised scheme. “
6.29 It has been agreed that specific landscape planting details can be dealt with at the condition discharge stage subject to the granting of planning permission. A detailed condition has been suggested by the Councils Landscape Architect and clearly stipulates the level of detail required.
Contributions
6.30 Contributions towards transport, library and fire service infrastructure improvements together with community facilities and open space would be required and would need to be the subject of a legal agreement.
6.31 Contributions towards County services comprise £70,957 as set out in paragraph 3.10. With regard to district community facility and open space contributions, the development would generate a requirement of £15658 for open space, sport and recreation, £3456 for community facilities, £1728 for local recycling in connection with the provision of market housing only. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 13
Other matters
6.32 An adjoining neighbour has raised an objection on the basis of their medical condition which makes them extremely sensitive to noise. Hours of construction would be controlled by way of planning conditions. This neighbours dwelling is also situated approximately 46 metres from the west boundary of the application site, a considerable distance which should help minimise associated noise impacts arising from the construction phase of the development and any alleged loss of privacy.
6.33 The applicant makes the following comments with regard to waste and recycling points
“It is proposed that waste and recycling be maintained and stored on an even solid surface within the boundary of the resident’s rear garden. Given that ample private access is afforded to each garden, the bin can be wheeled to the house frontage on collection day, be it waste or recycling”
This approach is considered satisfactory in principle however it is recommended that further details are submitted at the condition discharge stage to ensure satisfactory storage and collection of waste/recycling is achieved.
6.34 It is proposed to provide cycle stores in the rear garden areas of the plots which would promote alternative more sustainable modes of transport. Design details of external cycle store areas can be secured by way of condition and addressed at the condition discharge stage.
6.35 In terms of drainage Southern Water have raised no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of standard conditions which require the applicant to submit formal applications to Southern Water for the connection to existing foul water and sewerage services. Further sustainable drainage details will also be required by way of condition and considered in consultation with Southern Water and the Councils technical Services department.
6.36 In response to the Crime Prevention Officers comments the applicant has made the following amendments.
A pair of brick piers are proposed to the front of the site but set back from the building line. The raised traffic calming strip will assist in defining the public/private areas. It is requested that the surface material, which will differ from that at the main road, be made the subject of a condition should permission be granted. All private fencing will be to a minimum of 1.8m and the applicant will consider the use of palisade timber gates These rear garden access gates are, as shown, proposed to be on or close to the building line. It is recognised that this is effective in reducing dark and inactive areas where there is little surveillance and a crime risk hazard. Low energy lamps will be installed to the car ports; again, It is requested that these details be made the subject of a condition should permission be granted. The car port between units 5 & 6 is located as such, in order to allow private access to the rear garden of number 6, adjacent to the property. In moving the proposed car port, this access is no longer available which affects waste collection and cycle storage. This private alley is separated from the public frontage by a secure and lockable gate in line with the building line, as suggested. Again, a gate is proposed at the separation between units 7 & 8 on the attached plan, reducing risk in this area. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 14
Conclusion
6.37 The site lies within the built-up area of Horsham in a sustainable location and subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement; it is considered that the proposal represents an acceptable form of development.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated to the Head of Development with a view to approval subject to the receipt of satisfactory comments from the Public Health and Licensing Officer and, within six months, the completion of a Section 106 Agreement in respect of contributions towards transport, library and fire service infrastructure together with local community facilities and open space, and that thereafter permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Planning Permission 02 M1 Materials 03 D4 Obscured Glass
The rear dormer window situated at first floor level of the dwelling occupying plot 10 shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening details shall be maintained at all times.
Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 04 Prior to the commencement of development specific details of photovoltaic panels which are to be installed on the dwellings hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 05 E3 Fencing 06 G6 Recycling 07 G3 Parking, Turning and Access
The building(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose.
Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). APPENDIX A/ 2 - 15
08 H1 Access (General)
No development shall take place until the access from the site to the public highway have been designed, laid out and constructed in all respects in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 09 H10 Cycle Parking 10 J10 Removal of permitted development – dwellings A, B, C, E, F, 11 J13 Removal of permitted development - windows 12 Landscaping
Notwithstanding the submitted landscape plan (Drwg no: 10-025 /PL08 Rev A) no works or development shall take place until full details of the hard and soft landscape works have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall comprise:
• A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re- use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice • Planting/Seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers • Tree pit and stalking/Underground guying details • A written specification (National Building Specification Compliant) of planting (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment). • Hard surfacing materials-layout, colour, size, texture, coursing, levels • Walls, fencing and railings-location and type and materials • Minor artefacts and structures-location and type of street furniture, play equipment, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns
The full landscape details required to be submitted and approved, as set out above, shall be provided for the landscaping within Phase 1. The Phase 1 landscaping works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development for its permitted use, or according to a timetable to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13 L2A Tree Protection 14 L3 Trenches 15 L4 Landscape Management Plan 16 L6 Burning of Materials 17 L8 No Felling 18 M8 Sustainable Construction – residential development APPENDIX A/ 2 - 16
The dwelling(s) shall achieve at least code level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or national measures of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling(s) shall be occupied until a Final Code certification has been issued for it certifying that at least code level 3 has been achieved.
Reason: To ensure the dwelling makes the most efficient use of renewable energy and to comply with policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 19 L10 Arboricultural Method statement 20 O1 Hours of Working 21 O3 Site Clearance 22 H6 Wheel Washing 23 D6 Finished Floor Levels 24 S4 Surface Water Drainage
25 All works shall be executed in full accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment.
Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees, shrubs and hedges on the site in accordance with policies DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
26 Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in Consultation with Southern Water. The associated works will be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the development is properly drained
27 Prior to the commencement of development details of the measures undertaken to divert and protect the public sewers and water mains shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water and approved in writing. The associated works will be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the public sewer and public water distribution/trunk main.
28 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, 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:
(a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials used in the constructing of the development (d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate APPENDIX A/ 2 - 17
(e) Wheel washing facilities (f) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction (g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.
Together with any other conditions recommended by consultees.
Advice Notes
1. The developer is advised that they will be required to enter into a highway works agreement to be made under the provisions of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1972, Section 111 for the execution of the site access road widening works. The applicant is requested to contact the Agreements Officer, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1RQ (Tel no: 01243 777251) in order that the necessary documentation may be prepared for inclusion in the legal agreement.
2. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection points for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St, James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk
8. REASONS
ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
Background Papers: DC/10/2172 Contact Officer: Jamie Forsman APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Service
DATE: 1st March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Additional special care facilities. (Two separate building are proposed each containing 36 special care bedrooms with communal special care facilities within the central area at ground floor and 28 staff bedsits at first floor. A further supported living building is proposed providing 8 bedsits and 2 flats at ground floor and accommodation for a further 7 staff at first floor as well as a relatives flat).
SITE: Rapkyns Care Centre, Guildford Road, Broadbridge Heath
WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham
APPLICATION: DC/10/1889
APPLICANT: Sussex Health Care
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission is delegated for approval subject to the completion of a satisfactory Legal Agreement.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The applicant seeks full planning permission for the erection of three buildings proposed to be located in an area to the north east of the existing site. All three of the buildings would be one and a half storeys in height with an eaves and ridge height of 2.5m and 6.7m respectively. The larger two buildings proposed would each contain four wings and a central area. Each wing would be self-contained and would provide 10 or 11 special care bedrooms with en-suites, a dining/activity room, lounge, kitchen, staff room, office and storage as well as further facilities such as a sensory room, spa bath and additional bathroom/WCs. Each building would have a central area which would provide facilities for the whole building and
Planning Officer: Emma Parkes APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2
in some instances for the whole site. In particular building 2 would provide a physiotherapy suite and building 3 would provide an educational facility which would both serve the whole site. Each of the two buildings would mirror the design and scale of the existing one and a half storey building on the site (unit 1) and would provide the same level of accommodation. In addition to the above, each building would provide 28 staff bedsits within the roofspace.
1.2 The third building would be located to the south of the two larger buildings, adjacent to the main access drive, and would provide supported living in the form of 8 bedsits and 2 flats at ground floor, and 2 flats and 6 further bedrooms at first floor level within the roofspace. The first floor accommodation would be reserved for staff as well as a relatives’ visitor flat. This building would be in the form of an ‘L’ shape measuring 37m wide. There are a number of agricultural style buildings in a poor state of repair located in this position which are proposed to be demolished as part of the proposal.
1.3 In total the proposal is for special care and assisted support accommodation for 92 residents, 79 members of staff and 1 relatives’ visitor flat.
SUBMITTED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
The application has been accompanied by the following documents:
Design and Access Statement Travel Plan Ecological Survey and additional ecological mitigation report and a five year management plan Transport Statement Sustainability and Energy Statement Waste management Plan Tree report, arboricultural implications assessment and arboricultural method statement Information regarding the Sussex Health Care group Supplementary Supporting Information. Please find attached at Appendix A. Information relating to Sussex Health Care’s Priority Placement Policy whereby residents from Horsham are given ‘first refusal’ on special care placements at the site, as and when they become available. Please find attached at Appendix B.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.4 The site is outside of any built up area and lies 2.5 miles to the west of Horsham Town Centre and 1 mile to the west off Broadbridge Health. The site is accessed from the A281 Guildford Road and then along a private drive, until you reach Rapkyns Care Centre. The existing site consists of the original building which now forms the Rapkyns Nursing Home and the existing special care building (unit 1) which was constructed between 2004 and 2007.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3
1.5 The application site lies to the east and north east of the existing special care building and is proposed to be located in an existing field. The application site is bordered by trees to the east, north and partly to the west; most of which are outside of the application site but close to its boundary. The trees and land to the west, which falls just outside of the application site, form part of an area designated as ancient woodland; which is also used as a campsite. Running just outside the eastern boundary of the site is a public right of way and trees are located to the east of this path. An existing wire fence divides this right of way from the application site. The remainder of the western boundary is open to the existing special care building. At the south of the site there is an existing cluster of agricultural buildings which are proposed to be demolished together with a tree/vegetative boundary adjacent to the existing driveway which is proposed to be retained. The Slinfold Stream and Quarry SSSI lies within 1km, to the north-east of the application site.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13: Transport PPS22: Renewable Energy
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character CP2: Environmental Quality, CP3: Improving the quality of new development CP4: Housing provision CP5: Built-up areas and previously developed land CP12: Meeting Housing Needs CP15: Rural strategy CP16: Inclusive Communities CP19: Managing travel demand and widening choice of transport
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1: Countryside protection and enhancement DC2: Landscape character DC5: Biodiversity and geology DC6: Woodland and trees APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4
DC8: Renewable energy and climate change DC9: Development principles DC10: Archaeological sites and ancient monuments DC31: New/extensions to retirement housing and care home schemes DC40: Transport and access
2.5 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SF/28/85 – Change of use from dwelling to residential rest home. Permitted in July 1985.
SF/47/86 – Extension and conversion of the dwelling to a nursing home with 47 bedrooms. Permitted in October 1986.
SF/65/89 – Extension of nursing home to provide 16 additional bedrooms, staff flat and staff bedroom. Refused in March 1990 due to its countryside location and the impact on the rural character of the area.
SF/32/90 – Extension to nursing home. Refused in August 1990 due to its countryside location, the impact on the rural character of the area and highway safety.
SF/21/03 - Erection of 20 bed special care nursing home with activity centre and 6 flats and 10 bedsits for staff. Permitted in April 2003
DC/05/0628 - Extensions to special care unit to provide an additional 20 bedrooms and associated accommodation and 12 x 1 bed flats and 4 x bedsits for staff. Permitted in May 2005.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Strategic Planning: Application DC/10/1889 seeks planning permission for additional care facilities at Rapkyns Care Centre.
This application needs to be considered against the Horsham District Local Development Framework, in particular the adopted Core Strategy (2007), and the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD. National policies are also relevant to the consideration of the applications, in particular PPS3, Housing, PPS1, Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS7, Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and PPG13, Transport.
The site is located to the north east of Broadbridge Heath on land designated as countryside under Policy DC1 of General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD; as such development is not normally permitted except in ‘exceptional’ circumstances. This development is a large scale development; consisting two new large buildings, each of a similar scale to the existing building on site, providing an additional 92 bed spaces and doubling the number of staff. With a development of such a large scale, you need to be satisfied that the proposal is ‘fully justified’ as APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5
being ‘essential’ to the identified care provision as required by Policy DC31, New/ extensions to Retirement Housing and Care Home Schemes. The information submitted with the application highlights and explains the need for the particular nature of this accommodation; this is detailed and should help inform your decision.
Policy DC31 also requires the incorporation of staff accommodation and/or an agreed Green Travel Plan. I understand that this proposal addresses both these matters; and you should be satisfied that in this location which it is acknowledged is not the most sustainable that these mitigation measures are satisfactory.
3.2 Landscape Architect: (Initial comments received)There is concern over whether Ancient woodland or its 15M standoff zone is affected by the development proposals- Arboricultural Officer to confirm if this is an issue or not. A new 3m wide hedgerow of mixed native species and hedgerow trees should be provided on the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the public bridleway to provide.
Visual screening and softening of the proposed buildings and car parking areas as seen from the bridleway. Strengthened terrestrial habitat linkage – note consistent with Dolphin Ecological Survey report.
This will require setting the building footprints/pathways back from their present location and should be shown on the landscape masterplan. On the southern and eastern boundaries some short sections of close board fencing and Leyland Cypress hedge should also be shown on the plans to be removed with a replacement native species hedge. Again show on the landscape masterplan. On the western boundary provide woodland edge scrub planting- extent of area proposed to be shown on the landscape masterplan. Access roads and car park areas should have a surfacing of softer appearance than tarmac e.g tar spray and chip gravel surface dressing- show on the landscape masterplan. I will advise subsequently on suitable conditions.
(Comments on amended plans) This layout looks much improved, dealing with the bridleway and ancient woodland protection/standoff concerns. They have not however shown additional planting in the area between the woodland and the road- see previous comments about provision of scrub habitat and species rich grassland. This should be either shown on the plan now or they give us a written commitment in their supplementary supporting statement to provide this and address it as part of the landscape condition.
3.3 Arboricultural Officer: The building has been re-designed to permit the 15m buffer zone. This is a great improvement, as it ensures that no part of the development is within the Ancient Woodland Area. I note that the roadway does enter the zone, but not the woodland itself. Hence the question would be whether the ingress of a roadway into the 15m zone is acceptable or not. In the absence of formal guidance on this, it appears to be a case-specific arboricultural decision as to whether damage to the Ancient Woodland is likely. In making this decision, I would give due regard to:
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6
the small scale of the roadway; its closest proximity to the woodland boundary of c7.5m, outside the RPA's of the trees within it; the unlikelihood of it causing damage to the eco-structure, bio-diversity and wildlife foraging routes along the woodland edge; and the opportunity to protect the area between road edge and woodland edge with robust and people-resistant planting. Hence on balance I am of the view that the ingress of the roadway into the buffer zone is in this case acceptable in principle. So overall, I am minded to advise that the revisions to the scheme would satisfy the requirements at PPS9, and that my objections could be withdrawn.
3.4 Public Health and Licensing Department: I have viewed plans on Public Access and this department has no objections to this application in principal. However, in order to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts to residents at Rapkyns and neighbouring properties I make the following recommendations for your consideration:
1. No burning of materials should take place on site. 2. Hours of construction activities (including deliveries and dispatch) should be limited to 08.00 – 18.00 Monday until Friday, 09.00 – 13.00 Saturdays and no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
3.5 Building Control:
I noticed that on the first floor, all toilet doors open inwards which makes it difficult to gain access in case a resident falls inside behind the door. Outwards may be better. Also there does not seem to be any lift provision to the upper floors. Can the accessible (disabled) toilet dimensions (those that are not rectangular) be confirmed as having a 1500mm turning circle. Also can the accessible parking bays be marked out to Part M, and clearly signposted.
The applicant’s agent has provided the following response to the comments received from building control:
Please note that the first floor is designed for staff accommodation only. No residents will be accessing these areas. The accessible WCs are designed for wheelchair access and will accommodate a 1500mm turning circle. We confirm that the accessible parking bays will be marked out in accordance with part M of the Building Regulations and clearly signed.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.6 West Sussex County Council: West Sussex County Council has been consulted on this application and considers issues of ecology, highway safety, highway capacity, archaeology and landscape architecture. Ecology
Strategic ecological objection ref:
• Gov't Circular 06/2005 • Habitats regulations 1994 • Natural England (NE) Standing Advice
Recommendations made within the ecological report have not been adequately addressed. There is no indication of how the Great Crested Newt (GCN) (and other protected species) mitigation will be dealt with as part of the application. GCNs are protected under European legislation. A statement of intent and a plan produced by or assisted by a suitably qualified ecologist will be required detailing how the development will deliver on the recommendations made within the ecological report. This cannot be left to condition nor for the NE method statement.
Highways
West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on highway matters for an extension at this location under planning application no. DC/628/05 to which no objections were raised. Pre-application advice for a further extension was provided in July 2009 and no highway objections were raised to the principle of the proposal which includes a more intensive use of the existing access. The proposal is for additional special care facilities at Rapkyns Care Centre, which has an existing access onto the A281 Guildford Road. This includes two new 42 bed special care units and 10 supported living units. Based on DFT guidelines, a Transport Assessment would be required for an extension of 50+ beds. However, it was agreed through pre-application discussions that there would be no reason to undertake any junction impact assessments due to the lack of any known or observed capacity issues at existing junctions within the local vicinity, and the apparent low level of proposed traffic generation would not be expected to create capacity issues. A Transport Statement and Stage One Safety Audit have been provided to address highway capacity and highway safety issues that could occur as a result of this proposed extension.
Transport Statement
Details of the weekday two-way traffic movements from the existing care centre have been provided. It is estimated in the Transport Statement that the site currently generates a maximum of 178 daily two-way trips. Traffic count data submitted with the application including the nursing home as well as the care centre supports this estimate. The proposal would effectively add an additional 94 rooms and 85 employees to the site. However, it has been emphasised that the residents would be reliant on staff to drive them and would primarily travel by minibus as part of a larger group. It is anticipated that the provision of staff accommodation would APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8
also minimise additional trip generation. A maximum total of 382 two-way daily movements are expected including vehicle trips generated by the existing and proposed developments. A safety audit was undertaken to assess the existing access onto the A281 given the intensification of use.
Safety Audit
The Stage One Safety Audit carried out in November 2009 identified two potential highway safety issues at the existing access. The safety audit advised that the levels of the existing carriageway and any proposed kerbing works at the junction may need to be checked as appropriate drainage gullies may need to be provided at any low points. The designer’s response explained that full drainage details will be provided at detailed design stage and this should be secured via condition. The safety audit also recommended that to maximise the visibility splay at the south side of the access, the existing grass verge should be regraded back from the edge of carriageway to a new lower level alongside the existing hedge, the existing tree stumps should be removed, whilst the existing overgrown hedges should be trimmed back. The designer’s response agrees to these measures but as no plan has been provided showing these details, these improvements should be secured via condition. The most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing point of access. Whilst it is acknowledged that visibility to the south is restricted due to the vertical alignment of the road, the access has been safety audited and improvements have been proposed therefore further works are not considered necessary.
Parking Standards
The proposal seeks to increase the existing provision of car parking spaces from 30 to 100. Minibus parking would also be increased from 3 to 9 spaces. However, no justification of this number of spaces has been included in the supporting information other than that it accords with the ratio of the current provision. Further information should be provided including a breakdown of how the applicant has applied the parking standards. The car parking spaces should be 2.4m x 4.8m in accordance with guidance from Manual for Streets. A condition should be applied to secure the parking layout and dimensions of the car parking spaces.
Internal Site Access
The internal site access appears to have been upgraded previously. As adequate turning space appears to have been provided at each parking area, no further concerns are raised regarding the internal site layout.
Public Rights of Way
It does not appear that the nearby Public Right of Way will be adversely affected by the proposal. Safe and convenient public access is to be available at all times across the full width of the PROW. The path is not to be obstructed by vehicles, plant, scaffolding or the temporary storage of materials and/or chemicals. 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 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9
damaged as a result of the development then the applicant may be required to make good the surface to a standard satisfactory to West Sussex County Council’s Rights of Way team.
Draft Travel Plan
The Travel Plan largely accords with our requirements; however we would like to offer the following suggestions:
The applicant should offer free cycle training to employees and provide training if there is sufficient demand. Annual travel surveys should wherever possible be conducted in April, May, September, or October. These are deemed to be neutral months for traffic and usually avoid holiday periods.
Amendments to the existing Travel Plan should be secured via condition.
Archaeology
The topographical location of this site may have been favourable to ancient prehistoric settlement. Any associated buried archaeological remains may be damaged by new ground excavations related to development.
No objection is raised on archaeological grounds to the proposals, subject to suitable archaeological safeguards (archaeological watching brief on ground excavations, to allow buried ancient features and finds to be recorded). It is recommended that provision form these safeguards be made through the use of a suitable planning condition.
Planning condition
The Developer shall arrange for an archaeological organisation or appropriately qualified archaeologists to observe the excavations and record archaeological evidence that may be uncovered as a result of the development in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
Reason: The site is potentially of archaeological interest.
Policies: refer PPS 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment), esp. Policy HE12.3 and PPS 5 Planning Practice Guide, paragraphs134-140; Horsham District Council LDF Adopted General Development Control Policies document (December 2007), Policy DC10 (Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments).
Comments
Within the West Sussex Weald, topographical locations near watercourses were much favoured for the sites of prehistoric hunter-gatherers’ camp sites, in the Mesolithic period (10000-4300 BC). On such sites, concentrations of prehistoric flint APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10
tools and flint tool manufacturing debris, may be found within and at the base of topsoil, occasionally with small pits containing flint material. The topographical location of this site, fairly flat land not far (250 metres) away from and above the flood plain of the River Arun, may similarly have been attractive to ancient prehistoric occupation. The possibility that archaeological material may be present should be taken into account. No objection is made on archaeological grounds to the proposals, but it would be prudent to seek to ensure that new ground excavations for development, especially for topsoil stripping, are attended on site by an archaeologist(s), so that any archaeological features or concentrations of ancient artefacts may be identified and adequately recorded. These archaeological works should be provided for under the terms of a suitable planning condition.
Further to the above comments the applicant’s have submitted an ecological mitigation report and a five year management plan and the County Ecologist has provided the following additional comments in response to this. I am satisfied that subject to:
1. written confirmation from the agent/applicant (statement of intent) 2. detailed management plan from the applicants ecologist 3. that HDC have assessed tests one and two under the habitats regulations 1994 (i.e. there is an overriding need and no alternative).
This document and the caveats below fulfils HDC's obligation under the Habitats Regulations 1994 (spec. test three), follows Natural England's Standing Advice and delivers PPS9. Additionally and with regard to Natural England's Standing Advice on ancient woodlands (and PPS 9 para 10) HDC await further information concerning the woodland edge. Once these final details have been submitted there would be no known grounds for further ecological objection.
Additional information and an amended plan have also been submitted regarding parking. The County Surveyor has provided the following response to this information and to a letter from a neighbouring occupier raising highway concerns: The applicant has now provided a breakdown of how they have applied the WSCC parking standard and have now included a reduced level of parking for the development. However, this does not appear to include staff spaces. Whilst this appears to be a low level of parking for the development, it is unlikely that this would result in vehicles parking on the highway. A further car parking plan showing the location of individual spaces should be submitted at the condition stage.
With regards to your email of 04/01/2011: The issues listed in the objection letter that you quote were considered when the consultation response was drafted. The middle paragraph describes the internal access arrangements, which we do not consider further improvements to be necessary. I would not expect the works within the safety audit to have been carried out yet and would therefore suggest that they are secured via condition.
3.7 Southern Water: The applicant is advised to consult the Environment Agency regarding the use of a private package treatment works which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner of the premises will need to empty and maintain the works to ensure its long term effectiveness. The application details for this APPENDIX A/ 3 - 11
development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site via an existing watercourse or pond/lake. The Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourses. The planning application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). SUDS systems usually have a significant land take and it is not clear how the SUDS facilities can be accommodated within the proposed layout. Before the proposed layout is approved we advise that the applicant/developer give consideration to ensure that the proposed means of surface water disposal can be accommodated within the proposed layout. Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system. Thus, where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the Local Planning Authority should:
Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SUDS scheme. Specify a timetable of implementation. Provide a maintenance and management plan for the lifetime of the development. These should include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
3.8 Natural England: Slinfold Stream and Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest: The application site is likely to affect the St Leonards Ponds Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This reply comprises our statutory consultation response under the provisions of Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Having considered the information provided and the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposal upon the above designated site(s) Natural England considers that this application is unlikely to have implications for the SSSI. Consequently, we have no comments to make on this application in respect of the designated site at present.
Protected Species
We welcome the submission of an ecological survey in support of this application. We would draw the Council’s attention to our protected species standing advice, which provides guidance on when protected species may be impacted by a proposal. The advice can be found at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_east/ourwork/standingadvice/defau lt.aspx APPENDIX A/ 3 - 12
As you are hopefully aware, Natural England has recently issued a consultation draft of our updated protected species standing advice. Shortly, Natural England in London and the Southeast Region will be withdrawing from offering case specific advice to Local Planning Authorities where a development may impact upon a protected species and the Council will need to refer to the guidance contained within our standing advice. Natural England has no further comments to make on the amended plans.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.9 Slinfold Parish Council: The Parish Council has no objection to this application. However as an observation, concern was raised i.e. traffic safety at the entrance and exit to the A281 is considered and reported by the applicant that the Highway Authority considers no significant issues, though the short sight distance from the South is mentioned. The Parish Council does not consider exiting to the South to be safe with the restricted sight distance and would suggest that a left turn only be considered when exiting from Rapkyns. We therefore ask that improvements to the access to/from the A281 to be a planning condition. 3.10 3 initial letters of concern/objection have been received from neighbouring occupiers and Girl guiding Horsham who manage the neighbouring campsite. Their comments can be summarised as follows:
Concerns are raised to the extent of the development and the impact on the local environment. The Rapkyns plans are wholly inappropriate. Phase 3 in particular is likely to cause a considerable impact on the woodland and ecological balance of the site due to its close proximity. The proposal would impact upon the privacy of guides and local schools using the campsite. The campsite has a pond close to the application site which has a population of Great Crested Newts which cannot accommodate additional population from the Rapkyns site. The proposal would threaten and disturb these protected species. The campsite is home to bats and owls which would be disturbed by the building works and then daily usage of access roads and car parks. It is unclear who the surface water would be drained from the site without it having a harmful impact on the campsite. An environmental impact study is essential for the proposal. The proposal would more than double daily vehicle movements. This is reinforced by the provision of an additional 100 car parking spaces. The driveway is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. Due to the bends in the drive vehicles cannot see far enough ahead to judge whether to use the passing bays. And in practice vehicles pass each others by driving over the verges. This has lead to considerable degradation of the verges. Concerns are raised to the additional traffic using an awkward junction at the brow of a hill onto the busy A281. Accidents at this junction have occurred regularly over the years and there is potential for a serious accident. It is considered that a left-turn exit, as suggested by the Parish, is illogical as cars would be directly in the path of vehicles speeding up the hill. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 13
Concerns are raised to the impact on the neighbouring dwelling Greystones from noise and light from the proposal. The proposal would detract from the rural view available from Greystones. The proposal would result in the loss of privacy and an increased risk of security to Greystones. It is considered inappropriate that special care facilities be located close to a gas main, which runs through the adjacent field.
3.11 1 further letter has been received from a neighbouring occupier in relation to the amended plans. Additional comments to those above can be summarised as follows:
There has been a reduction in the footprint of the building by some 10% and the buildings have been moved further away from the adjoining woodlands and bridleway; however the reduction in bed spaces is only 2. As the primary concern is the impact of additional traffic along the common driveway the amended plans will bring no significant mitigation and all previous comments therefore remain relevant. Rapkyns Old Stables and Rapkyns Byre is the only property on the Rapkyns Estate which is not owned by Sussex Health Care.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development in this location; the impact and scale of the development on the rural character and visual amenities of the area; the impact on the adjacent ancient woodland and ecological issues within and adjacent to the site; drainage issues; the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and parking and highway safety issues. Initial concerns were raised by officers regarding the distance of the development to the boundaries of the site and the ancient woodland, and the justification for the development in general, and in this location. Additional and amended information has been submitted seeking to overcome these initial concerns.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 14
Principle
6.2 In assessing the principle of the proposal it is important to look at the relevant policy context of Horsham’s Local Development Framework. In particular Core Strategy Policy CP16 regarding inclusive communities states that particular account will be taken of the need to address the requirements stemming from people with special needs, including the disabled or those with learning difficulties. Core Strategy Policy CP15 states that sustainable rural economic development within the District will be encouraged in order to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits for local communities. It also states that development should be appropriate to its countryside location.
6.3 Furthermore General Development Control Policy DC31 states that care and nursing homes will be permitted in order to meet the care needs of the elderly or other groups in need of specific specialist/medical care provided that:
The development incorporates appropriate staff accommodation and/or is the subject of an agreed Green Travel Plan; and The need for the form and type of development in its particular location is fully justified as being essential to the identified care provision.
6.4 Policy DC31 also states that any proposal for retirement housing/communities or care homes should also comply with all other relevant policies, particularly those relating to countryside protection/Strategic gaps, character, design and, where relevant, affordable housing.
6.5 The proposed scheme would provide accommodation for 92 additional residents and to meet the care needs of these residents accommodation is proposed for 79 members of staff. The development would be formed of three blocks, two of them similar, but not identical in scale, to the existing special care facility on the site and one smaller building to provide supported living units. A Supplementary Supporting Information Statement has been submitted to accompany the application which provides further evidence regarding the need for the proposal. This is attached at Appendix A.
6.6 Given the advances in medical care it is evident from the studies referenced within this statement that the prevalence of Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD) in older child/young adult age range is increasing at 5% per year. As the provision of long-term support by NHS providers is essentially closed accommodation is now being provided by organisations such as Sussex Health Care. Given the very specialist nature of this care together with meeting the necessarily high levels of legislation and competence required to care for such a specialist group it is considered impractical to assess this application purely on the basis of the needs of Horsham District. Whilst this is considered to be a very important factor it is clear that there is a wider regional demand which needs to be considered due to the very specialist nature of the type of accommodation now being proposed. In terms of Horsham District it should be noted that Sussex Health Care operate a Priority Placement for Residents of Horsham District whereby residents, through Social Services, would be given priority over residents who APPENDIX A/ 3 - 15
currently live outside of the District. When visiting the current site the Case Officer was informed that many of the existing residents are from the Horsham area.
6.7 Whilst it is clear that there is a very real and growing need for this specialist accommodation it is important to consider the merits of such a proposal in this specific location. The site itself is 2.5 miles to the west of Horsham Town Centre and 1 mile to the west off Broadbridge Health. However, the site is outside of the built up area and is within the open countryside where policies in the Horsham Local Development Framework restrict new built form. The site is by all intents and purposes in an unsustainable location; however in this specific instance matters are somewhat more complicated and must be explored. The existing and proposed future residents, due to their Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties, are unable to use public transport or public rights of way unaccompanied and are therefore reliant on the shuttle bus service provided by Sussex Health Care, which currently operates from this site. Due to the level of care required by existing and proposed future residents it is appropriate for staff to live on site and therefore there would not be the need for regular ‘to and from’ trips to work for the majority of staff. There is already an established special care unit on the site and this proposal seeks to build on the existing site infrastructure, staffing, management and transportation management.
6.8 Given the access and layout requirements for this specialised accommodation there is an unusually high space requirement. Residential accommodation and facilities must be located at ground floor level, and as stated above high staffing ratios are required on site. The overall floor space demands are therefore high, when analysed on the basis of square metre per user. A development of this nature with such high space demands is difficult to achieve within the built up area where there are competing objectives such as the economic use of land and the commercial value of that land, although it is noted that the latter should not be given significant weight.
6.9 It is noted that the proposal would aid the rural and District economy by the creation of employment and services.
Character and Appearance
6.10 A number of amendments have been made to the scheme which has reduced the overall footprint by approximately 10% and reduced the depth of some of the wings. This has created a larger separation distance between the boundaries of the site and between the buildings themselves which enables the development to sit much more comfortably within the site. The amendments are set out in the Supplementary Supporting Information Statement at Appendix B.
6.11 The site itself is accessed along a private drive which the Case Officer understands is shared with Rapkyns Old Stables, and it is considered that there would be no public views of the proposed development from the main public highway. The development is all single storey with accommodation in the roof and the site is flat and predominately screened from longer views. The site is bounded by woodland to the north and west, the existing Rapkyns care centre to the west and trees to the east of the public right of way, which runs just outside the eastern boundary of the APPENDIX A/ 3 - 16
site. There is the possibility of views into the north eastern corner of the site where there is a field gate and gap in the vegetation but this is not considered to be significant. Users of the public right of way, which is a bridleway, would be able to view a large extent of the development now proposed. However, amended plans have been received which sets the development back a minimum of 10m to the public right of way. This would enable planting to soften the impact on the setting of the public right of way and its users. The development site adjoins the existing Rapkyns care centre site and would therefore be viewed as an extension to the existing site facilities.
6.12 The form and design of the proposed buildings are very similar to the existing four- winged building on the site and materials for building finishes and hardstanding can be conditioned. It is also considered to be reasonable and necessary to condition the provision of a landscaping scheme.
Ancient woodland, ecological issues and drainage
6.13 The amended plans have provided a 15m buffer between the ancient woodland, which is along the western boundary of the site. Whilst a driveway is still proposed within this 15m buffer the Arboricultural Officer considers that conditions to protect the ancient woodland would be acceptable and therefore raises no objection to the amended plans.
6.14 The County Ecologist considers that the additional information submitted addresses his concerns. In this regard a statement of intent has been submitted by the applicant stating that the proposal would be carried out in accordance with the ecological mitigation, a five year management plan has been submitted by the applicant and officers consider that there is an overriding need for the proposal.
6.15 It is considered to be reasonable and necessary to have a drainage condition to fully consider what would be the most appropriate drainage package for the site.
Residential Amenities
6.16 Rapkyns Cottage is the nearest residential dwelling which is located to the east of the south east corner of the site. Whilst this dwelling would have a view of the proposed development a private view is not a material planning consideration. Given the single storey nature of the development (with accommodation in the roof) and the distance of the development to the residential boundary of Rapkyns Cottage the proposal is not considered to have a harmful impact on their amenities. Rapkyns Stables to the south of the site may have some oblique views of the development, however these are not considered to be harmful.
Sustainability
6.17 Policy DC8 requires that proposals should incorporate measures that reduce the impact on climate change. It would be expected that the buildings would be designed to take account of their impact on the environment, by way of reducing unnecessary draw on water and energy resources and reduce the amount of waste created from the development during its lifetime. The applicant has stated within APPENDIX A/ 3 - 17
their Sustainability and Energy Statement that design parameters, combined with the use of air source heat pumps, would likely result in an improvement factor of fifteen percent when compared to the emissions rate from the notional building baseline. Furthermore, the submitted Waste Management Plan sets out the disposal of waste, including recyclable materials, and the Environmental Policy for Sussex Health Care. The Environmental Policy states that Sussex Health Care will minimise use and associated CO2 emissions and maximise recycling (currently achieving 70 per cent of all waste recycled) together with other environmental aims.
Parking and highway safety:
6.18 The County have considered the proposal and the comments which have been raised by neighbouring residents and consider that the access, driveway and parking is acceptable subject to the conditions as outlined in their comments above.
Conclusion
6.19 Whilst the proposal is located in the open countryside and it is not a type of development which would ordinarily be acceptable in the open countryside it is considered to address the need requirements stemming from people with special needs as required by Policy CP16; it will aid the rural and District economy by the creation of employment and services as required by Policy CP15; the level of staff provision is considered to be appropriate; the existing Green Travel Plan can be updated by condition; the Landscape Architect, Arboricultural Officer and County Ecologist consider the scheme acceptable subject to conditions; the cumulative level of development on the site is on balance considered to be acceptable; and the need for the form and type of development in this particular location is considered to be fully justified as being essential to the identified care provision.
As the level of staff accommodation and the visitors flat is directly attributed to the needs of the care facility it is considered reasonable and necessary to secure this as part of a S106 agreement. It is also considered to be reasonable and necessary to secure the priority placement scheme as part of a S106 agreement. It is noted that both of these elements formed a S106 agreement in the scheme permitted on the site in 2005.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the following conditions and completion of a S106 Legal Agreement.
1. A2 Full Permission 2. M1 Materials to be submitted (including hardsurfacing) 3. Construction details for the driveway to the west of the site; adjacent to the ancient woodland, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Reason: To safeguard the nearby Ancient Woodland in accordance with Policy DC5 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 18
4. D6 Finished Floor Levels 5. E3 Boundary treatments 6. D10 Lighting 7. 01 Hours of working 8. 02 No burning of materials 9. H6 Wheel cleaning 10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the proposed construction methods incorporating sustainable construction techniques to achieve a BREEAM 'very good' rating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until it has been issued with a final BREEAM certificate of compliance.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and in accordance with Policy DC8 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
11. Full details of surface and foul water drainage together with a sustainable drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Together with the technical details this should include: Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the Sustainable Drainage System Specify a timetable of implementation. Provide a maintenance and management plan for the lifetime of the development. The arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the first occupation of the buildings.
Reason: As S4
12. No works or development shall take place until full details of the hard and soft landscape scheme have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall comprise: A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice Planting/Seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers Tree pit and staking/underground guying details APPENDIX A/ 3 - 19
A written specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment). Hard surfacing materials- layout, colour, size, texture, coursing, levels Walls, fencing and railings- location, type and materials Location and type of lighting columns and lanterns
The approved landscape scheme for the boundary hedgerow planting along the bridleway and for the area between the access road and the ancient woodland shall be implemented in the first planting season following the commencement of any works on the site and those for other planting areas carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development for its permitted use, or according to a timetable to be agreed with the Local Planning authority.
Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local -Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: As L1
13 Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan
Prior to the commencement of any works on site a long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for the whole development site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
The plan shall include:
Aims and Objectives A description of Landscape Components Management Prescriptions Details of maintenance operations and their timing Details of the Parties who will be responsible for maintaining different areas of the site
It shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations.
The areas of landscaping and open space shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan, unless any variation is approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: As L4
14 Tree and Hedge Protection
Prior to the commencement of any works on site full details of the tree and hedge protection proposed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by APPENDIX A/ 3 - 20
the LPA along with details of existing levels in the vicinity of existing trees and hedges to ensure that the vertical alignment of no-dig construction areas relate to surrounding finished levels. No-dig construction techniques in the RPA of existing trees and hedges to be retained must be carried out in accordance with BS5837 and the methods set out in the Arboricultural Survey are adequately followed through into the detail design stage to the satisfaction of the LPA.
Reason: As L26
15 Other than agreed as part of this planning application no trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled/removed, topped or lopped without the previous written consent of the LPA until 5 years after completion of the development herby permitted. Any trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, whether within the tree protective areas or not, which die or become damaged during the construction process shall be replaced with trees, hedging plants or shrubs of a type, size and in positions agreed by the LPA.
Reason: As L26
16 In accordance with ODPM Circ 06/2005, no development or preparatory works to be undertaken until a European Protected Species Licence has been applied for and secured; all works affecting European protected great crested newt species will then proceed in accordance with the approved method statement and as described for European protected species and other protected species within the submitted Ecological Mitigation Strategy, under the supervision of an Ecological Clerk of Works and thereafter in accordance with the 5 year management plan.
Reason: As L9
17 The Developer shall arrange for an archaeological organisation or appropriately qualified archaeologists to observe the excavations and record archaeological evidence that may be uncovered as a result of the development in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
Reason: As Q5
18 Access Improvements The extension, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until such time as improvements have been undertaken to the existing access in accordance with the recommendations of the Stage One Safety Audit and plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For clarity these improvements shall include the implementation of measures to prevent surface water ponding at the site access with the A281, improvements to visibility that shall include the regrading of the existing APPENDIX A/ 3 - 21
grass verge to the south, and the provision of kerb radii and signing and lining at the access onto the A281.
Reason: As S4
19 Travel Plan Statement The extension, hereby approved, shall not be commenced until such time as a Travel Plan Statement or existing revised Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan Statement shall be completed in accordance with the latest guidance and good practice documentation as published by the Department for Transport or as advised by the Highway Authority.
Reason: In order to promote sustainable choices and to reduce reliance on the private car to comply with policies DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).
20 Car parking layout The extension, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until the car parking spaces have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dimension of the standard, disabled and minibus parking spaces shall accord with current standards and guidance, and once provided shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.
Reason: As G2
21 The occupation of the staff accommodation hereby permitted shall be limited to persons employed at the premises and at no time shall be occupied separately there from as independent units of accommodation.
Reason: The use of this accommodation as independent units would be contrary to policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007
22 The development hereby approved shall be used for nursing care of adult patients with mental and/or physical impairment and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class of the schedule to the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order 1987).
Reason: Changes of use as permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 are not considered appropriate in this case under policies CP16 and DC31.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 22
8. REASONS
1. Having regard to the individual circumstances of this proposal, and its form and location the development is considered to be acceptable
Background Papers: DC/10/1889 Contact Officer: Emma Parkes APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1.
DEVELOPMENT TO: Development Management Committee North MANAGEMENT REPORT BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1 March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Proposed new headquarters facility comprising B8 warehouse and B1 offices with associated parking
SITE: Plot 1, Stane Street, Slinfold, West Sussex
WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham
APPLICATION: DC/10/2551
APPLICANT: AJ Walter Aviation Limited
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation Legal Agreement and completion of an acceptable Section 106 Agreement relating to works to Public Rights of Way and contributions associated with addressing the infrastructure requirements generated by the development.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks the redevelopment of an existing industrial site and comprises the erection of new office accommodation (Class B1) with associated Warehouse facilities (Class B8) attached. The proposed development would provide a new global headquarters building for AJW Aviation.
1.2 Two existing warehouses and associated ancillary buildings would be demolished to accommodate the development. The existing main warehouse has a gross floor area of 1,982 sq metres and is 11.4 metres in height. The smaller building is 440 sq metres and has a maximum height of 8.6 metres.
1.3 It is proposed to implement the development in two phases to suit the anticipated growth of the company with Phase 2 of the proposal resulting in the implementation of additional warehousing only. The table below provides a general summary of the phased approach that is proposed and gross floor area (GFA) created.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total GFA
Contact: Jamie Forsman Extension: 5258 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2.
Offices (sq m) 3400 -2 3,398 Warehouse (sq m) 5050 2974 8,024 Total GFA(sq m) 8450 2972 11,422
1.4 The applicant has indicated that if the phased approach was adopted it would be their intention to implement phase 2 within 5 years of the completion of phase 1. They have suggested that a condition be imposed to this affect.
1.5 The proposed warehouse at phase 2 completion would have a maximum height of approximately 13.2 metres while the taller attached office component would have a maximum height of approximately 13.95 metres. The total length of the development at phase 2 completion would be 136.5 metres.
1.6 The applicant states the following in relation to the proposed hours of operation.
“The nature of AJW’s business requires a 24/7 operation, although the majority of employees will work between the core hours of 8.30am to 5.30pm with a small number of staff working a late shift and a nightshift.”
1.7 Relatively extensive landscape works are proposed and include the following proposals which seek to reinforce visual screening along the sites west and north boundaries.
The introduction of a 2m high hazel fence located on the top of the bund adjacent to the Downs Link. A denser planting specification and increase in stock height of tree planting along the permissive path adjacent to No 1 Railway cottages. Introduction of a 1.4-2m high earth bund to be sited adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed car park and to run beyond the length of the rear gardens of railway Cottages. Provision of a 4.5 metre high close boarded timber fence to be erected on top of the earth mound.
1.8 An additional footpath/cycle path to the Downs link for AJW’s employees is proposed to discourage increased usage of the permissive path adjacent to No 1 Railway Cottages.
1.9 The existing pole supported flood lights are to be removed and replaced with low level bollard lights which will illuminate the car park area. It is proposed to have internal sensors within the office building which switch of lights when parts of the building are un-used. 3 downward facing floodlights are proposed under the canopy of the loading bays to the rear of the warehouse.
1.10 An Energy report has been submitted in support of the developments Renewable Energy and sustainability strategy. Specific sustainable design features include the selection of sustainable construction materials and use of environmental controls which seek to limit the energy demands required to regulate the buildings internal conditions.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3.
1.11 The 3.72 ha application site forms part of an established multi-occupied industrial development previously occupied by the Flint Group (formerly know as BASF) who has since vacated the premises. The existing buildings consist of 2 single storey metal clad warehouses with associated ancillary buildings and hard standing. An extensive car parking area is located to the west of the primary warehouse building and a combination of permanent and temporary fencing currently secure the premises. The site is identified as an employment site in the Northern West Sussex, Employment Land Review Part II, Final Draft Report (October 2010) however it is not formally designated as an employment protection zone.
1.12 The sites principal access is off A29 Stane Street via Maydwell Avenue, which is a private road built in the 1980s. Adjacent the north boundary is the Downs Link a public walkway with can also be accessed by a permissive pathway that runs adjacent the sites west boundary. There is also a restricted vehicle access to the site from Hayes Lane to the east.
1.13 A review of the site history confirms that there is an established B2 (General Industry) and B8 (warehouse) use on the site relating to its former operation under BASF printing systems/ Flint Group as an ink manufacturing plant. This is consistent with the recommended uses identified in the Northern West Sussex, Employment Land Review Part II, Final Draft Report (October 2010).
1.14 It would appear from the planning history that there is currently no restrictive condition in place which would limit the hours of use on site.
1.15 The immediate surrounds are described in the Design and Access Statement and offer an indicative summary of the neighbouring industrial operations and immediate built environment beyond the red line area, but still within the industrial park itself.
“The immediate surroundings to the application site comprise buildings of similar design and age which forms the remainder of the Flint Group demise, together with a 2 storey brick built office to the West. To the East of the site there are a number of buildings owned by SI Group which are of metal and brick construction, with parking and service yards.”
It was noted at the time of the Case Officer’s site visit that some of the former Flint Group buildings immediately to the south were being demolished.
1.16 There is little variation in the topography within the developed areas of the site however an engineered landscape bund runs the majority of the north boundary and is planted with a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees. The western boundary also consists of deciduous mature trees with a low quality understory below. These features help visually screen the site however the level of screening in some parts is reduced during winter months due to the significant presence of deciduous tree specimens. The southern boundary is delineated by the estate road while the eastern boundary abuts a large concrete storage area which forms part of the surrounding industrial estate.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4.
1.17 The closest residential properties are situated at 1 and 2 Railway Cottages to the North West beyond the existing car parking area. The built up area boundary of Slinfold Village extends from the east to north east of the industrial park and is approximately 150 metres from the application sites east boundary at its closest point. Beyond the downs link to the north is open countryside with views of the existing warehouse seen from elevated vantages. Further west adjacent the A29 is the Spring Copse Business Park comprising industrial and warehouse uses.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.18 The site has an extensive planning history (54 planning application records in total) which relates to its former industrial use under BASF printing systems. Records date back to 1956. For the purposes of this report only the most relevant applications have are detailed below.
SF/23/56 - New single storey factory building on existing concrete raft. Rebuilding of existing factory. Permitted 19/07/1956
SF/7/56 - Proposed use of land for light industrial. Erection of new factory building. Rebuilding of existing factory premises. Permitted 14/03/1956
SF/61/59 - Proposed erection of steel framed building for production of synthetic resin for electrical industry. Permitted 09/03/1960
SF/37/64 - Erection of atcost precast concrete building as plant maintenance workshop. Permitted 10/07/1964
SF/32/70 - Finished goods warehouse. Permitted 21/08/1970
SF/19/73 - Building works to provide mess rooms, toilets, control laboratory and production offices. Permitted 24/04/1973
SF/43/73 Raw materials store and packing shop. Permitted 14/10/1973
SF/10/74 - Erection of building for the continuation and completion of raw materials store/packing shop and building of new offices. Permitted 20/03/1974
SF/23/76 - Improved entrance layout into site from Hayes Lane. Permitted 13/07/1976
SF/1/82 Formation of new road & car park to present industrial site in Hayes lane - appeal against conditions 7 & 9 dismissed, condition 4 varied. Permitted 10/09/1982
SF/45/82 - Established use certificate – industrial. Permitted 11/02/1983
SF/46/82 - Canopy for off loading and storage canopy for temporary storage - sub- standard stock. Permitted 01/12/1982
SF/69/86 - Proposed expansion of industrial premises. Permitted 09/03/1987 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5.
SF/52/87 - Construction of highway improvements. Permitted 21/09/1987
SF/36/88 - Extension to industrial premises. Permitted 22/06/1988
SF/44/91 - Erection of maintenance/engineering workshops with first floor offices & storage (revision of SF/9/91). Permitted 04/07/1991
SF/15/92 - Widening of access. Permitted 23/04/1992
SF/12/98 - Erection of a building to contain 6 varnish tanks. Permitted 18/05/1998
SF/70/98 - Erection of a 2-storey office block. Permitted 21/12/1998
SF/71/98 - Convert part of car park to storage; construct new storage area & new car park. Permitted 22/12/1998
SF/72/98 - Construct a hardstanding for storage of raw materials & finished goods & alterations to road layout. Permitted 12/03/1999
SF/30/99 - Erection of ink varnish plant. Permitted 6/07/1999
SF/47/99 - Erection of 13 x 8m high lighting columns around new storage area. Permitted -11/10/199
SF/77/00 - Erection of 4 x 8 metre high and 3 x 4 metre high lighting columns. Permitted- 22/11/2000.
SF/2/02 - Removal of condition 4 sf/77/00 restricting the use of the lights between 0600 and 22oo hours. Withdrawn
1.19 There is an existing section 106 agreement attached to planning permission SF/70/98 which was varied in 2007 (ref:FR/PAG24). The variation allowed for the separate sale of land and introduced new obligations relating to the use of the car park and compensation claims.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS4, PPS7, PPG13, PPS24 and PPS25
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP13, CP11, CP13 and CP15. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6.
2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC1, DC2, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC25, DC26 and DC40.
2.5 Slinfold Design Guide, July (2006)
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Public Health and Licensing
Original comments
Contamination
The site investigation report by RPS dated August 2010 assessed the condition of the soil on the site and the risks this may pose to current and future site users, ground workers, adjacent properties, infrastructure, surface and groundwater and ecological receptors. The conclusion was that there was a low risk of a significant and harmful pollutant linkage and that no further work was considered necessary.
During site clearance, demolition and ground works there is the possibility of unearthing previously unidentified contaminant hotspots and it is important that procedures are put in place to identify these and deal with them. In the event of suspect soils being uncovered, an assessment by a competent specialist and appropriate remediation measures would be required. A validation report for these works would need to be submitted and approved.
Noise
I note that no assessment of the noise impact has been submitted for the demolition and construction phases. In order to protect nearby residents during these phases of development I would expect to see an assessment of the likely noise sources and effects at receptor locations together with mitigation measures to minimise these impacts. Reference should be made to BS 5228: 2009 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites.
RPS completed a noise assessment report on the proposal dated October 2010. The following comments are made with reference to this report. Section 1.2 states that there have been no complaints in AJ Walters current facility in Star Road. The use of the Star Road site had restrictions on the hours of operation of the air conditioning units. These could only be used between 0800-1800 Monday to Friday with no activities permitted on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Bank Holidays. Two complaints were received in 1999 relating to noise from the air conditioning units at Star Road. The proposed use of the Slinfold site is 24 hours. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7.
No acoustic correction has been applied to the specific noise level to obtain the rating level of the forklift truck movements. BS4142 states that a 5dB correction should be applied if a discrete continuous note or irregular or impulsive noise events are likely. It is difficult to imagine a situation where the 5dB correction is not appropriate in the operation of fork lift trucks. The specific noise level has been based upon the sound power level of the fork lift truck which is primarily noise from the motor. The clatters of the fork lift over external concrete aprons with their expansion joints and potentially uneven surfaces have not been accounted for. Reversing bleepers have also been excluded from the measurement criteria and these can be a major source of complaint particularly at night. The night-time assessment has been based on an electric fork lift truck. There is no guarantee that other types will not be used during these sensitive hours. The assessment for the HVAC plant has again omitted the acoustic feature correction when determining the rating level. I do not consider this to be appropriate. The traffic noise assessment has predicted the change in noise levels on the A29 Stane Street, north and south of Madywell Avenue. No assessment has been made of the noise from vehicles entering, turning and leaving the site on the nearest sensitive receptors, particularly at night.
Given the above points I would be strongly recommending that night time operations are restricted or prohibited as the potential for loss of amenity and even sleep disturbance at the closest receptors remains an unresolved issue.
The Officer has also included detailed comments in response to lighting proposals. These have been directly referred to in the planning assessment.
Additional comments received 17 February 2011
“I accept the technical detail provided in the Noise Assessment – Supplementary Report dated February 2011. (For your information there was a subsequent amendment in Table 5.1.) However, I still have concerns that the future use of the site may have significantly different impacts to those modelled particularly during the most sensitive night-time hours. Section 6 addresses the question as to the impact with respect to the scenarios selected, but it does not answer the question as to the potential impact. This would depend on the activities of a future occupant under the B8 use class which could be significantly more intensive than those outlined in the report.
In the “Consolidated Summary of Supplementary Information and Amendments etc.” reference is made to the possible control over unacceptable noise using other environmental health legislation. However, the nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provide commercial operators a defence of best practicable means even where a statutory nuisance is occurring. So even if significant disturbance is being experienced by residents, the local authority will not be able to bring about improvements if best practice is demonstrated. Additionally it has been ruled that where planning permission is granted, this can change the character of the area, changing the definition of what was and was not APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8.
unreasonable behaviour (Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd [1993] QB 343). This adds to the difficulty for environmental health practitioners resolving nuisance issues if they arise after planning permission is granted. Amongst other things, the planning process exists to prevent such problems arising in the first place.
The Wallace Whittle light survey report is accepted and I concur that the lighting proposals are likely to be an improvement over the current installation.”
3.2 Landscape Architect
The Councils Landscape Architect has provided detailed comments in respect of the applications landscape proposals and considered the wider visual impact of the development. These comments are quoted throughout the planning assessment. No significant concerns or objections have been raised subject to the imposition of detailed landscape conditions.
3.3 Strategic Planning
The Councils Strategic Planning Department raise no strategic policy objection to the proposal as it generally complies with current policies and is considered acceptable in principle. They do however suggest that the aims of relevant policies and points raised in their comments are taken into account. The Departments comments are referred to throughout the planning assessment contained within this report.
3.4 Arboricultural Officer
3.5 The Councils Arboriculture Officer has confirmed verbally that he has no objection to the proposal and that additional tree planting measures are welcomed.
3.6 Building Control – Access Forum
Request confirmation that the accessible/disabled toilets are all the same size as on the plans, there seems to be a different size between the accessible toilet on first and second floor.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.7 Slinfold Parish Council
Object to the application and make the following comments. Neighbour concerns raised at the Slinfold Parish Council Advisory Committee Meetings have been included in the neighbour representation section of this report.
“The site currently has no permission for B1 Office use and it is not suitable for this use, solely or for expansion of B1 use, if this application should be permitted. Thus if permitted the following conditions must be applied: The offices are to be used solely to support the warehouse business of the Applicant and in no circumstances are they to be sublet or sold independently of the warehouse. Any additional conditions required to prevent this application becoming a precedent must be implemented as this site and the adjacent area is wholly unsuitable for B1 use in this rural location.”
The Applicant has failed to address both the light pollution and the imposition on privacy from the three-storey office block in both the original application registered by HDC and in the subsequent correspondence to Slinfold Parish Council (SPC) dated 26 January 2011. The internally lit office will be visible from outside the site throughout the day and in particular in winter after 3.00pm. Thus if permitted these aspects must be solved. The additional measures contained in the Applicant’s submission to SPC must be included as part of the application as they do go part of the way to address some of our objections, even though some statements are not acceptable and in several cases are factually incorrect especially where they state the opinion of SPC and the resident of No.1 Railway Cottages.
Correspondence from HDC’s Council Solicitor of 6 November 2010 to Neame Sutton, the Agent of the applicant provides two options for amending these agreements, one after the application has been determined and the other to make Members aware of the need to vary the relevant sections should planning permission be granted. Members must be aware of the need to vary the relevant sections should planning permission be granted and this application must be submitted to committee and not delegated.
SPC has heard numerous objections concerning additional traffic through the village. However, in strict planning terms, we understand that traffic through the village will ultra vires to planning considerations to be made by HDC. It is clear that from a SPC perspective the potential for excessive additional traffic through the village will be a major consideration. SPC understands from AJW that they have considered matters of transport to be in our mutual interest and have already given an assurance that this is controllable. It has always been the case that it is essential that SPC engages in dialogue with whoever occupies the site that agreements are reached to in an attempt restrict the use of Lyons Road, The Street and Hayes Lane, all of which lead to or are in the conservation area. It is recommended that, in the event the AJW application is permitted, such dialogue be entered into at the earliest stage. SPC also highlight the need to expedite implementation of the current WSCC policy of a 20 mph speed limit and traffic calming in the village that is the subject of an existing application to WSCC and APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10.
advice to HDC’s Scrutiny and Overview Committee. A particular concern is the traffic from office employees who will transit the village at the times when children are arriving at school. In addition to the above, at the Parish Council Meeting on 27th January 2011, members agreed to request that Horsham District Council consider whether a ‘bat survey’ is required
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 11.
3.8 Environment Agency
Raise no objection and identify the planning application as having a low environmental risk.
3.9 Southern Water
Our initial investigations indicate that Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. We request that should this application receive planning approval the following informative is attached to the consent
A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development .
The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site are via an existing watercourse and soakaways. The Council s Building Control Officers or technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water from the proposed development.
We request that should this application receive planning approval the following condition is attached to the consent Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.
3.10 Natural England
Slinfold Stream and Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest The application site is likely to affect the Slinfold Stream and Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This reply comprises our statutory consultation response under the provisions of Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Having considered the information provided and the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposal upon the above designated site(s) Natural England considers that this application is unlikely to have implications for the SSSI. Consequently, we have no comments to make on this application in respect of the designated site at present.
We welcome the submission of ecological surveys in support of this application. We would draw the Council’s attention to our protected species standing advice, which provides guidance on when protected species may be impacted by a proposal.
Ancient Woodland APPENDIX A/ 4 - 12.
Natural England advises that the proposals as presented have the potential to adversely affect woodland classified on the ancient Woodland Inventory. Natural England refers you to our Standing Advice on ancient woodland.
Landscape Natural England has considered the landscape and visual impacts of this proposal and concluded that this application does not meet our criteria for involvement with casework. We would stress that this should not necessarily be taken to indicate that the effects on landscape and visual amenity are appropriate, but are a matter for the Local Planning Authority to consider.
3.11 West Sussex County Council Ecologist
Original comments
“Subject to further information being received before determination, there is a material matter concerning legally protected bats that may be a potential reason for refusal for this application.
From the information submitted it is not possible to assess the impact on potential bat roosts arising from light spill from the new development. This impact wasn't addressed within the ecological report. Could you ask the applicant to: 1. Submit a lighting diagram and proposed lighting times for each area. 2. Have their ecological consultants examine the lighting plan to assess likely impact on potential roosts in adjacent trees (highlighted within the ecological report) and impacts on bat movement and foraging behaviour. The ecological consultants may have to visit the site again to look at any affected trees for potential roosts. The ecological consultants will make recommendations as to whether additional survey and a European Protected Species licence will be required. Please note that it is the LPA who must ensure that the three tests under the Habitats Regulations 2010 have been satisfied prior to approval. The results of the additional work will dictate what conditions will be imposed. Additional comments received on the 17 February 2011
These comments have been referred to in the submitted planning assessment, and confirm that previous objections have been overcome subject to the imposition of conditions.
3.12 West Sussex County Council Highways Authority
Further information has been provided by Savell Bird & Axon on behalf of the applicant in an e-mail dated 1 February 2011.An expanded summary of the PICADY analysis has been provided. This provides supporting information to demonstrate that the existing site access at A29 Maydwell Avenue will function adequately under development conditions.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 13.
Regarding the applicant’s proposed link between the site and Downs Link referred to in paragraph 3.10 of the transport statement, the applicant has provided the following information: It is intended to provide a connection in a new location between the site to the Downs Link suitable for pedestrians and cyclists. Access would be controlled via a new gate. The route will be constructed of rolled hoggin blinded with dust / fines, in keeping with the rural location of the site.
Detailed comments on public rights of way as the proposal affects them are provided below. The applicant is requested to carry out certain improvement works as detailed below in addition to those proposed and to enable the connection to Downs Link to be dedicated as a right of way. The transport statement expresses an aspiration to improve pedestrian and cycle links to and from the site by means of the Downs Link and Hayes Lane. Further details of how this would be achieved have been provided and also how the A29 could be accessed. Details have been provided of the proposed travel plan coordinator role and how the travel plan will developed and these are accepted.
Public Rights of Way
There is already a path that exists on the ground that links the Downs Link and Maydwell Avenue. The path is at the point where the Downs Link has a double designation of footpath and bridleway. Where this stops at its northern end (next to Spring Lane) there is a drain that heads due south and there is a path here that is well used. This, or an alternative proposed by the applicant, should be formally recorded and dedicated as a right of way.
If there was opportunity to dedicate a right of way along Maydwell Avenue this would be useful to link up both the path mentioned above and also with the A29, with its termination point being very near to Public Footpath 1367 which heads westwards on the opposite side of the road. This would reduce the amount of road walking required on the A29 for some users.
In terms of improvements to the Downs Link itself at this point, the section that has the double footpath and bridleway designation is currently sound following some surfacing works undertaken 3 years ago. West of Spring Lane however, there are ongoing flooding issues that coincide with a section that is prone to landslip that is just beyond where it emerges from beneath the A29. Should there be any opportunity to help improve things here this would be very much welcomed and we would be more than happy to discuss this further.
The short section of the Downs Link just north of Spring Lane where the industrial units begin is also very muddy and in need of re-surfacing as well as some tree thinning/clearance to enable light through. Such improvements would certainly benefit users and improve pedestrian and cycle access via the Downs Link which I note is a commitment made by the applicant within their application.
County Contributions APPENDIX A/ 4 - 14.
TAD Contribution – £137,040
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.13 47 letters of objection have been received by neighbouring residents and raise the following concerns.
Adverse visual impact upon the countryside and Slinfold Village Conservation Area Noise impacts associated with the proposed 24 hour operations Loss of residential amenity due to overlooking, increase noise, lighting An incident involving air traffic to the site disrupted local residents. Proposed variations to existing section 106 agreements are unacceptable. Overdevelopment Adverse impacts upon Highway Safety Unacceptable increase in traffic flows through Slinfold village Result in loss of biodiversity in particular roosting bats Lighting impacts Poor design – colour scheme, size, scale and massing Sets unwanted precedent for industrial site
No other representations or consultation responses have been received at the time of writing this report.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development on the site, its impact on the character of the area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety, access and parking, and existing trees and vegetation.
Principle of the development
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 15.
6.2 This existing industrial site has an established B2 (light industry) and B8 (warehouse) use as a result of the former Flint Group ink manufacturing operations. Planning records indicate that this operation was occurring on the site for at least 46 years. As previously mentioned there appears to be no existing conditions which limit the hours of use on site, however the associated noise impacts upon neighbouring residential occupiers that arise from AJW’s operation remain a material planning consideration in terms of determining this application.
6.3 Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy 2007 sets out that a range of locations, types and sizes of employment premises and sites will be provided to meet the needs of the local economy. It makes specific reference to making more use of existing sites and premises which are not fully used because they are unsuited to modern needs. Discussions between the applicant and the Council have been undertaken and as the proposal makes use of a vacant, existing employment site, and is situated to the western side of the wider site, it is considered an appropriate location in principle for further employment use.
6.4 The Councils Strategic Planning Department make the following comments with reference to the recommended uses of this site identified within the Northern West Sussex, Employment Land Review Part II, Final Draft Report (October 2010).
“It is noted that the proposal is for B1 and B8 uses which does not strictly comply with the recommendation of B2 or B8 uses set out within the Employment Land Review, however, it would not be expected that a new headquarters facility could function successfully without some B1 use. It is therefore, considered acceptable in principle, as it enables the recommended B8 use to come forward. It should be clarified, however, that the level of B1 use proposed is considered appropriate to the successfully functioning of the business.”
6.5 Supplementary information has been submitted by the applicant providing further justification for the B1 office use proposed. The applicant confirms that the new headquarters will be required to accommodate AJWs Administrative/Accounts/HR and Business Development staff would provide support to the attached warehouse and 3 other warehouse’s located world wide. The applicant also comments that there has been support for a local “cleaner” business with the B1 office representing a welcome move away from the previous industrial nature of the site.
6.6 While the B8 use (warehouse) is already established It is accepted that the B1 use provides an essential ancillary function in terms of AJWs local and global operations and would be an anticipated component of a global head quarters facility. There is also merit in the argument that it could result in a less intensive use of the site when compared to potential B2 industrial operations. The B1 element is considered acceptable in principle subject to the satisfaction of relevant Local Development Framework policies which seek to consider impacts upon residential amenities, traffic and the visual amenities and character of the surrounding locality. Subject to the granting of planning permission a condition could be imposed to ensure recreational facilities within the office space are used by AJW staff only and that the offices are only occupied in connection with the attached B8 Warehouse use.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 16.
6.7 The applicant has agreed to a more definitive timeframe in terms of implementing phase 2 of the works and has suggested a condition be imposed that requires the implementation of phase 2 within 5 years of the completion of phase 1. There would be no objection in principle to the phased development approach subject to the imposition of an appropriately worded condition; however the completion of the development in one phase is considered the most suitable option.
6.8 The demolition of the existing warehouses and ancillary buildings would not raise any significant concerns as they are dated industrial buildings which are currently vacant and of no architectural merit. Subject to the granting of planning permission a condition should be imposed requiring the demolition of all buildings on site prior to the first occupation of the development. This would prevent the proliferation of buildings on site.
Visual impact, Design and Siting
6.9 Due to the increased bulk and massing of the replacement warehouse and attached offices there is increased potential for adverse visual impacts upon the surrounding environment. Robust consideration from key vantage points beyond the sites boundaries is required and should account for winter views when vegetative screening is reduced. Key locations in this respect are considered to include viewpoints from 1 and 2 Railway Cottages, the Downs Link which runs parallel to the northern boundary, the existing permissive pathway adjacent the west boundary, Slinfold Village to the east and north east and elevated positions on private land to the north of the site. It should be noted that the north and west elevations have the greatest exposure to the public realm, while the south and east elevations relatively contained within the confines of the wider existing industrial development.
6.10 The applicant has submitted a detailed Landscape and Visual Assessment and further landscape proposals which seek to address visual impacts issues through existing landscape features and reinforcement of boundary screening by way of additional planting and introduction of engineered bunds and fencing designs. The Councils Landscape Architect has provided a detailed consultation response which considers these proposals in context to the key vantage points previously identified.
6.11 With respect to views from the closest residential properties at 1 and 2 Railway Cottages the Councils Landscape Architect makes the following comments
“The applicants have now proposed a 4.5m high fence on a bund (which is retained on the car park side by a crib block wall) to provide a greater degree of screening of winter views of the new development from 1 Railway cottages. This high fence itself will be stained dark green to make it visually recessive and fast growing climbers and large nursery stock trees and shrubs will be used to soften the fence.
The photomontage from 2 Railway Cottages demonstrates that the occupant would only be looking at the very top portion of glass of the new building in the winter scene and this will be blocked once the planting has knitted in and grows above the fence after about 5 years growth. This is a worst case scenario as the view from 1 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 17.
railway cottages is slightly less elevated. It seems likely that there will be no overlooking from balconies or windows in either garden.”
6.12 With respect to views from the Downs Link and from land near the Red Lyon Pub and a small number of residential properties in Slinfold, the Councils Landscape Architect makes the following comments
I am satisfied with the mitigation measures of woodland edge planting and a hazel hurdle fence to provide lower level screening. However the mixed conifer and deciduous tree belt is still quite open in winter ( the existing building is already visible through the canopy of the trees from the village in winter) and I anticipate the higher parts of the new building will be also visible from Downs Link in winter
The applicants have agreed to provide groups of new yew trees on the top of the bund- the exact locations to be agreed by condition. This is likely to require a sensitive landscape management scheme so that the yew trees can reach their max growth potential- it should be emphasized that the larger new building of much greater scale and mass will remain visible in winter through the existing tree belt for some time to come but the use of yew tree planting will begin to assist in winter screening. It should be recognised that yew is faster growing than its reputation might suggest
Consideration also needs to be given to winter views of the proposed development and existing development from the permissive path through the ancient woodland north of Madywell Avenue. In this regard I would seek additional mitigation by planting of a native species hedgerow on the top of the existing bank bordering the woodland.
6.13 It is considered that landscape proposals sufficiently mitigate any adverse visual impacts by reinforcing existing boundary screening through landscape planting and engineered design solutions. The proposal would not be considered to have any dominating or visually intrusive effects when viewed from the public realm or adjoining properties. It is however acknowledged that the some vegetation to be planted along the northern boundary will take time to establish, thus there will be a lapse until the full effectiveness of landscape proposals are realised.
6.14 At the earlier stage of the application concerns were raised with respect to the proposed colour scheme due the use of grey and light grey tones which were considered to exacerbate the buildings visual prominence. In response the applicant has suggested that a more muted colour palette be used on the north elevation, allowing for greater integration with the winter tree line when viewed from the Downs Link. This approach is considered to be of benefit, however it should be noted that it is the applicants intention to retain a blue colour finish on the west elevation. The Councils Landscape officer also offers additional comments
“From the limited more distant viewpoints eg Rowhook there is the possibility that the roofs of the new building may have a slightly greater visual impact compared with the existing situation. In this regard muted roof colours will also be important.”
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 18.
Subject to the granting of planning permission a materials condition would require post decision approval of the final colour scheme and materials prior to construction works commencing. This could be undertaken in consultation with Local Members
Residential amenities
6.15 Key concerns in terms of neighbour amenity, which have been identified in neighbour representations letters relate to noise impacts, lighting and loss of privacy from overlooking. Each of these issues is considered in detail. Please note that the visual impacts of the proposed buildings upon neighbouring occupiers have been previously considered in this report and found to be acceptable.
6.16 The proposed lighting scheme is supported by a site review and glare study and further supplementary information submitted by the application which provide further comparison between existing and proposed lighting lux levels. In support of the developments lighting proposals the applicant makes the following comments.
“ The existing levels of light pollution emanating from the industrial site causes a significant level of nuisance to the local community by virtue of sky glow and glare at night, caused by the outdated 10m tall lighting columns and those attached to the buildings themselves (approx 10-12m above ground). This is evident in 6 additional night time photographs submitted by the applicant”
The existing lighting system so far as it relates to the application site, will be removed as part of AJWs redevelopment proposals and replaced with a lighting scheme that has been carefully considered to avoid unnecessary glare and light pollution.”
6.17 The proposed lighting scheme incorporates low level bollard lighting around the car park and 3 floodlights on the rear canopy of the building which would illuminate loading/unloading areas. The bollard lighting layout is best illustrated in section 3.2.2 of the Car Park and Office Building Lighting Study (February 2011). This document also includes existing and proposed lux levels charts for the car park area, with significant reductions in light levels across this area, in particular the west boundary with railway cottages. Minimal reference is made to the proposed canopy flood lights that would be erected to the rear of the building however it is considered that the imposition of conditions could control final flood light details ensuring light spillage beyond the site is minimised.
6.18 With respect to night time lighting impacts upon 1 and 2 Railway cottages it is considered that the proposal would result in an improvement to the existing lawfully established lighting design. The aforementioned earth bund and fence screen which are to be introduced to the west of the car park have been designed to screen any view of the building below the top of the second floor level glazing line and should minimise any potential light nuisance imposed upon these neighbouring occupiers. This also addresses any concerns regarding overlooking from the proposed office building windows and balconies.
6.19 The Councils Public Health and Licensing Officer have made the following comments with respect of the proposed lighting scheme. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 19.
“Wallace Whittle prepared a lighting assessment dated November 2010 and this has been submitted in support of the application. I would take issue with the environmental zone selected for the site. I would select E2 as the appropriate zone rating, a low district brightness area. Having said that, the upward light output ratio of the proposed luminaires meets not only the requirements for E3, which was the zone rating selected for the site, but also E2. Appendix 1 to the report, the external lighting proposal diagram, does not appear on the public access system and therefore I am unable to make any comments on this part of the report.”
Further lighting proposal diagrams have been submitted to the Public Health and Licensing Officer since the receipt of these comments and no further concerns with regards to lighting have been raised at the time of writing this report.
6.20 A 24 hour operation is proposed with respect to both the administrative office and warehouse storage and distribution function. Given the sites proximity to residential properties concerns relating to noise and disturbance have been raised, with particular reference to night time noise pollution which would rise during periods of low background noise. The submitted noise assessments seek to address noise impacts as measured from the closest noise sensitive receptors with primary noise generating equipment and activities identified as follows.
General operations – Forklift/truck movements External Heating, Ventilation and Air conditioning Plant (HVAC) Plant Traffic noise
The noise impact assessment provides daytime and night-time assessments. Assessments have been carried out against BS4142 and BS8233 criteria.
6.21 A number of noise impact issues were identified by the Councils Public Health and Licensing Officer when considering the original submission and are detailed in the consultation section of this report. Of key importance was the limited control the Local Planning Authority would have over the proposed and future uses of the site, and detrimental noise impacts that could arise from an unrestricted 24 hour operation. In response the applicant has submitted a supplementary report which provides greater technical detail and recommended a condition be imposed which would the submission of further details pertaining to the intended use of the site. Any subsequent changes to these details would need to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6.22 The Councils Public Health and Licensing Officer has confirmed that subject to the imposition of this condition there would be no objection to the proposal. It is agreed that this condition would ensure greater control over the intended use of the site and is considered to mitigate any potentially adverse noise impacts so they are no more than minor.
Highway Safety, access and Parking
6.23 The WSCC Development officer raises no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to drainage, restrictions on access, parking and APPENDIX A/ 4 - 20.
turning, construction management plan, deliveries and servicing and planning contributions. The officer’s detailed comments are included in section 3.12 of the report.
6.24 To minimise impacts upon Slinfold Village it is recommended that a condition be imposes restricting access to the site from Madywell Avenue only. It should also be noted that the access point from Hayes Lane is currently gated and vehicle access restricted. Conditions relating to the Hayes Lane access have also been recommended however this access falls beyond the red line (land under applicant’s ownership) and cannot be conditioned against. Further mitigation is sought through the submission of a travel plan which would allow for the establishment of defined access routes and transport options for employees of the site.
6.25 The WSCC Public Rights of Way Department have suggested several improvements which could be made with respect to linking the Downs Link with Madywell Avenue and providing for publics rights of way along this vehicle access route. Subject to the granting of planning permission a condition could be imposes which requires the submission of detailed Public Rights of Way proposals at the condition discharge stage of the application. Possible improvement works to the Downs Link have also been suggested and are described in detail in section 3.12 of this report. The committee should be mindful that any works falling beyond the sites red line of the application site are beyond the remit of planning conditions however County section 106 contributions could be used to undertake any such works or alternatively tied into a separate section 106 agreement.
6.26 With regard to car and cycle parking the applicant proposals include the provision for the parking of 153 cars comprising 145 car spaces and 8 disabled spaces. A total of 28 secure cycle spaces will also be provided for visitors and employees. No objection has been raised by the WSCC Highways Authority with respect to parking levels.
6.27 It is generally agreed that the proposed introduction of a new access point from the car park to the Downs Link will encourage alternative modes of transport to the site while limiting employee thoroughfare along the existing permissive pathway (adjacent 1 Railway Cottages) by providing a more conveniently located alternative.
Trees, Landscaping and Biodiversity
6.28 The Councils Landscape Architect has provided detailed comments and is generally satisfied with the schemes landscape proposals and the developments visual impact upon the surrounding landscape. This is subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the submission of further hard and soft landscaping details and Landscape Management Plan.
6.29 High levels of artificial and natural light can act as a physical barrier to bat populations due to their sensitivity to light. The submitted light diagrams show an overall reduction in light levels which would be beneficial to any roosting bat populations in the surrounding tree lines. The reductions in light levels are particularly noticeable near the west and north boundary lines which adjoin this APPENDIX A/ 4 - 21.
potential habitat. Upon receipt of further light diagrams the County Ecologist makes the following comments
“I am satisfied that the lighting proposals will not be detrimental to the local bat population an will have a positive impact by eliminating the currently high light spill falling into the adjacent wooded areas. Subject to a condition being imposed in accordance with the recommendations made within S7 of the submitted bat assessment this information satisfies the afore mentioned obligations on the developer and LPA.”
The County has suggested a condition be attached relating to the installation of spill shields on lighting bollards along the outer perimeters of the car park area and a full bat assessment be submitted at the condition discharge stage.
Planning Obligations
6.30 The applicant has submitted a section 106 Deed of variation briefing paper which identifies extant obligations secured under planning permission SF/1/82 and subsequent variations/modifications which are described in detail within the submitted document.
6.31 The applicant currently seeks a deed of variation to existing obligations (with specific regard to restrictions on the use of the car park) while a separate section 106 agreement is being prepared in order to secure County contributions totalling £137,040. The proposal being commercial in nature does not give rise to District Council infrastructure requirements relating to open space, community facilities associated with residential development.
6.32 Previous correspondence from The Councils Legal Department has clarified the Councils position on these matters and is detailed below.
“In the event that planning permission for the development is granted the Council agrees to either i) deal with necessary variations to the relevant legal agreements at the time the application is determined or ii) make Members aware of the need to vary the relevant section 106 agreements should planning permission be granted.
The Council Confirms that it would not be its intention to grant planning permission that could not be implemented due to failure to vary the necessary section 106 agreements.”
6.33 The Councils legal team is undertaking section 106 and deed of variation agreements at the time of writing this report and it is recommended that these matters be subject to delegated approval subject to the securing of contributions and completion of the deed of variation agreements.
6.34 The matters for which a variation are addressed in previous correspondence submitted by the applicant on the 18/02/2011.
“1. Under the principal agreement dated 10 September 1982, there is an obligation to restrict development to the confines of the former brickworks APPENDIX A/ 4 - 22.
site by preventing any new development within the pink land (coloured grey on our plan yesterday) save where the Council approves otherwise under the agreement.
1.1 You will recall that whilst it is not envisaged that the proposed B1/B8 building itself will impinge upon the pink (grey) land, the associated works relating to utilities provision will i.e., the laying of pipes, cables, cabinets etc. In addition, a small part of the proposed landscaping and some of the car parking spaces associated with the proposed building may well also encroach on this land.
1.2 Clearly, if any proposals at the site are granted planning permission then the planning merits of these proposals will already have been fully tested at the planning application stage and judged to have been acceptable. In such circumstances, it should be unnecessary for the applicant to go to the time and expense of having to seek a further consent from the Council under the agreement for the same proposals. It is hard to envisage how the Council could rationally defend a decision not to grant consent for a proposal under the agreement if planning permission for that proposal had been granted.
1.3 Accordingly, this element of the agreement ought to be varied so that the Council's consent under the agreement is deemed to be given to any proposal which is the subject of a planning permission.
2. The agreement dated 11 August 2000 introduced an obligation which prohibits the installation of external lighting or floodlights other than that which at that time had been installed and identified on Plan 4 attached to the agreement, without the prior written approval of the Council, and that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
2.1 As discussed, the external lighting requirements associated with AJ Walter Aviation’s operation of the site are different to that which has consent.
2.2 It is relevant to note that AJ Walter Aviation has instructed an expert external lighting assessment to be undertaken for their proposals, which will be submitted in support of the planning application.
2.3 The same basic point arises as explained in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 above and the same variation is sought.
3. The obligation introduced at clause 6.1 of the first deed of modification, dated 17 December 2007, relating to the orange land (identified on Plan 2 attached to the 2000 agreement), is a little ambiguous and the Council’s view is sought regarding its interpretation (paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 of my briefing paper specifically refers).
3.1 Whichever of the interpretations applies, this is a concern to AJ Walter Aviation because the proposed B1/B8 building impinges onto the orange land and the car parking for the new building is also sited on the orange land.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 23.
3.2 As discussed, a full assessment of AJ Walter Aviation’s parking requirements against the Council's adopted car parking standards will be submitted as part of its planning application, supported by a Green Travel Plan. Therefore, in the event that planning permission is granted, the principle of a variation in respect of the orange land ought to be acceptable to the Council. Clause 6.1 of the 2007 deed could therefore be deleted or, at least, the same variation made as referred to at 1 and 2 above.
Summary
You will see that my client is only proposing minor variations to the agreements, the objective being to remove unnecessarily having to obtain the Council’s consent again, under the agreements, when the planning merits of any proposal will have been fully tested at the planning application stage and judged to have been acceptable.”
Other matters
6.35 The Environment Agency has confirmed that the site is at low risk of flooding and the conclusions made in the submitted flood risk assessment are therefore supported. Means of sustainable surface water drainage and connections to existing services can be considered at the discharge of condition stage in consultation with Southern Water and the Councils Technical Services Department
6.36 The sustainable design proposals included in the application are welcomed and can be secured by way of a sustainable construction condition (commercial buildings).
6.37 The applicant has confirmed that any occurrence of air traffic to the site would be an isolated incident.
6.38 No significant contaminated land issues have been identified however the Public Health and Licensing officer has recommended that a condition be imposed
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 24.
7. RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, with view for approval subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement relating to provision of contributions, works to public rights of way and to address infrastructure requirements generated by the proposal and variation of existing legal agreements as set out above, and subject to the following conditions.
01 A2 Full Permission 02 Phasing of works
The implementation of phase 2 of the development hereby approved shall be completed within 5 years of the completion of phase 1 of the development unless otherwise agreed by the local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of neighbour amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
03 D6 Finished floor levels 04 M1 Materials
05 H6 Wheel washing 06 O1 Hours of working (during construction) 07 02 Burning of materials
08 Operation Management Plan
Before the development hereby permitted commences a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The approved scheme shall include details of the intended use of the site and the proposed acoustic fence. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent changes must be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the site does not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
09 Ancillary Office Accommodation
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, no building or part of any building hereby permitted for B1 office use shall be occupied independently APPENDIX A/ 4 - 25.
and shall remain ancillary to the B8 (warehouse storage and distribution) use hereby approved.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and because other independent use in this location would be considered contrary to policy DC25 and DC26 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
10 J1 Use Limitation
The development hereby approved shall B8 (warehouse Storage and distribution) with ancillary B1 (office) and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class B1 and B8) in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
Reason: Changes of use as permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 are not considered appropriate in this case under policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
11 Staff Facilities within the B1 offices
The staff recreation facilities to be situated within the B1 office accommodation shall only be used by employees of the B1 and B8 premises hereby approved and shall not offer an independent service to the wider community or any other persons.
To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and because other independent use in this location would be considered contrary to policy DC25 and DC26 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
12 Improvements to Public Rights of Way
Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, a proposal to improve public rights of way facilities along Maydwell Avenue shall be submitted to and approved by in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision of public access routes to the site and to promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13 Landscaping
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 26.
No works or development shall take place until full details of the hard and soft landscape scheme have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall comprise:
Cross sections for proposed embankment slopes where a new footpath will connect from the new carpark to Downs Link Planting/Seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers Tree pit and staking/underground guying details A written specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment).
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
14 Additional landscape works – boundary treatment, planting
The approved 4.5 m close board and hazel hurdle boundary fencing shall be implemented together with the planting scheme approved under condition 13 for the western boundary of the site and on the embankment adjacent to Downs Link before the end of the first planting season following the commencement of any works on the site and those for other planting areas carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development for its permitted use, or according to a timetable to be agreed with the Local Planning authority.
Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local -Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
15 Co-ordination with underground services
No works or development shall take place until full details of underground services – locations, dimensions; depths have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the detailed landscape proposals submitted pursuant to Condition 13 above.
Reason: To ensure the underground services do not conflict with satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance APPENDIX A/ 4 - 27.
with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
16 Landscape Management Plan
Prior to the commencement of any works on site a long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for the whole development site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The plan shall include:
Aims and Objectives A description of Landscape Components Management Prescriptions Details of maintenance operations and their timing Details of the Parties who will be responsible for maintaining different areas of the site
It shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations.
The areas of landscaping and open space shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan, unless any variation is approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and nature conservation in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
17 Tree and Hedge Protection
Prior to the commencement of any works on site full details of the tree and hedge protection proposed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA along with details of existing levels in the vicinity of existing trees and hedges to ensure that the vertical alignment of no- dig construction areas relate to surrounding finished levels. No-dig construction techniques in the RPA of existing trees and hedges to be retained must be carried out in accordance with BS5837 and the methods set out in the Arboricultural Survey are adequately followed through into the detail design stage to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Other than agreed as part of this planning application no trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled/removed, topped or lopped without the previous written consent of the LPA until 5 years after completion of the development herby permitted. Any trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, whether within the tree protective areas or not, which die or become damaged during the APPENDIX A/ 4 - 28.
construction process shall be replaced with trees, hedging plants or shrubs of a type, size and in positions agreed by the LPA.
Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
18 Lighting design
Prior to the commencement of development details of measures to prevent undesirable light spill from lighting bollards along the outer perimeter of the car park and close to the adjacent woodland shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.
19 Bat Survey
Prior to the commencement of development a full bat assessment by a suitably licensed ecologist shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing in consultation with the West Sussex County Council Ecologist. The recommendations made in the submitted bat assessment shall be implemented unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development
20 Floodlight details
Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved specific details of floodlights to be erected on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 29.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
21 G3 Parking, turning and access 22 H10 Cycle parking 23 V5 No extensions 24 M8 Sustainable Construction (commercial development)
25 Construction management Plan
No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, 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:
(a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials used in the constructing of the development (d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate (e) Wheel washing facilities (f) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction (g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.
26 Foul and surface water drainage
Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water and Councils Technical Services department. The associated works will be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development is properly drained
27 Travel Plan
Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved a detailed travel plan designed in accordance with West Sussex County Council guidance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the APPENDIX A/ 4 - 30.
Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of road safety and the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
28 Restriction of access to the site The means of access to the development hereby approved shall be from A29 Stane Street via Maydwell Avenue only.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Note to applicant
1. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection points for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St, James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk
2. The applicant is advised to refer to Natural England’s standing advice in respect of ancient woodlands and protected species. Please refer to the following links.
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_east/ourwork/standin gadvice/default.aspx
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_east/ourwork/standin gadvice/default.aspx
8. REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
Background Papers: DC/10/2551 Contact Officer: Jamie Forsman APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1 March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Change of use of builders yard and erection of 1 x 4-bed dwelling
SITE: Mead Farm, Stane Street, Slinfold
WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham
APPLICATION: DC/10/2688
APPLICANT: Slinfold LLP
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Agent request to speak (Mrs A. Sutton)
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the existing ‘builder’s yard’ and erection of 1x 4-bedroom dwelling; erection of a garage for the existing Mead Farm together with the stopping up of the existing vehicular access to the site from Stane Street and the creation of a new vehicular access from Maydwell Avenue.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The application site is situated on the eastern side of the A29 Stane Street and to the south-west of Slinfold village. The site is situated outside of any defined Built- Up Area boundary and therefore is within the countryside.
1.3 The site comprises the existing ‘builder’s yard’, the existing dwelling and curtilage at Mead Farm together with the new access to be created from Maydwell Avenue, but excludes the agricultural land which is outlined in blue and which forms part of a concurrent application DC/10/2690 for stables and field shelters.
Contact: Karen Tipper Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2
1.4 The site is currently accessed from an existing, but sub-standard, residential access to Mead Farm. Mead Farm, a residential property is situated to the south of the site and Mead cottage to the west. Maydwell Avenue to the south of the site provides access to the former Flint commercial/ industrial site to the east part of which is subject to a separate concurrent application DC/10/2551 for a new headquarters facility comprising B8 warehouse and B1 offices with associated parking. Spring Copse Business Park is located to the north.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPG13
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP13 and CP19
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40
2.5 South East Plan: CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, H1, T4, NRM7, C4
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Relevant planning history relating to Mead Farm:
SF/20/59 Proposed bungalow. Refused 10/06/1959
SF/44/59 Proposed bungalow. Permitted 10/06/1959
SF/3/67 Erection of farmhouse. Refused 16/06/1967
SF/40/71 Proposed farmhouse. Permitted 12/11/1971
Planning history to adjacent agricultural land:
DC/10/2690 Change of use of agricultural land to equestrian and erection of 2 stables and 4 field shelters. Currently under consideration.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3
Planning history at Mead Cottage:
DC/08/1628 Replacement 2-bay garage with part lower floor and entire upper floor as an annexe for a dependant relative. Refused and subsequently allowed at Appeal.
Former Flint/ BASF site, Stane Street:
There is an extensive planning history for this site relating to the commercial and industrial uses.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 None.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 Slinfold Parish Council: Object to this development
3.3 WSCC: The proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling on an existing builder’s yard with a new access to replace the existing access onto A29. The new access to the site will be via Maydwell Avenue, which is a private road, and this road then forms a highly designed junction with A29 Stane Street. WSCC would not be minded to raise any highway safety objections regarding the new access arrangements to serve the new and existing dwellings.
Residents of the new dwelling would be mostly reliant on the use of a private car for travel, however there is a bus stop nearby and cycle parking is provided at site.
In summary, WSCC would not raise any safety concerns regarding the application. However, it is recommended that a condition be attached securing the deletion of the existing access onto A29 at this site.
Contributions of £1447 are required pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal with the provision of additional County Council service infrastructure, highways and public transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development.
There would be no ecological objection to the development. However it may be prudent to impose a planning condition to ensure vegetation is cleared before the bird breeding season begins in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. For example: No removal of trees or shrubs shall be carried out on site between 1st of March and the 31st August inclusive in any year, unless proved to be clear of breeding birds by a suitably qualified ecologist and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect breeding birds in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4
3.4 Environment Agency: no comments
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.5 Collyers, The Street; Suncote House, Spring Lane object on the grounds that the development represents a change of use and would create a hamlet of 3 houses in an area that is zoned for agriculture and warehousing. The existence of permanent buildings on the site could open the door to further development. S52 Agreement dated 10 Sept 1982 stipulates that no further development be served by the road (now Maydwell Ave).
3.6 One letter of comment received from Chimney Corner, Park Street in respect of S52/240 prohibiting further expansion of Maydwell Avenue.
3.7 Two letters of support from Mead Farm and Mead Cottage on the grounds that the proposal would provide a new safer access from Maydwell Avenue; the dwelling would be an enhancement and a better use of the site.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development; its effect on the character and amenities of the area; the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers; highway safety, access and parking; together with existing tress, vegetation and ecology.
6.2 The site is situated outside of a defined built-up area and as such is situated within the countryside. Development plan policies do not permit residential development within the countryside unless there is an essential need for a countryside location.
6.3 Similarly, national guidance Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas advises that housing in the countryside should firstly be sited on previously developed land in existing towns unless a specific local need is addressed. Furthermore, it advises that housing in the countryside requires a special justification, principally this being that the new house relates to the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5
6.4 At paragraph 10 that:
“Isolated new houses in the countryside will require special justification for planning permission to be granted. Where the special justification for an isolated new house relates to the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside, planning authorities should follow the advice in Annex A of this PPS”
6.5 Policy DC1 states within the explanatory text that there may be certain circumstances where development is necessary to ensure the continued sustainable development of rural areas. Such development might include that which is required to sustain the countryside as a place of varied and productive social and economic activity, such as subsidised housing, business uses, community facilities and services or leisure, cultural and tourism facilities. These will be assessed on the basis that development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.
6.6 The applicant has acknowledged the policy considerations, however considers that a material consideration that relates specifically to the site, these being the removal of unsightly buildings, environmental improvements, improved access to Stane Street, improved relationship with adjacent residential properties together with an operational link with AJW Aviation, to set aside these policy restraints.
6.7 In respect of the removal of unsightly buildings associated with the builder’s yard, the applicant has mentioned within their letter of 11 February 2011 that:
“The site has been used as a Builder’s Yard since at least 1998 when it was occupied by Rother Builders who used the site initially to service a contract working on the Flint site for the Flint Group, and subsequently, for their business as general builders. As such, the site was used for the storage of materials and as a commercial base for various jobs which were undertaken within the local area. During this time, Rother Builders continued to undertake general maintenance on the Flint Group site.
Whilst Rother Builders had initially occupied the site on an informal basis from 1998, this was formalised in 2000 when the Flint Group leased the builder’s yard to Rother Builders on a commercial basis. Unfortunately Rother Builders ceased trading two years ago, although it is understood that one of the Directors continued to trade under a different name
As discussed and agreed at our recent meeting, whilst no formal planning permission exists for the site, it has been used as a Builder’s Yard for a period in excess of ten years and is therefore immune from enforcement action by virtue of Section 171B(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended ) i.e. the ‘10 year’ rule”.
6.8 As mentioned within the applicant’s letter the site does not benefit from planning permission for a builder’s yard, nor does it benefit from a Lawful Development Certificate to confirm such use and therefore the lawful use of the site remains uncertain at this time. An enforcement enquiry was received in 2003 relating to the APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6
storage of materials on the application site, and the investigation determined that the storage was ancillary to and for the purposes of the former Flint/ BASF site, but not on a commercial basis. It is therefore contended that the unfortunate potentially untidy appearance of the site which would appear to relate to an ancillary storage area associated with the commercial operation on the adjacent former Flint/ BASF site and not a commercial use, would not justify redevelopment of the application site within a sensitive countryside location and furthermore the development of an additional dwelling would result in the further visual encroachment of built form beyond the defined Built-Up Area boundary of Slinfold.
6.9 The stopping up of the existing vehicular access is not objected to in principle. It is acknowledged that the visibility splays currently provided from this access point are poor. The proposed access for the new dwelling and Mead Farm would be taken from Maydwell Avenue which currently acts as the access route to the former Flint/ BASF site to the east. The County Surveyor has advised that Maydwell Avenue forms a highly designed junction with A29 Stane Street and as such no highway objection would be raised in terms of highway safety.
6.10 In terms of parking provision, the applicant proposes to construct two double garages, one for the proposed dwelling and one for the existing dwelling, Mead Farm. Further on curtilage parking and turning would be provided together with secure covered cycle storage and which could be secured by condition.
6.11 It should be noted that any additional development which is serviced by Maydwell Avenue, such as that proposed by the application, requires a Deed of Variation to Section 52/240 agreement which was signed 10/09/1982 as part of planning permission reference SF/1/82. This agreement can be secured separately from this application and would not prejudice the consideration of this application.
6.12 Whilst a residential use with its associated activities may create a more harmonious relationship with the two adjacent residential properties, Mead Farm and Mead Cottage, it is considered that this alone does not justify setting aside strong policy objections, particularly as at the current time the lawful use and any possible associated movements and activities of the site remains unclear.
6.13 As noted within section 1 of this report, two further applications are currently under consideration by the Council which have been submitted by the applicant Slinfold LLP. It is intended that the proposed dwelling be occupied by the site manager of the proposed B1/B8 use currently under consideration by the Council (DC/10/2551) to assist in the 24hour operation proposed for this adjacent site.
6.14 Whilst it may be intended that the adjacent site be operated on a 24hr basis, it is considered that this does not in itself justify the erection of a dwellinghouse within the countryside or reasoned justification to set aside current Development Plan policies.
6.15 In terms of design, the proposed dwelling would be provided over two-stories in a building of ‘barn’ appearance, constructed of timber weatherboarding and clay tile roof. The fenestration has been limited in the main to the front and rear elevations, APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7
with central full height detailing. The adjacent Mead Farm is a bungalow and Mead Cottage a two storey dwelling which also benefits from a two storey annexe.
6.16 The proposed dwelling is set approximately 40m from Mead Cottage and approximately 29m from Mead Farm. It is considered that these distances would not lead to any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to occupiers of adjacent property or potential future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.
6.17 Sustainability issues also arise as part of the consideration of this application. To accord with policy the development should be suitably located and not in an isolated position in relation to infrastructure amenities and services. The site whilst on the periphery of Slinfold (itself a Category 2 settlement with limited services) and within close proximity to a bus stop is considered to be in a relatively isolated location. Given the nature of the roads without footpaths or lighting, it is considered that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on the car for access purposes and would reinforce unsustainable patterns of development. This has also been raised by the County Surveyor.
6.18 In respect of sustainable construction, Policy DC8 of the Development Plan expects dwellings be designed to take account of their impact on the environment, by way of reducing unnecessary draw on water and energy resources and reduce the amount of waste created from the development during its lifetime. The Council would expect any new dwelling to meet a minimum standard of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The applicant has not confirmed whether the proposed dwelling could meet this expectation, however, the requirement to meet Code Level 3 could be secured by condition in the event planning permission is granted.
6.19 The applicant has provided a Protected Species and Bat Survey which has been assessed by the County Ecologist, to which no objections are raised. It is not intended to remove any trees or hedgerows, however a final landscaping scheme could be secured by condition in the event that planning permission is granted.
6.20 The proposed development would trigger the requirement to provide financial contributions toward fire service infrastructure, Total Access Demand, and libraries of £1447. The District Authority would require £2930 toward open space, sport and recreation; community centres and hall; and local recycling. At the time of writing the committee report an appropriate signed agreement had not been submitted, however in the event that planning permission were to be granted, these contributions could be secured by way of an appropriately worded legal agreement.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reason:
1. The proposed development which is situated outside of any built-up area boundary would represent an intensification of residential development in this countryside location to the detriment of the rural character of the area. Furthermore, it has not been shown to require an essential countryside location or that it meets an identified local need and therefore would fail to comply with APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8
the principles of sustainable development having particular regard to the poor access to services and facilities reinforcing unsustainable patterns of development. The proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP3, CP5 and CP19 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), policies DC1 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) together with the overarching provisions of PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13.
2. The proposed development makes no provision for contribution towards improvements to transport, fire service infrastructure or community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Background Papers: DC/10/2688 Contact Officer: Karen Tipper APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1 March 2010
DEVELOPMENT: Change of use of agricultural land to equestrian and erection of 2 stables and 4 field shelters
SITE: Mead Farm, Stane Street, Slinfold
WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham
APPLICATION: DC/10/2690
APPLICANT: Slinfold LLP
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted, subject to a Deed of Variation in respect of the additional access from Maydwell Avenue
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to equestrian land together with the erection of 2 stables and 4 field shelters. The total area of the site is approximately 9.7hectares (24acres)
1.2 Each of the 4 field shelters would measure 26sqm with one located within each of the four most easterly paddocks. They each contain 2 loose boxes; Stable one located along the eastern boundary with Mead Farm would measure 26sqm and contains 2 loose boxes; Stable two would be located in the adjacent paddock to the east of stable one beyond a band of trees and would measure 56sqm and is shown to contain 2 loose boxes, tack room and hay store. The proposal as a whole is shown to comprise 12 loose boxes within the above structures.
Contact: Karen Tipper Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2
1.3 The application also proposes a new link from the north of the application site to the Downslink bridle path which runs on a west-east axis abutting this northern most part of the application site.
1.4 A new access from Maydwell Avenue to Mead Farm is proposed under DC/10/2688 which currently under consideration. The proposed access would also facilitate access to the 2 stable blocks.
1.5 Within the Design and Access Statement at paragraph 3.4, it advises that “In the event that planning permission is granted the proposed stables and paddocks will be marketed for private use and will not operate as a commercial livery”
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.6 The application site is situated on the eastern side of the A29 Stane Street and to the south-west of Slinfold village. It comprises 6 paddocks, 3 paddocks lie to the north of Maydwell Avenue which traverses the site and 3 paddocks lie to the south but excludes the dwelling at Mead Farm, which is outlined in blue on the submitted location plan. The total area of the site is approximately 9.7hectares (24acres).
1.7 The site is situated outside of any built-up area boundary and therefore is within the countryside. The gradient of the land varies across the site, with the highest point being approximately the centre of the site. The paddocks are divided by bands of trees and hedges. Hayeshill Copse to the southeast and outside of the red line boundary is defined as an Ancient Woodland.
1.8 Maydwell Avenue traverses the site and acts as the access route to the former Flint commercial/ industrial site to the east. Spring Copse Business Park is located to the north; Mead Farm and Mead Cottage, two residential properties, are located directly to the west and north-west of the site.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS4, PPS7
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5 and CP15
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, CP2, DC3, DC6, DC9, DC29 and DC40 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There is no relevant planning history relating to the application site itself.
Planning history for Mead Farm:
SF/20/59 Proposed bungalow. Refused 10/06/1959
SF/44/59 Proposed bungalow. Permitted 10/06/1959
SF/3/67 Erection of farmhouse. Refused 16/06/1967
SF/40/71 Proposed farmhouse. Permitted 12/11/1971
DC/10/2688 Change of use of builder’s yard and erection of 1 x 4-bed dwelling. Currently under consideration
Planning history at Mead Cottage (which lies to the north of Mead Farm):
DC/08/1628 Replacement 2-bay garage with part lower floor and entire upper floor as an annexe for a dependant relative. Refused and subsequently allowed at Appeal.
Planning history for former Flint/ BASF site, Stane Street:
There is an extensive planning history for this site relating to the commercial and industrial uses on site.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Arboricultural Officer: No objection (verbal comments 02/02/2011)
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 Slinfold Parish Council: Object to the application
3.3 Environment Agency: no comments to make.
3.4 West Sussex County Council: The proposals would be expected to generate an increase in total annual vehicle movements at this site, although daily movements may not increase significantly. The junction of Maydwell Avenue and A29 is a highly designed junction, and benefits from good visibility for both vehicles emerging from the access and also vehicles travelling on A29.
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4
WSCC does not anticipate that the proposed change of use at this site would be of detriment to highway safety.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.5 Collyers, The Street; Suncote House, Spring Lane object to the development on the grounds of over-development. There is an oversupply of equestrian facilities (stabling and pasture) in the area. The existence of permanent buildings on the site could open the door to further development. S52 Agreement dated 10 Sept 1982 stipulates that no further development be served by the road (now Maydwell Ave).
3.6 The Chiddingfold Leconfield and Cowdray Hunt: support the application on the grounds that the fields with have direct access to the Downs Link, thereby not requiring to cross busy roads; little change in the appearance of the land
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main consideration is the principle of the development within this location, the visual impact on the amenity of the locality together with highway safety issues
6.2 The proposal is for the change of use of agricultural land comprising 6 paddocks with a total area of approximately 9.7hectares (24acres) to equestrian land together with the erection of 2no. stables and 4no. field shelters.
6.3 Policy DC29 of the LDF states that planning permission will be granted for equestrian related development provided among other things, that the proposal is appropriate in scale and level of activity, and in keeping with its location and surroundings and also does not result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the open countryside, particularly in an urban fringe location.
6.4 Each of the proposed field shelters have been sited either side of the central band of trees and hedges and relates well to the access from Maydwell Avenue, insofar as there would unlikely be any future pressure to provide additional tracks or hardstanding further into the countryside.
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5
6.5 The natural screening provided together with the separation of the site provided by Maydwell Avenue, would allow for the field shelters to be read individually rather than as a cluster of development. Similarly, the proposed stable buildings would also be read individually and well screened by natural vegetation.
6.6 It is considered that given the overall size of the site, approximately 9.7hectares, together with the materials which would be dark stained timber and scale of buildings that the proposed field shelters and stable buildings would be of a reasonable scale appropriate to its countryside location. Furthermore, in the event the field shelters and stables are no longer required, a condition could be attached to secure their removal from the site.
6.7 The applicant has confirmed within their Design and Access Statement:
“that horse boxes will not be permanently stored on the land and the Applicant is willing to accept an appropriately worded planning condition in this regard”
6.8 In respect of the activity associated with the proposed buildings, the applicant has confirmed how the stable buildings, field shelters and paddocks would be operated. It is intended that stable 1 and the paddock within which it is situated would be for the private use of Mead Farm. Stable 2 and the remaining 5 paddocks together 4 field shelters would, in the event that planning permission is granted for the proposed dwelling currently under considered (ref. DC/10/2688), be associated with this dwelling for private purposes. In the event that planning permission is not granted for this dwelling, the site would be marketed for private use and would not operate as a commercial livery. This could be secured by an appropriately worded condition.
6.9 A private use of the land for equestrian purposes is unlikely to give rise to a level of activity that would be out of keeping with this rural location. Furthermore, the application proposes a new link to the Downs Link bridleway, thereby reducing the need for horses and their riders to utilise the A29 Stane Street to access the bridle path. In respect of vehicle access to the site, the junction of Maydwell Avenue and the A29 is a highly designed junction, and benefits from good visibility for both vehicles emerging from the access and also vehicles travelling on A29. It is noted that the County Surveyor has not raised any objections in this respect.
6.10 It should be noted that any additional development which is serviced by Maydwell Avenue, such as that proposed by application DC/10/2688 and shown on the submitted plans to service the stable buildings, requires a Deed of Variation to Section 52/240 agreement which was signed 10/09/1982 as part of planning permission reference SF/1/82. This agreement can be secured separately from this application and would not prejudice the consideration of this application.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the following conditions and a Deed of Variation in respect of the additional access from Maydwell Avenue: APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6
1. A2 Full Permission
2. The stable, annotated as ‘stable 1’ on submitted plan number 09 Rev. A received 23/12/2010, hereby permitted shall only be used for private, domestic purposes in associated with the use of Mead Farm and shall not be used for commercial purposes or in connection with any form of riding establishment. Reason: In the interests of amenity, to enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development and in accordance with policy DC29 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3. The stable, annotated as ‘stable 2’ together with the four field shelters, shown on submitted plan number 09 Rev. A received 23/12/2010, hereby permitted shall not be used for commercial purposes or in connection with any form of riding establishment. Reason: In the interests of amenity, to enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development and in accordance with policy DC29 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. The development hereby permitted shall not be undertaken until precise details of the proposed method for the storage and disposal of used bedding and manure has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the storage and disposal of used bedding and manure shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007)
5. M7 Materials (add: The stables…)
6. No hard standing shall be provided on site unless and until an appropriate plan, indicating a suitable area close to the building together with details of materials for the construction of any hardstanding hereby approved has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter only implemented in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: In the interest of the character of the area and to accord with the aims of Policy DC9 of the LDF General Development Control Policies (2007).
Note to applicant
1. Satisfactory provision shall be made for surface water drainage and control of leachate.
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 7
Reasons:
The proposal does not materially affect the amenities or character of the locality.
The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
The proposal would not be obtrusive in the landscape or harmful to the visual quality of the area.
Background Papers: Karen Tipper Contact Officer: DC/10/2690 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1 March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing house and erection 5 dwellings with associated access.
SITE: 27 Millfield, Southwater
WARD: Southwater
APPLICATION: DC/10/2495
APPLICANT: Thakeham Homes
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the completion of an acceptable Legal Agreement for the provision to meet the infrastructure requirements generated by the proposal.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing two- storey dwelling and the erection of a replacement 3 bedroom dwelling which would front onto Millfield, together with the erection of four further two-storey dwellings, comprising 1x3bedroom and 3x5bedroom forming a cul-de-sac development to the rear. Unit 1 would benefit from a detached garage with the remaining four units benefiting from integral garages. Separate cycle and refuse storage is also proposed as part of the application.
1.2 This application is submitted further to a previous application for a replacement dwelling and 4 further dwellings which was refused at committee in September 2010. Reference number DC/09/1251.
Contact: Emma Parkes Extension: 5517 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The site comprises the existing two-storey dwelling together with a detached garage and outbuildings set within a large garden. The land is relatively flat at the south and west of the site, however the ground within the north-eastern corner slopes down toward the far corner boundary.
1.4 The site is bounded on the south and north by a large number of trees, a number of which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. To the north of the rear garden is Turners Close, a relatively modern housing development, accessed off Abbotsleigh.
1.5 The properties within Millfield are relatively established in character, and in the main sit parallel to the street frontage with open fronted gardens. A large number of properties in this area also benefit from off-street parking, in the form of garages and hard surface parking areas.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPG13 and PPS25
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2.5 DC/09/1251 - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 x 3-bed and 3 x 5- bed dwellings. Refused in September 2010 for the following reasons: APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3
1. The proposed development by reason of the number and size of dwellings would result in an overdevelopment of the site with insufficient provision for on- site parking to serve the 5 proposed detached dwelling houses. Additionally, the new vehicle access to serve the proposed development would result in a loss of residential amenity to occupiers of neighbouring properties, in particular number 29 Millfield. Furthermore, the proposed replacement dwelling by reason of design, size and layout would appear out of keeping and incongruous within the street scene. As such the development would be contrary to policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2. The proposed development makes no provision for contribution towards improvements to transport, fire service infrastructure or community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Environmental Management, Waste and Cleansing: Concerns are raised to the minimum access drive width of 3m. It is suggested this should be a minimum of 3.5m or alternatively collections would need to take place at the end of the driveway. An amended plan has been received which increases the minimum width of the drive to 3.5m.
3.2 Arboricultural Officer: Having examined the scheme at DC/10/2495 against the last amended plans at DC/09/1251, which is plan number 1473.1/07 revision D, which my comments below referred to. They are so close in regard to plot 5 that I am ok that my comments stand. Although light and sunshine to the rear gardens of plots 2,3,4 and 5 will be compromised, the complete repositioning of the dwelling at plot 5 (which was amended within the previous application and remains the same as previously amended within this application) tips the balance in regard to acceptable levels of well-lit amenity space on this plot. The scheme satisfies the recommendation at BS5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’ (2005) and the publication Tree Preservation Orders – A guide to Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000), therefore no objection to the proposal.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.3 Southern Water: No objection subject to conditions and informatives.
3.4 Southwater Parish Council: Objection on over intensification of the site and out of keeping with the street scene
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4
3.5 WSCC: The proposal differs slightly from the 2009 application, DC/1251/09. However the principle of this proposal was agreed in October 2009 and the amendments on this application appear minor. Since the previous consultation I am not aware of any adverse comments that may have been made by the Highway Authority, or of any other highway related concerns with this site and the proposed usage. Therefore, I would not foresee there being any significant highway issues to this latest proposal. The S106 contributions have been re-calculated according to the latest cost multipliers and a contribution of £11,200 is required, valid until 31st March 2011.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.6 8 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring occupiers to this application. Their comments can be summarised as follows:
This property has been the subject to previous applications. Concerns are raised regarding the loss of a perfectly serviceable dwelling. No account is taken for the need for affordable housing. Is there a possibility for funding for the community from the developer? The proposal is overcrowded and overdevelopment. The proposal would be out of character with the area. There would be an impact on neighbour amenities, in particular noise, light, dust and aggravation. Objections are raised to the increased traffic this would impose on the existing roadway in Millfield as well as noise and disturbance to an already congested area. Five bedroom dwellings means multiple car ownership. How long will it be before garages become storage areas? Concerns are raised to the safety of the access and the impact on the existing poor road surface of Millfield. The access road has been reduced in width so cars can no longer pass along its width. Concerns are raised to the impact of construction traffic. Car parking for plot 1 would restrict the ability of refuse and emergency vehicles to turn. The proposal would add to the existing drainage problems in the area. Concerns are raised that soakaways could not be accommodated within the development. The Design and Access Statement states that there will be permeable surfacing but the Environment Agency state that the driveway must be constructed to WSCC standards. The reasons for refusal for this application appear no different to the previously refused application. The proposal does not address the previous reasons for refusal or the Governments recent policy regarding ‘garden grabbing.’ It is not considered that the wall along the boundary with No.29 can be retained due to its stability. APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5
It is not considered that this communal building has a use for the development and would fall into disuse, disrepair and become a target for vandalism. The proposed garage is smaller than existing; therefore there would still be a harmful impact on No.29 and there would be views to the rear of No.29 resulting in impacts of privacy and security. The comments of the previous consultation responses have not been addressed, in particular comments from waste services, Southern Water and the Arboricultural Officer. As properties have been moved further towards the trees to accommodate parking the relationship between the trees and properties would be worse than the previous application. The 4 new properties would have a direct line of sight into Nos. 24, 25 and 26 Turners Close. The photomontage is very misleading as the walls are out of scale. Could part of the garden for No.27 be used to prevent the demolition of a dwelling?
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main considerations are the principle of the proposed development in this location, the effect of the development on the character of the area, the impact on amenities of nearby residential occupiers and existing parking and traffic conditions in the area, and the effect on existing trees together with drainage.
Principle
6.2 The proposal is for one replacement dwelling and the erection of four further dwellings within the built-up area boundary of Southwater, a Category 1 settlement, which is classed as a village with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport, capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.
6.3 Recent Government guidance advises of amendments to PPS3, which has removed at Annex B, private residential gardens from the definition of previously developed land. Furthermore, the national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare has also been deleted from PPS3. This does not result in an APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6
in principle objection to the development on garden land as there is still a need to direct development to the more sustainable built up areas, as set out in Policies CP3 and CP5 of the Core Strategy, but it does require careful consideration of the impacts of such development on the character and appearance of the area.
6.4 The site covers an area of 0.267 hectares; therefore the 5 houses proposed would result in a density of 18.72 dwellings per hectare. Whilst it is appreciated that the minimum density of 30dph has been removed from PPS3 the density proposed for this development is by common standards relatively low. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location, and therefore the principle of residential development is acceptable and does not conflict with the overarching principles of PPS3 and meets the objectives of the policies within the LDF, subject to an assessment against all other development management criteria.
Design and Layout
6.5 The proposed dwellings are all two storey and would be of brick and clay tile roof construction, with a small element of clay vertical tile hanging. The size of dwellings are relatively commensurate with the size and variation within the area.
6.6 Unit 1 would have the most visual impact along the street scene by virtue of fronting onto Millfield with the remaining dwellings forming a cul-de-sac to the rear. The majority of properties along Millfield sit wide along the street frontage with a relatively narrow depth. It is noted that the proposed Unit 1 would sit deeper in the plot with a narrower frontage, however this in itself is not considered to be cause for objection. Much of its depth would be screened from the street scene by the siting of the existing No.29. Unit 1 would have windows directly below the eaves which follows the pattern of the frontage of neighbouring dwellings and the current application has been amended from that previously refused to included soffit and fascia boards to make it more akin to neighbouring dwellings.
6.7 It is noted that there are different types of dwellings within Millfields and in particular No.29 has been extended and the semi-detached units to the east, Nos.33&35 benefit from projecting front gables which add variety to the street scene. There are therefore considered to be some similarities and some differences when compared to the overarching character of the area, which in itself is not exclusive to one particular design type. The proposal is therefore not considered to result in a development which would be harmful within the street scene. Whilst your officers appreciate the 3D image submitted showing the front elevation of unit 1 in the street scene is not to scale, it is considered to provide a useful guide as to how the unit would fit within its context.
6.8 It is considered that the siting, design and orientation the units are acceptable and would result in a layout which would provide acceptable parking and turning arrangements and would not have a harmful impact on trees subject to protection adjacent to the site. The relevant consultees have no objections to these issues which can be controlled by conditions. The layout as a whole, the relationship of the five dwellings with site boundaries, trees and adjacent properties and the parking arrangements are considered to be acceptable.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 7
Amenity
6.9 The proposed development intends to enlarge and extend the existing access for no. 29 from Millfield to form an access road to serve the proposed dwellings. It is also proposed to construct a wall to run along the boundary with No.29 and build a communal outbuilding in this location; retaining the existing flank wall of the garage. This is considered to overcome previous concerns raised with regard to the impact on No.29 from the use of the access drive by vehicles as the access drive has now been moved further from this boundary and a wall would be retained/built between 1.8m and 2.2m along the boundary with appropriate landscaping. This is considered to be a sufficient height to protect their amenities and the outbuilding would provide a further buffer to the access drive. Low level native hedging would also be provided along the drive to the front of number 29 Millfield.
6.9 It is considered that the layout and orientation of the proposed dwellings provides sufficient distance to existing adjacent dwellings so as to not result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy and the proposed dwellings provide for a sufficient level of external amenity for future occupiers.
Sustainability
6.10 The proposal is for 5 market dwellinghouses which the applicant has confirmed within the Design and Access Statement will be constructed to achieve a minimum Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Furthermore, the applicant has also advised that the scheme will incorporate grey water harvesting on units 2-5 inclusive, with the harvested water being utilised for w/c clothes washing etc within these properties, and which as a result will lessen the amount of excess surface water that will go into water storage soak away system forming part of a SUDS scheme. These requirements can be secured by condition.
6.11 As previously mentioned, the location of the site is within the boundary of a Category 1 settlement which benefits from a good range of services and facilities together with access to public transport. There is a bus route which runs along Cripplegate Lane with services to towns within the district. Southwater village centre has recently been extended and improved, providing a high level of local amenities, which can be easily accessed.
Highways
6.12 The County Surveyor is satisfied that the development would provide acceptable access, turning areas and parking arrangements. Whilst the access has been slightly reduced in width to slow traffic down and therefore mitigate against the impact on No.29, it is still considered to be of a width sufficient to accommodate the development. The turning area largely remains as previously proposed and parking spaces have now been clearly shown on the plans with a minimum of 3 spaces per dwelling. This is considered to provide sufficient spaces for the development and accords with the county parking standards.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 8
Drainage
6.13 The proposed development indicates that the foul sewage would be disposed of via mains sewer, which Southern Water has advised can be provided subject to the attachment of condition.
6.14 As mentioned above at paragraph 6.10, the applicant also advises that surface water is to be disposed of via a SUDS scheme, which will incorporate grey-water harvesting to reduce the level of excess surface water. It is considered that this is an acceptable means of dealing with surface water drainage and subject to an appropriately worded condition; the details of the scheme can then be subsequently dealt with by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with its technical advisors.
Contributions
6.15 The proposal if approved would trigger the requirement to enter into a S106 agreement to secure the payment of contributions toward transport, and fire service infrastructure together with community facilities contributions. The County contributions which have been requested are £11,200. A District contribution of £14,539 is required toward community facilities, open space and recreation together with local recycling.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the following conditions and completion of an acceptable S106 Legal Agreement as set out above.
1. A2 Full Permission 2. D4 Obscure glazing (first floor north west elevation and first floor south east elevation of Unit 1) 3. D6 Finished Floor Levels 4. E3 Boundary treatments (including the wall along the boundary with No.29) 5. G3 Parking, Turning and Access in accordance with plan 6. Garages retained as parking 7. G6 Recycling (dwellings) 8. H6 Wheel Washing 9. H10 Cycling Provision 10. J13 Removal of permitted development – windows 11. V5 No Extensions (Units 2 and 5)
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 9
12. No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works, including the surface treatment of the access, parking and turning areas, have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 13. L2 Protection of trees 14. M1 Approval of materials 15. M8 Sustainable Construction (residential development) 16. Prior to the first occupation of the hereby approved dwelling numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5, the grey water harvesting system shall be brought into use and thereafter retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory development and to utilise sustainable construction techniques in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 17. O1 Hours of working 18. Full details of means of surface water drainage to serve the development, including management and maintenance plan of any SUDS scheme, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and in consultation with Southern Water, prior to works commencing on development. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 19. The developer must advise the Local Authority, in consultation with Southern Water, of the measures which will be undertaken to divert the public sewers, prior to the commencement of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Note to applicant: The applicant is advised to contact the Area Engineer, West Sussex County Council, Worthing Road, Broadbridge Heath, Horsham, RH12 3LZ, Tel No: 01243 642105 to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway APPENDIX A/ 7 - 10
8. REASONS
1. The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
2. The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
Background Papers: DC/10/2495 Contact Officer: Emma Parkes APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1 March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Conversion of former barn and stable building to 2-bed dwelling
SITE: Furzefield, Broadwater Lane, Copsale
WARD: Nuthurst
APPLICATION: DC/10/2205
APPLICANT: Mrs K Mathers
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Agent request to speak (Mr Chapman)
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the conversion of an existing building comprising storage barn and lean-to stables (5 in total) into a 2-bedroom self- contained dwelling.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The application site is located on the eastern side of Broadwater Lane and is accessed via an existing access track which runs to the north of the dwelling known as White Croft. The site has an area of approximately 0.16 hectares and is located outside any defined Built-Up Area boundary and as such is located within the countryside. The site is located to the east of the dwelling known as Furzefield, previously known as Broadwater Lane Nursery. The site is currently used in connection with an equestrian use run by the applicant in a hobby capacity and not on a commercial basis. The applicant currently resides within the ‘annexe’ associated with the main dwelling, Furzefield.
Contact: Karen Tipper Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2
1.3 The building the subject of this application is of painted brick, block and timber construction with a lean-to roof to an adjoining stable building. There are five stables located in the northern end of the application building with access from the north elevation. The eastern flank features a timber gable end and large double timber doors; the southern elevation is painted render. The lean-to section of the application building is attached via a roofed archway to another stable building to the west. The western elevation of the application building features a small door and a timber gable end. The building including storage barn and stables extends to approximately 167sqm.
1.4 To the north of the application site there is a hard surfaced informal courtyard which allows vehicular access to the stable areas. The land to the east and south of the application building is laid to grass. There are 6 stables sited in a linear pattern along the western boundary of the courtyard.
1.5 The area of land within the applicant’s ownership extends to approximately 10.98 hectares, including the yard and buildings extending to approximately 1.11 hectares. The remaining land in the applicant’s ownership extends to approximately 5.41 hectares of mixed deciduous woodland and 4.46 hectares of grasslands (applicant’s figures).
1.6 Within the blue edged area there is a block and timber stable range with 6 stables and 4 foaling boxes situated on the western side of the courtyard (approximately 213sqm). A Pole Barn with box profile cladding and block work walling, used as a hay store and occasionally for parking the horse lorry (approximately 173sqm); A Pole Barn clad with corrugated metal sheeting used for additional hay and bulk feed storage (approximately 52sqm); A two bay Pole Barn used for machinery storage (approximately 44sqm); A lunging ring (15.5m diameter); A sand school (22m x 15m); A covered horse-walker (140sqm); An L-shaped range of timber stables providing 5 loose boxes, an adjacent timber field shelter provides additional covered space for a horse if required (100sqm in total); A poor condition timber framed and timber clad storage building under fibre cement pitched roof. The planning history for these above mentioned structures is unclear.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS7
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15 and CP19
APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC8, DC9, DC24, DC27, DC29 and DC40
2.5 South East Plan: CC6, CC1, CC4 and C4
2.6 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
N/47/60 Proposed residential development. Refused 12/10/1960
N/25/76 Erection of 3 units for staff accommodation. Permitted 04/01/1977
N/9/78 Alterations and erection of single storey extension. Permitted 23/05/1978
N/10/80 Alterations and extension. Permitted 05/06/1980
N/25/80 Single storey extension. Permitted 24/09/1980
N/6/94 Alteration to existing. Permitted 23/03/1994
N/37/94 Conversion of building into accommodation for groom/security. Permitted 26/09/1994
DC/04/1328 Retention of horse walker. Permitted 16/08/2004
DC/08/1593 Conservatory to rear. Permitted 11/09/2008
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Public Health and Licensing: No objections to the proposal subject to the following:
There is the potential for loss of amenity if the occupant in the proposed farmhouse was not connected with the farm. A condition is recommended stating that the occupation of the proposed two bed dwelling shall be used solely by those who are connected with the equestrian centre at Furzefield. An ownership tie in clause may suffice in this respect.
Conditions regarding the burning of waste, hours of construction and delivered to the site during the implementation phases also recommended.
3.2 Building Control: Having looked at the plans, I would suggest the following items will need addressing/investigating prior to works commencing.
1. There would appear to be an issue in relation to Approved Document B5 (Access and facilities for the fire service). Turning facilities should be provided APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4
for any dead end access route (for a fire engine) more than 20m long, there does not appear to be one here. A sprinkler system would be a possible solution. 2. The suitability of the existing structure should be justified from a structural engineer. 3. Is the roof asbestos? If so this should be replaced and suitably removed. 4. The existing structure will require upgrading thermally, this may cause issues with access for disabled people (due to upgrading insulation to floor levels etc) and roof roof ventilation. 5. Boundaries will have to be clearly set out, particularly with reference to unprotected areas (glazing). 6. It is not clear how all the foul waste would be suitably removed, although this information could be provided at a later date, the owners may wish to think clearly about this prior to commencement.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.3 Nuthurst Parish Council: No objections
3.4 West Sussex County Council: From an inspection of the plans alone there is no apparent visibility issue onto Broadwater Lane, and the most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in this location. However, WSCC would recommend that the existing access to the site be upgraded to a highway specification available from the Area Engineer. It is recommended that the LPA secure the access improvements by condition.
No information has been submitted relating to the amount and location of the parking spaces, and WSCC would require more information regarding parking at the site. Cycle parking should also be provided at the site.
Ecology No strategic ecological objection subject to informative:
In the unlikely event that legally protected bats are found during conversion works should stop and Natural England be informed. A European Protected Species Licence may be required before works can continue.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.5 2 letters of support received from The British Horse Society and Equine Veterinary Practice advising that 24hour on site accommodation for the care of the horses is necessary.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development in this location; the amenities of neighbour and future occupiers, parking and highway safety issues; the impact and scale of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area, together with sustainability.
Principle of Development
6.2 The proposal is for the conversion of an existing building comprising five stables and storage located on the southern boundary of the courtyard. The six remaining stables located along the western boundary of the courtyard are to remain as are the ‘L-shaped’ range of timber stables located to the far south of the site nearest to the horse walker.
6.3 The applicant currently resides in the ‘annexe’ accommodation associated with the main Furzefield dwelling. This self-contained accommodation was granted planning permission under reference N/37/94 which was subject to the following condition restricting occupation:
The additional residential accommodation hereby approved shall only be occupied as part of the dwelling known as Broadwater Lane Nursery or occupied by a close relative or member of the household staff of the occupant of the main dwelling on the site. Reason: The site lies in an area where, in accordance with policies, development unrelated to an essential rural activity or ancillary accommodation would not normally be permitted.
6.4 The proposal would create an independent self-contained unit of accommodation to be occupied by the applicant and would be associated with the land outlined in blue on the submitted location plan and which is currently used for equestrian purposes by the applicant. The equestrian use has been confirmed as a small-scale private operation and which reflects the activity that was apparent at the time of the site visit. The proposed dwelling would not be associated with or occupied in connection with the existing bungalow and ‘annexe’ at Furzefield (previously known as Broadwater Lane Nursery).
6.5 The proposed dwelling to be created through the conversion of the existing storage barn and stables has been submitted under the auspices of policy DC24 of the Development Plan. This policy advises that outside the defined built-up areas, conversion of agricultural, forestry or rural buildings for business, commercial or residential development will be permitted where:
a) the buildings is suitably located in that it is not in an isolated position in relation to infrastructure, amenities and services; APPENDIX A/ 8 - 6
b) the building is of suitable scale for the level of activity proposed, and of suitable construction which is not so derelict as to require substantial reconstruction, and for proposals for residential use, is of traditional construction and/or architectural/ historic interest. c) the buildings are proved to have been in use for a period of 10 years or more; d) the proposed use will maintain or enhance the architectural character of the buildings and the character of their settings; and e) the proposed use can be accommodated in the existing buildings and car parking requirements can be accommodated satisfactorily within the immediate surrounds of the buildings.
6.6 Policy DC24 further advises that proposals for the conversion of buildings to business and commercial uses will be considered favourably over residential in the first instance. The loss of either existing commercial or agricultural uses to residential is dependent on an examination of the sustainability and suitability of the location and whether the building would be best preserved through the conversion to residential.
6.7 As previously mentioned the site is situated outside of any defined built-up area within the countryside and an isolated position poorly served by public transport together with the nature of the roads without footpaths or lighting, it is considered that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on the car for access purposes and would reinforce unsustainable patterns of development, thereby failing to meet criterion (a) of policy DC24
6.8 Furthermore, with the construction of the barn of brick, breeze block, and timber composition, it is considered that the barn is not of a traditional construction or of any architectural or historic merit and therefore its conversion would not be in compliance with the requirements as set out within criterion (b) of policy DC24.
6.9 In respect of criterion (d) of policy DC24, it is considered that given the above comments in respect of criterion (b) the proposed use would not maintain or enhance the architectural character of the buildings.
6.10 Policy DC24 indicates that proposals for the conversion of buildings to business and commercial uses will be considered favourably over residential in the first instance. Clearly any commercial use of the property would need to be of such a scale that it did not generate unacceptable levels of traffic. This objective is advocated within Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth which at Policy EC12 states that in the first instance preference for the re- use of buildings within the countryside should be for economic development purposes. This emphasis has been carried over from PPS7.
6.11 Such issues were considered in respect of application DC/09/1690 for the conversion of redundant farm buildings to form 1no. 2/3 bedroom dwelling at Frogmore Farm, Handcross Road, Plummers Plain, which was dismissed at appeal. In that instance the Inspector noted that: “Policy EC12.1b of PPS4 recognises that small-scale economic development, where it provides the most sustainable option in locations that are remote from local service centres, may be an acceptable location for development even though it may not be readily APPENDIX A/ 8 - 7
accessible by public transport. However, the emphasis of PPS4 is clearly on encouraging economic uses in preference to residential use when considering proposals for the re-use of buildings in the countryside”.
6.12 It is considered that given the relatively recent nature of this appeal and similarities between this aforementioned appeal decision and the current application, insofar as they both relate to the conversion of rural buildings, that the appeal decision forms useful guidance in the consideration of this current application at Furzefield.
6.13 The applicant has engaged an Estate Agent to provide a report on the suitability of conversion of the building as well as the suitability of alternative commercial or business uses in this location and in close proximity to an equestrian use. The report by White Professional Services advises that it is considered commercial or business uses would not be compatible with the equestrian use given the close proximity of buildings and the need for turning, parking and loading/unloading. The report does not include marketing details which your Officers consider would allow for the examination as to whether there was indeed any interest in the buildings for alternative commercial or business purposes as well as to assess whether on balance the proposed residential conversion may be more appropriate in this instance.
6.14 Notwithstanding the application being submitted under the auspices of policy DC24, given that the proposal is for a permanent dwelling in relation to a private equestrian operation within the countryside it is considered appropriate to have regard to national guidance for occupational dwellings, this being in the main PPS7, particularly as the applicant within their letter of 31 January 2011 advises that 24hour presence for the care and security of the horses is required. Therefore, it is contended that PPS7 is appropriate in the consideration of this proposal in this instance.
6.15 In respect of housing within the countryside, PPS7 requires new housing within the countryside to be appropriately justified and essential for its countryside location and should be for an identified local need. It states that new house building and other new development in the open countryside away from established settlements or areas allocated for development in the Development Plan should be strictly controlled. It further states at Annex A that:
“it is essential that all applications for planning permission for new occupational dwellings in the countryside are scrutinised thoroughly with the aim of detecting attempts to abuse (e.g. through speculative proposals) the concession that the planning system makes for such dwellings”.
6.16 As stated above, the applicant believes there is a necessity to be on site, a view which has been supported by the applicant’s vet together with a welfare officer at the British Horse Society, although the operation on site is of a very low key private operation and not a commercial business. It is noted that policy DC27 Essential Rural Workers Dwellings states that outside of the defined built up areas new housing for rural workers will be permitted in accordance with national planning policy (PPS7), which would include that in connection with the breeding and care of horses on a commercial basis (italics added). It is not considered that any APPENDIX A/ 8 - 8
substantive evidence has been submitted to justify setting aside strong policy objections to new development within the countryside particularly given the private and low key nature of the existing equestrian operation.
6.17 It is also noted that the equestrian use has up to now been adequately served by a permanent dwelling, Furzefield and its ‘annexe’ dwelling, the occupation of which as previously mentioned is tied to the main dwelling by condition. It is also noted that the equestrian land shown blue on the submitted plan, now owned by the applicant, has been severed from the main dwelling and annex.
6.18 It is considered that the proposed conversion and creation of a further dwelling for the purposes of supporting the existing private equestrian use, which had previously been served by Furzefield and ‘annex’, has not been appropriately justified or shown to be essential for its countryside location.
Character and Visual Amenity
6.19 In terms of design the proposed external alterations to the building are minimal and relate in the main to the fenestration. It is considered that these alterations would not be intrusive within the landscape or of detriment to the amenity of occupiers of adjacent properties.
Residential Amenities
6.20 In respect of the impact of the proposed use on the amenity of occupiers of residential occupiers adjacent to the site, it is considered that the proximity of the building the subject of this application and its associated equestrian use to the nearest residential dwelling, Furzefield (now severed in ownership from the equestrian use) may give rise a level of unacceptable disturbance for both occupiers, by reason of the boundary for Furzefield being hard up against the western elevation of the converted barn and amenity area.
Highway Safety, Access and Parking
6.21 The County Surveyor has not raised any objections to the proposed development, subject to the upgrading of the access drive, which can be secured by condition. The County Surveyor considered that the existing visibility splays are acceptable for the proposed development.
Contributions
6.22 The County would not be seeking any contributions toward local infrastructure improvements. District contributions would be sought for Open Space, Sport and Recreation of £1467, Community Centres and Halls £324 and Local Recycling of £162.
Conclusion
6.23 In conclusion, it is considered that the conversion of the storage barn and stables to residential accommodation outside the defined built up area and within an APPENDIX A/ 8 - 9
unsustainable location with limited access to services and amenities, would represent an unsustainable form of development and would be unacceptable and therefore contrary to local development plan policies. Furthermore, your Officers consider that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that there is a reasoned justified for the creation of a new self-contained dwelling to serve the equestrian use, to set aside the strong countryside policies restricting further development within the countryside to protect it for its intrinsic value.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The residential conversion of this building is considered inappropriate and would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development given the location of the site outside any defined built-up area and with poor access to services and facilities being remote from adequate public transport provision. Furthermore it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the buildings are unsuited to use for economic development purposes, or that the residential use would meet a specific local need. The proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP5, CP15 and CP19 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC24 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies and the provisions of PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13.
2. The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that there is a reasoned justification for the proposed dwelling to serve the proper functioning of the site in respect of any commercial equestrian use, as required by Annex A of planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and policy DC27 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) regarding rural workers dwellings.
3. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure and community facilities. The proposal is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs for the development would be met.
Background Papers: DC/10/2205 Contact Officer: Karen Tipper APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1.
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement with three- bedroom chalet bungalow
SITE: Squirrels, Old Holbrook, Horsham
WARD: Holbrook West
APPLICATION: DC/10/2448
APPLICANT: Mr Paul Leith-Smith
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Applicant request to speak
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and replacement with a three-bedroom chalet bungalow.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The application site is located on the west side of Old Holbrook and is located within the Countryside and thus lies outside of any identified built up areas. The site is relatively flat with a garden area that is mostly laid to lawn. There are a number of trees located along Old Holbrook itself, whilst the site has a two metre close boarded fence along the eastern boundary, the frontage is relatively open and exposed to views. The site area is approximately 0.34 hectares. Access is directly off of Old Holbrook which is itself a narrow lane. The surroundings of the application site are predominantly rural in nature.
Contact: David Taylor Extension: 5166 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 A series of planning permissions were granted in the mid and late 1960s for a service bungalow/cottage as follows:
HR/152/64 - Outline application for erection of service cottage or bungalow. Superseded by HR/195/64
HR/195/64 - Proposed service bungalow with vehicular access – permitted 11th December 1964
HR/19/65 – Proposed service bungalow – permitted 12th January 1965
HR/101/69 - Three bedroomed service bungalow – permitted 19th November 1969
More recent planning applications include the following:
DC/08/2316 - demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of a new 5 bed dwelling -refused 8th Jan 2009.
DC/09/0738 - Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement with new 4-bed dwelling – refused 17th June 2009. Appeal dismissed 8th December 2009 – Appeal Decision attached
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS7.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4 and CP19.
2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC1, DC2, DC9, DC28 and DC40.
2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4.
APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.1 North Horsham Parish Council - The Parish Council considers that the proposed development of a new dwelling will be an improvement to the rural landscape and has no objection to the application.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.2 None received
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development and the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities and character and appearance of the area.
6.2 The application site is situated outside of any built-up area boundary and as such is within the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies Document concerns countryside protection and enhancement, the main thrust of which is to protect and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the District’s countryside for its own sake. Development should be of a scale appropriate to its location.
6.3 Policy DC28 of the General Development Control Policies Control Document allows for replacement dwellings in the countryside, subject to a number of criteria. Replacement dwellings are not considered appropriate when the existing dwelling is abandoned or derelict. In this case it was evident during the site visit that the existing bungalow is currently inhabited and would not constitute a derelict building.
6.4 The policy also states that replacement dwellings will be permitted if the dwelling can be accommodated within the curtilage of the existing dwelling. Furthermore it must not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling. This is the key issue in respect of this application. Furthermore, any such proposal should not detract from the wider landscape setting and character of the area. APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4.
6.5 As is evident from the planning history outlined above, there have been a number of planning applications for a replacement dwelling on the site. Application reference DC/09/0738, which was for a replacement two storey dwelling was refused due to its impact on the character of the countryside location. The application was subsequently dismissed at appeal with the Inspector noting that due to the open nature of the frontage of the site and the size of the proposal, the scheme would materially harm the character and appearance of the area.
6.6 The current application under consideration differs from those previously refused and dismissed at appeal, in that the footprint of the proposed dwelling has been reduced in size from a 4 bed unit to a 3 bed unit and the two previous applications were for two storey dwellings. The proposal has an L shaped footprint, and has a projecting gable along its eastern elevation. The dwelling is based on a chalet style design and as such attempts to appear as 1.5 storeys. The height of the proposed dwelling would be 7.8m to the top of the ridgeline. The property would be sited further to the west than the existing property (away from the road) and would have a greater footprint than the existing property.
6.7 Of primary concern is the overall three dimensional size and scale of the proposed dwelling which is considered to be disproportionate to the size and scale of the existing dwelling particularly in respect of the proposed height. The proposal, despite showing dormer windows within the roof slope, is more reflective of a two storey dwelling given the proposed ridge height of 7.8m. The applicant contends that as the proposal has been reduced, the previous concerns regarding the size of the dwelling have been overcome. However, each application must be considered on its own merits and in this case the proposal must be assessed against the property it is proposed to replace and not against that of the refused proposal.
6.8 Again, the applicant has not provided elevation plans of the existing building, however, analysis of the proposed elevations in conjunction with on site observations, it is contended clearly reveal a disproportionate replacement. The massing, size and scale of the proposed replacement dwelling is significantly larger/more bulky in comparison to the existing single storey bungalow.
6.9 Whilst the submitted elevations demonstrate an intention to incorporate traditional design elements in the spirit of the West Sussex rural vernacular are noted, the intention of adopted policy is to prevent any significant encroachment and intensification of residential development within the countryside having a greater impact on the wider landscape. The increased size and bulk is considered visually intrusive and contributes to a significant increase in ‘urbanisation’ which is considered harmful to the visual amenity and character of the countryside environment. The proposal is considered to represent a disproportionate replacement and is not considered appropriate to this countryside location. The proposed scheme is considered contrary in particular to policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the Horsham Local Development Framework.
6.10 Whilst the replacement of the existing dwelling is considered acceptable in principle, the proposed design is considered to represent an inappropriate replacement given the increased scale, size and bulk compared to the existing property which is a modest style bungalow. Whilst the applicants have reduced APPENDIX A/ 9 - 5.
the footprint of the dwelling as previously refused (DC/09/0738 – Appeal Dismissed), the overall height of the proposed dwelling at 7.8m to ridge height is considered excessive.
6.11 Although the applicants have reduced the visual impact of the property and the affects of the proposed increase in height by setting the proposed development further back into the site, it is considered that these measures do not make the development any less disproportionate when compared against the existing property and as such is contrary to the aims of policy DC28. Furthermore, it is considered that the development as a whole would result in a detrimental visual impact on the wider landscape setting as it would still be visible in the landscape by virtue of its overall size and massing together and as such is also considered to be contrary to policy DC9.
6.12 It is noted that the development is sufficiently distanced from neighbouring properties and would not compromise the established levels of amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. This fact however, does not overcome the fact that the proposal directly conflicts with adopted policy and is therefore recommended for refusal.
7. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reason:
Refuse
The proposed replacement dwelling by reason of its size, siting and design would represent a dwelling disproportionate in size compared to the existing dwelling and would visually intrude upon the rural landscape resulting in an inappropriate increase in built form which is considered detrimental to the visual amenity and character of this countryside location. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 and policies CC1 and CC4 of the South East Plan 2008.
Background Papers: DC/10/2448 Contact Officer: David Taylor
APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1.
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Erection of agricultural barn with associated access track
SITE: Lot 5, Adams Field, Bulls Farm, Kerves Lane, Nuthurst
WARD: Nuthurst
APPLICATION: DC/09/2140
APPLICANT: Mr D Harman
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Member Referral – C`llor Duncan England
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application relates to the erection of an agricultural store building which measures 8.6m in length x 4.2m in width with a ridge height of 3.1m. The application also includes a new vehicular access off Kerves Lane with an access track to the proposed building and hardstanding. The application has been resubmitted following the refusal of a scheme in 2009 (DC/08/1860).
1.2 The site is known as Adams Field (also known as Lot 5) and is part of land originally belonging to Bulls Farm, which has been fragmented and sold as individual plots.
1.3 The earlier application (DC/08/1860) related to an open cart shed structure sited in a more prominent location with a different alignment of trackway. The Local Planning Authority was not satisfied that the need for an access and agricultural store had been demonstrated, particularly in this sensitive location. The proposal was subsequently refused on 12th January 2009.
Contact: Peter Harwood Extension: 5167 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2.
1.4 The current application has been revised in that the barn has been amended to the appearance of a stable building and further information received providing more details of the intended use of the site, together with ecological survey, transport survey and a tree survey
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.5 The application site is 3.6 ha in total with an existing vehicular access situated to the north of the site off Kerves Lane. The land consists mainly of an open field with designated ancient woodland outside the site on the north east and south east boundaries. A smaller area of ancient woodland is also situated within the site adjacent to Kerves Lane through which the proposed access track is to pass. There are no public rights of way in the immediate area other than Kerves Lane to the west of the site.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS4 and PPS7.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - The following policies are of particular relevant: CP1, CP3 and CP15.
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2, DC9, and DC40.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2.5 DC/08/1860 - Erection of barn and construction of access track - refused 12.1.09.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 None.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 Nuthurst Parish Council: Resolved to object to the proposal on the grounds that the development was out of keeping and would create sporadic development in the countryside.
APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3.
3.3 Southwater Parish Council supports the objection of Nuthurst Parish Council.
3.4 West Sussex County Council: Comment on highways and ecology. They raised no objection to the scheme and stated the following:
"The existing access is situated on the inside of a bend and has substantial, well-established hedgerows on either side. Consequently, visibility from the access is very poor and any improvement would have a detrimental effect on the adjoining hedgerows. In highway terms at least the continued use of this access is undesirable."
3.5 With regard to the proposed access, West Sussex County Council confirm that:
"The proposed new access is to be situated further southwards and in a position where significantly longer visibility splays can be achieved. Splays of 2.4m x 80m and 180m are shown as being achievable. The provision of such splays would signify a significant improvement to the existing access."
3.6 Although the full visibility splays for the new access cannot be fully achieved for this 40 mph road, the West Sussex County Council has concluded:
"On balance, consideration is given to the fact that the existing access is substandard and that this proposed access would signify a marked improvement."
3.7 West Sussex County Highways have also requested conditions being imposed on any subsequent approval relating to gates being set back 10mts from the edge of Kerves Lane, a turning area is provided within the site, the existing access be closed and maximum visibility splays are provided prior to development commencing.
3.8 Ecology – Originally expressed concern relating to possible endangered species being on site and possibly affected by the proposed works. An ecological survey was carried out, in particular to establish if dormice, bats, badgers, newts and reptiles etc. were present in the location of the proposed trackway. Following re- consultation the County Ecologist is now satisfied and has withdrawn his objection to the scheme providing mitigation measures, as described in the ecological report, are adhered to.
3.9 Forestry Commission - Have confirmed that an application for a "felling licence" for limited thinning in this location is still valid even though the woodland to which it relates has subsequently been designated ancient woodland.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.10 Three letters of objection were originally received; however two nearby residents have since withdrawn their objections. Therefore one letter of objection has been received against the application on the grounds that the proposal would result in the loss of general amenity and be intrusive resulting in the breaking up of the APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4.
countryside whereby the main aim ultimately is to obtain permission for a dwelling on the site.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are the principle of the proposed building in this location together with its agricultural justification and the effect of the development, including the proposed vehicular access and trackway on the character of this rural area and highway safety.
6.2 Within PPS4, one of the Government's key objectives is to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas by promoting thriving, inclusive and locally distinctive rural communities whilst continuing to protect the open countryside for the benefit of all.
6.3 Within Policy EC6 of PPS4, it advises that:
"Local Planning Authorities should ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it may be enjoyed by all."
6.4 It further states, inter alia, that in rural areas the Local Planning Authority should strictly control economic development in open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in Development Plans and set out criteria to be applied to planning applications for farm diversification, and support diversification for business purposes that are consistent in their scale and environmental impact with their rural location.
6.5 The current proposal follows an earlier application (DC/08/1860) which was refused. The current proposal represents a small scale development and is to form a new vehicular access onto Kerves Lane and provide a trackway with a hardstanding to a proposed agricultural building. The application proposes a repositioning of the building (following the earlier refusal) to a less obtrusive location situated adjacent to more mature planting. The applicant has also submitted supporting evidence including a Design and Access Statement and a Transport Statement to quality the need/justification for this development within the APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5.
countryside. An ecological survey and a tree survey have also been submitted. The trackway has been realigned to ensure that no trees within the ancient woodland would need to be felled for this development.
6.6 It is noted that there are no significant agricultural activities taking place on this site at the current time. However, the applicant has confirmed his intentions "to improve the land for the benefit of wildlife in the surrounding area with lots of additional planting to improve the habitat…”. The building proposed would provide a storage building for a tractor and agricultural equipment for maintenance of the land.
6.7 Your officers are of the view that the development, as now proposed, can be implemented without adversely affecting the character of the area to a significant degree. From additional information submitted with this application and consultees' responses, it would appear the works should not cause a detriment to the ecology of the area including trees within the ancient woodland through which the trackway is to pass. The replacement vehicular access is considered by County Highways to represent an improvement to highway safety due to the position of the existing vehicular access to the site being on the inside of a sharp bend. The proposed small agricultural store building (36sq.mts) is similar in design to a traditional stable building and is well-screened from public view. It is not therefore considered that there would be a material adverse impact on the visual amenities of the locality from this development.
6.8 With regard to the justification or "need" for such a building on this 3.6 ha site the applicant intends to work and manage the land with a five year plan to maintain and improve the land for the benefit of wildlife and at the same time carry out a horticultural use on the site. The applicant has confirmed his intention to have a horticultural growing area and in addition he intends to follow a 5 year program which include the erection of stock fencing, hay production on the lower field, stewardship hedging to be planted on most of the lower field boundaries, half an acre of rare tree planting, a wild flower meadow and a further area of tree planting consisting of Hazel, Sweet Chestnut, Walnut trees etc.
6.9 In conclusion, it is considered that a low profile shed of 36sq.mts appropriately located so as not to cause material harm to the ecology, visual amenities and character of the area and which provides a significant improvement to highway safety over the existing access represents a relatively small scale element of development and on balance, is deemed to be acceptable in this case subject to appropriate conditions being imposed.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Permission
APPENDIX A/ 10 - 6.
02 The building hereby permitted shall not be used other than by the applicant in association with land within his ownership and used for storage purposes only for equipment required for the maintenance of the land as set out in the application. In the event that the building is no longer required / used for its approved purpose it shall be demolished and all resultant materials, including the hard standing, removed from the site and the land reinstated to a field within 3mths from the permitted use ceasing.
Reason: The site lies in an area where, in accordance with policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) development unrelated to an essential rural activity would not normally be permitted.
03 No development shall take place until the access from the site to the public highway has been laid out and constructed in all respects in accordance with the submitted plan (drawing no. 3278/100 Rev A received on 24th November 2009) and shall include visibility splays 2m x 180m to the south and 2m x 80m to the north and no other work shall be carried out on the site until the above mentioned sightlines have been provided and thereafter the said sightlines shall be kept free from any obstruction to visibility in excess of 0.6m above the level of the adjoining carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with Policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies Document 2007.
04 The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access at the northern extremity of the site has been stopped up permanently in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with Policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies Document 2007.
05 L8 No Felling 06 L9 Wildlife Protection 07 M5 Timber and Wall Treatment
08 Any gates proposed at the entrance to the site off Kerves Lane must be sited at least 10m back from the back edge of the highway.
Reason: To enable vehicles waiting to enter the site to be clear of the main highway, in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy DC40 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document 2007.
APPENDIX A/ 10 - 7.
09 Before development is commenced precise details of the method of construction for the driveway and hardstanding, incorporating a permeable surface, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the roots of adjacent trees are not harmed and that the works are permeable in the interests of amenity and to accord with the aims of Policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document 2007.
Note to Applicant:
You are advised to ensure that in carrying out these works that no harm is caused to any protected species or their habitat and those trees situated within the ancient woodland are not damaged or felled during the implementation of the trackway and works.
8. REASONS
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
ITHP1 The proposed works to form the access would not affect the character and amenity of the area or the convenience and safety of other highway users.
Background Papers: DC/09/2140 Contact Officer: Peter Harwood
WK4/DC092140/46 APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1.
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Two storey side extension
SITE: 18 Tilletts Lane, Warnham
WARD: Warnham
APPLICATION: DC/10/2643
APPLICANT: Mrs Kim Frazer
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission for an extension to the side of the existing end of terrace dwelling to form an open car port with bedroom and bathroom over. The application follows from proposal DC/10/1755 which was withdrawn.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The application site is located on the east side of Tilletts Lane within the built-up area of Warnham. The area is characterised by semi-detached and terraced properties situated on rectangular-shaped plots. The property has a modern rear conservatory extension and there is a driveway to the side adjacent to the common boundary with no. 20 Tilletts Lane.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 DC/10/1755 - Permission was sought for a two storey side extension - application withdrawn on 9th November 2010.
Contact: Peter Harwood Extension: 5167 APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1 and CP3.
2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC3 and DC9.
2.5 Warnham Parish Design Statement
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.1 Warnham Parish Council - Objection:
"The design has been modified in response to objections to the previous application DC/10/1755 but in the opinion of the Council the concept of the proposed extension remains an unsatisfactory design solution and fails to meet the aspirations and Design Guidelines of the Warnham Parish Design Statement, which has been adopted by HDC as a Supplementary Planning Document."
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.2 One neighbour letter of objection from No.20 Tilletts Lane has been received on the following grounds:
loss of light to side windows creating a cramped effect to side garden path concentration of car fumes entering house increase in car noise pollution water and leaves would fall onto side passageway due to design, detrimental impact on street scene loss of property value house previously extended substantially noise and disruption during building works.
APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3.
3.3 Four letters of support have been received from occupiers in Tilletts Lane and stating that the proposal is not dominant to the terrace and would not be visually intrusive to the neighbourhood and that similar space/gap is left between other blocks in the road.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities and character of the locality and its impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers.
6.2 The proposal consists of a two storey extension which provides at ground floor level a carport open to the front and rear with a part side wall; and a bedroom and bathroom at first floor level. The extension has a footprint of 2.95 metres wide x 6.5 metres in length. The first floor element is set in 0.65 metres from the ground floor element (away from the common boundary) and incorporates a small monopitch roof which bridges the gap between the ground and first floor. The extension is set back 2.1 metres from the front elevation of the main dwelling and extends 1.6 metres out from the rear elevation. The extension roof is set down with the eaves level lower than the adjacent front gable feature and which now matches the eaves height on the main terrace. The extension is to be constructed in brick and tile.
6.3 Although the form and appearance of the extension introduces a further design element onto the dwelling it is considered that its set back position and lower height incorporates a subservient appearance to be acceptable in this location and would it is considered not cause material harm to the visual amenities or character of the area or compromise the aims of Development Plan policies.
6.4 The Warnham Parish Design Statement strives to maintain the characteristics of the Parish by requiring new development to take into account variety, individuality and diverse nature of architecture, housing, gardens and boundaries. The Design Statement does not relate to specific locations in this regard or give more detailed requirements or limitations. It is considered that the modest extension proposed is acceptable as it does not compromise the aims of the Design Statement for new development within the village of Warnham.
APPENDIX A/ 11 - 4.
6.5 Concerns have been expressed regarding the loss of residential amenities to the occupiers at no. 20. Although the extension is set forward of the forward most wall of No. 20, it is positioned so that it is outside of a 45o line drawn from the first floor habitable front bedroom window of the adjacent dwelling and thus there is no material over bearing or loss of outlook impact in this respect. With regard to the impact on the side windows of No.20, these are a hall window and back door at ground floor level and a landing window at 1st floor. These do not serve habitable rooms. The main outlook for No.20 is to the front and rear which is unaffected by the proposals. Therefore the concern at the loss of outlook and light from these non-habitable room windows on the side elevation is only limited. There are no windows proposed in the side/north elevation of the extension and the proposed front window is a bathroom with a proposed bedroom window at the rear of the extension.
6.6 The resultant gap between these two properties will consist of a side passage to no. 20 of 1.3 metres in width. The proposed extension, at ground floor level, will be partly open (to the carport) and the first floor element is to be set in away from the boundary by 0.65 metres. These factors will also help to reduce the impact of the extension on the residential amenities of adjacent occupiers. Furthermore, there are similar gaps between other properties in Tilletts Lane and so the result will not be uncharacteristic in the locality.
6.7 In conclusion, it is considered that the amended application (following the earlier proposal for a larger extension which was subsequently withdrawn) in terms of its size, siting and design is acceptable in this location. It is considered to be in scale and character with the existing dwelling and by reason of its set back form, mass and height should not cause material harm to the residential amenities of adjacent occupiers or detract from the visual amenities and character of the street scene. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims of Policies contained within the Development Plan and is not considered to be inconsistent with the aims of the Warnham Parish Design Statement.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted and to include the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Permission 02 M4 Matching Materials
03 No additional windows in the first floor North elevation of the building shall be installed unless they are obscure glazed and made non-opening, unless, the parts of the window that can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed, the details of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. Thereafter the window shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details at all times. APPENDIX A/ 11 - 5.
Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
Background Papers: DC/10/2643 Contact Officer: Peter Harwood
WK4/DC102643/46 APPENDIX A/ 12 - 1.
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Extension to rear and extension and conversion of attic space to provide additional living space
SITE: 12 The Plat, Horsham
WARD: Trafalgar
APPLICATION: DC/10/2578
APPLICANT: Mr L. Fowler
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak
RECOMMENDATION: The decision be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, to await the expiry of the period for re-consultation, with a view to granting permission.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission for an extension to the rear of the existing semi- detached bungalow incorporating rooms in the roof and associated internal works. The application has been amended during the course of its consideration by the deletion of the first floor window facing west towards properties in Irwin Drive and the insertion of 2 roof lights on the south roof slope. Neighbouring properties have been re-notified.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The application site is located at the end of The Plat which is a cul-de-sac within the built-up area of Horsham Town. The area is characterised by 1950`s semi- detached bungalows situated in the main on rectangular shaped plots but with four properties, including the application site, situated at the end of the cul-de-sac being
Contact: Peter Harwood Extension: 5167 APPENDIX A/ 12 - 2.
on triangular shaped plots. The application property has not been previously extended. The rear of the property faces due west towards properties in Irwin Drive with a row of preserved pine trees on land at the rear of their gardens (TPO52).
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 HU/36/55 - Proposed 55 bungalows and 47 houses - permitted
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1 and CP3.
2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC3 and DC9.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Council's Tree Officer has been consulted with regard to possible impact of the works on the roots of adjacent preserved Corsican Pine trees (TPO 52). As a result of the distances involved and the extent of the root protection area (RPA), the Tree Officer considers that the proposal is unlikely to cause damage to any of the adjacent protected trees or result in inappropriate post-development pressures on them to prune or fell. He therefore raises no objection to the scheme.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 None received.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.3 Eight letters of objection (two from no. 10 The Plat and 2 from the owner and the occupier of 14 Irwin Drive) have been received on the following grounds:
overlooking/loss of privacy loss of light including direct sunlight design out of keeping with adjacent properties APPENDIX A/ 12 - 3.
proposal would change bungalow to a two storey dwelling and thereby alter the character of the area detrimental to the roots of adjacent preserved trees over-development of the site due to limited garden length noise
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities and character of the locality, its impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers and the impact of the works on the roots of nearby preserved trees.
6.2 The current proposal is to erect an extension 3m in depth x 7.3m in width across the entire rear elevation of this semi-detached dwelling. The proposal is to form a kitchen and sitting room enlargement on the ground floor with a bedroom over within the resultant roof space. Amended plans have been submitted deleting the main bedroom window at first floor level on the west elevation which ,it is considered would have caused a detriment to the amenities of residents in Irwin Drive by reason of overlooking/loss of privacy. The amended scheme therefore proposes two roof lights situated in the south facing roof slope of the extension. Due to their height within the roof slope, angle of sight and distance to adjacent properties, it is considered that the roof lights in the position proposed will not cause a material detriment to the amenities of adjacent occupiers, particularly with regard to overlooking/loss of privacy and thereby complies with the aims of Policy DC9 contained within the Development Plan.
6.3 The pitched roof extension is sited adjacent to a single storey flat roof extension on the rear of No. 10 The Plat. The proposed addition extends no further down the garden than the existing flat roof extension on the rear of the attached dwelling. The eaves height of the proposed extension is lower than the flat roof of the adjacent property with the roof sloping away from the common boundary between the two semi-detached dwellings. Although the extension is sited directly south of No.10 it is considered that by reason of its design, height, position and the built form at No.10, it would not cause material harm to the residential amenities of the adjacent occupiers to a significant degree, from overlooking and loss of light.
APPENDIX A/ 12 - 4.
6.4 The changes to the roof would result in the hipped roof of the existing semi- detached bungalow being altered to form a half-hipped design similar to two other properties in The Plat. It is considered that the changes to the main roof and the proposed extension sited on the rear of the property would not cause material harm to the visual amenities or character of the area to justify a refusal of planning permission in this case.
6.5 The Council's Tree Officer has inspected the site and has confirmed that the foundations of the proposed extension would not be constructed within the root protection area (RPA) and therefore he considers that the future health of the nearby preserved trees will not be adversely affected by the proposed works.
6.6 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed extension, as amended, by reason of its size/scale and position, would not cause material harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers such to justify a refusal of planning permission or adversely affect the visual amenities/character of the area or cause a detriment to the future health of adjacent preserved trees. The proposed extension is therefore considered not to conflict with adopted policies contained within the Development Plan.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that the decision be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services upon expiry of the re-consultation period ,with a view to planning permission being granted subject to the following conditions:-
01 A2 Full Permission 02 M4 Matching Materials 03 D5 No Windows
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re- enacting the same, no windows or other openings shall be formed in the first floor west facing elevation of the development without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 04 D4 Obscured Glass The window in the first floor bathroom south facing elevation of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscure glass…
Note to Applicant
You are advised to ensure that no garden works, excavations, construction of patios, hard surfaces etc. take place within the root protection area of the adjacent preserved trees without the necessary consent being obtained from the Local Planning Authority under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act (Trees) Regulations 1999.
APPENDIX A/ 12 - 5.
8. REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
Background Papers: DC/10/2578 Contact Officer: Peter Harwood WK4/DC102578/46 APPENDIX A/ 13 - 1 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT abcd
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Enclose existing covered area between garage and house with doors (front and rear), construct new mono pitch roof to replace existing flat roof to front of house and dual pitch roof over front part of existing flat roofed garage
SITE: 46 Grebe Crescent, Horsham
WARD: Forest
APPLICATION: DC/10/2604
APPLICANT: Mr Neil Cargill
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission to enclose an existing covered area between the garage and house with doors (front and rear), construct a new mono pitch roof to replace an existing flat roof to front of house and a dual pitch roof over the front part of the existing flat roofed garage.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 46 Grebe Crescent is a two storey detached property which is part of a 1970’s open plan development located within the Built Up Area of Horsham.
Contact: Lorraine Rogers Extension: 5435 APPENDIX A/ 13 - 2.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 DC/10/2006 – A Lawful Development Certificate (Proposed) application, to enclose existing covered area between garage and house with doors (front and rear), construct new monopitch roof to replace existing flat roof was withdrawn on 14th December 2010. (The same proposal as those the subject of the current planning application)
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1 and CP3.
2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC3 and DC9
2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan 2009 are CC1 and CC4
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.1 Forest neighbourhood Council – No objection
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.2 2 letters of objection have been received from number 44 Grebe Crescent relating to:-
The description of the application. Distance between the adjacent dwelling and the garage which forms the boundary with 44 Grebe Crescent. Loss of light to hall and kitchen. Height of the proposed garage roof. Dominate and overshadow lounge.
3.3 No other representations or consultation responses have been received.
APPENDIX A/ 13 - 3.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the proposal gives rise to any crime and disorder implications.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application include the proposals impact on the character of the area, the visual amenities of the street scene and on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers.
6.2 A Lawful Development Certificate (DC/10/2006) to enclose existing covered area between garage and house with doors (front and rear), construct new monopitch roof to replace existing flat roof was withdrawn as it was considered the proposal would not meet the relevant permitted development criteria.
6.3 The description of the current application has been amended from “enclose existing covered area between garage and house with doors (front and rear), construct new monopitch roof to replace existing flat roof” to “enclose existing covered area between garage and house with doors (front and rear), construct new mono pitch roof to replace existing flat roof to front of house and dual pitch roof over front part of existing flat roofed garage” in order to clarify the description.
6.4 The existing covered area between the garage and dwellinghouse is currently secured by a gate in the front elevation and the proposal would include a door to be inserted to the front and rear of this area. It is considered that the two doors would not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring properties or have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
6.5 The existing flat roof over the front open porch, dining room bay, passageway between the garage and dwellinghouse are stated to be in need of repair and are to be replaced by a monopitch roof. It is considered these proposed alterations would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
6.6 The front 3m section of the garage flat roof is to be replaced by a pitch roof which would increase the height of the garage by 1m. The remaining 2.9m rear section of the garage will remain a flat roof.
6.7 The adjacent property to the east is set further back than the application property and the garage wall forms part of the boundary between numbers 44 and 46. The garage for number 46 is set further forward that the front building line of number 44.
APPENDIX A/ 13 - 4.
The side wall of the garage facing number 44 is mostly screened by planting which reduces the view of the garage from the neighbouring property.
6.8 Having viewed the proposal from the adjacent property 44 Grebe Crescent, whilst it is acknowledged the proposed alteration to the garage roof would be visible from the lounge, it is however not considered to be overpowering, dominating or overshadowing to such an extent to warrant refusal of planning permission, in light of normal Development Management Criteria.
6.9 The applicant had considered a hip end to the proposed garage roof to reduce the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property; this option was however discounted, in part due to the potential need for guttering on the flank elevation in the vicinity of the common boundary.
6.10 In conclusion it is considered that the proposal complies with relevant Development criteria and would not materially affect the character of the existing house, adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers or the visual amenities of the street scene such to warrant refusal of planning permission and is therefore considered acceptable.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Permission 02 M6 Prescribed Materials
Note to Applicant:
You are advised that the proposed development must be undertaken within the curtilage of the application site.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
IDP 1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
Background Papers: DC/10/2604
Contact Officer: Lorraine Rogers
APPENDIX A/ 14 - 1. DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management (North) Committee
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March, 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Surgery to one Robinia tree.
SITE: Land outside 8 and 10 South Grove, Horsham. WARD: Forest.
APPLICATION: DC/11/0011
APPLICANT: Marcus Brooke, West Sussex County Council.
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by West Sussex County Council.
RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application proposes surgery to a Robinia, or ‘False Acacia’ tree (Robinia pseudoacacia).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The tree in question is growing on the verge to the highway outside nos. 8 and 10 South Grove, Horsham.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 The tree is protected due to its position within area A1 of Tree Preservation Order number 82, confirmed on 7th January 1964.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 As a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local
Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 14 - 2.
Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.1 No representations have been received in respect of this application.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
Not applicable in this case.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The tree in question is a moderately tall specimen sited in a prominent position on the roadside verge, land owned by West Sussex County Council. It is managed by the County’s Highways Department.
6.2 It is highly visible in the streetscene, and has high amenity value.
6.3 Many years ago it was hard pruned to around 8m in height in order to restrict its growth, as it had been found to have damaged adjacent drains, which run immediately to the tree’s north within 1.4m of the trunk. It has recovered well from this work, and has developed an attractive well-shaped crown from the original pruning points. Dieback from the pruning points appears minimal, and the tree remains in good overall condition, exhibiting good vigour and vitality.
6.4 Recent inspection of the adjacent drainage system has once more revealed damage which appears to be root-related. There are no other trees in the immediate vicinity, and hence there can be no doubt that the specimen in question is responsible. The drains have recently been repaired, but the County Council seek to minimise the likelihood of the tree causing further damage, involving considerable expense. Clearly the only sure way to do this is to fell the tree, but the County Council recognises its high amenity value in the streetscene, and see this as an undesirable outcome. It is therefore proposed to re-pollard the tree back to the original pruning points, and allow it to develop a new fresh crown as before.
6.5 Given the actual physical damage the tree has caused, it is laudable of the County Council to seek a solution to this problem other than outright removal. The works will assuredly result in an adverse effect upon the aesthetic appearance of the tree, and thereby its amenity value. But the species is reasonably tolerant of such APPENDIX A/ 14 - 3.
pruning works, and similarly resistant to decay. The temporary loss of amenity is in your officer’s judgement outweighed in this case by the need to support the County Council’s wish to retain the tree, which in time will once again contribute to the character and amenities of the locality.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. TR3 Treeworks limit: Crown reduce tree by trimming back to original pollard points at approximately 8m above ground level. 3. TR4 Surgery standards. INF7 Works limitations. INF8 Wildlife protection.
8. REASONS
ITRE3 The proposal will have an adverse impact upon the character and amenities of the local area for a limited period, but is justified in this case and represents best arboricultural practice.
Background Papers: DC/11/0011 Contact Officer: Will Jones.
APPENDIX A/ 15 - 1. DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management (North) Committee
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March, 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Fell 3 ash trees, surgery to 2 ash trees.
SITE: Pond Farm Ghyll woodland, south of Cedar Drive, Southwater. WARD: Southwater.
APPLICATION: DC/11/0013
APPLICANT: Mark Pullen, Horsham District Council.
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by Horsham District Council.
RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application proposes the felling of three ash trees (T0526, T1228, T1292) and surgery to two more (T1282, T0325).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The trees in question are woodland specimens in five different positions within the area of Pond Farm Ghyll, between the Timbermill estate to the west and the Cedar Drive/Pevensey Road estate to the east.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 The area is owned by Horsham District Council and managed by the Leisure Services Department.
1.4 The area is registered Ancient Woodland.
1.5 The area is protected by woodland Tree Preservation Order number 534, confirmed on 6th May 1986.
Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 15 - 2.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 As trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Southwater Parish Council has stated no objection to the proposals.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
Not applicable in this case.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The area of land in question, retained either side of the ghyll, is heavily wooded, and constitutes a most desirable environmental feature bisecting this densely developed part of the village. Protected by Tree Preservation Order, and designated as Ancient Woodland, it is managed as an amenity area, and is open to the general public. Informal pathways bisect the area.
6.2 As with any woodland area of open access, as landowners the Council Leisure Services Department have a legal Duty of Care to ensure that, within the bounds of what is considered reasonable, trees which have been identified as structurally unsound are managed pro-actively. Full removal is not always necessary, but occasions arise where amenity considerations must take second place to general public safety.
6.3 The three trees to be felled have all been identified as structurally unsound, and are poor drawn up woodland specimens of little merit. All three are sited within striking range of one of the public footpaths, or the garden to an adjacent dwelling. They are considered to have very little merit, and are not worth persevering with. They would better be replaced.
6.4 The two trees targeted for surgery are much larger specimens, but as well as exhibiting structural deficiency, are also in close proximity to pathways and APPENDIX A/ 15 - 3.
adjoining properties. It is therefore considered that there is a moderate risk to the general public. T0325 exhibits a serious occluded wound on its main stem, above which is a great deal of weight and ‘sail area’ facing the prevailing wind. It is therefore considered prudent to crown reduce this tree, to lessen its sail area, by up to 30%. T1282 is a specimen with co-dominant stems from ground level, these stems seeking light and growing further and further apart. The basal area is weakened, and hence it appears prudent to heavily reduce the loading on these stems to minimise the likelihood of structural failure.
6.5 Neither the felling of the 3 trees, nor the surgery to the 2, will result in any serious loss of amenity to the area. Indeed, the works are considered necessary on safety grounds and are hence recommended for approval. The three trees to be felled shall be replaced by other suitable woodland specimens. It is proposed that the works shall be carried out prior to the commencement of the bird nesting season.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. L7b Replanting (refers to trees T0526, T1228 and T1292) 3. TR3 Treeworks limit: Tree T1282: Crown reduce tree by up to 40%. Tree T0325: Crown reduce tree by up to 30%. 4. TR4 Surgery standards. INF7 Works limitations. INF8 Wildlife protection.
8. REASONS
ITRE1(b) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area.
Background Papers: DC/11/0013 Contact Officer: Will Jones.
APPENDIX A/ 16 - 1. DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management (North) Committee
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 1st March, 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Fell 1 Scots pine tree, fell 1 (unknown) tree.
SITE: Strawford Centre, Blatchford Close, Horsham. WARD: Roffey South.
APPLICATION: DC/11/0020
APPLICANT: West Sussex County Council.
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by West Sussex County Council.
RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application as submitted proposes the felling of 4 live trees and 5 dead trees, as well as surgery to 9 other trees. However, of these only trees T2 (Scots pine) and T16 (species stated as ‘unknown’) are protected by a Tree Preservation Order or any other constraint. Hence the application refers solely to these two trees.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The two protected trees are sited on the eastern boundary of the site, contiguous with the Blatchford Road industrial estate. T2 is on an area of open space to the immediate south of the vehicular access into the site. T16 is within a densely foliated area to the west of Unit 5 of the industrial estate. The Strawford Centre is owned by West Sussex County Council.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 The trees in question are protected by virtue of their position within Area A2 of Tree Preservation Order number 84, confirmed on 26 May 1964.
Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 16 - 2.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 As trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.1 No representations have been received in respect of this application.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
Not applicable in this case.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 Tree T16 appears to be the remains of a wild pear tree, but is stone dead, and thereby exempt from the requirement to seek consent for removal.
6.2 Tree T2 is a moderately sized Scots pine tree of considerable amenity value. Sited at the entrance to the Strawford Centre, it frames the entrance, and is prominent in the immediate locality. It has an attractive form, and an aesthetically pleasing shape.
6.3 Some years ago a footpath attendant to the access into the centre was constructed within 900mm of the base of the northern edge of the tree. This cannot have been constructed without a degree of root severance in this area, and it is likely to have been via this route that infection has found its way into the tree. Brackets of the decay fungus Phaeolus schweinitzii are present on the northern and eastern sides of the basal area of the trunk (though are necrotic at this time of year). Although only a small basal hollow is evident, examination by acoustic assessment clearly indicates extensive internal hollowing. Lonsdale (Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management, DETR, 1999) notes in reference to Phaeolus that: “the brown-rot in the decayed wood leads to brittle fracture of the stem or to root- plate failure due to the severe loss of tensile strength”. It is well known to cause windthrow in Scots pine especially, and is a markedly dangerous pathogen.
APPENDIX A/ 16 - 3.
6.4 It is also noted that within the higher parts of the main stem are a number of wounds, two in particular showing a clear coalescence of decay representing a structural compromise.
6.5 The crown of this tree consists of long pendulous heavy principal branches, ill- suited to weight reduction by surgery. Hence the management of the risk that the tree represents is limited.
6.6 Within 2.5m of the access road into the site, and only 11m from the building itself, the tree has a ‘target zone’, in terms of windthrow, which cannot be moved or cordoned off. The area in question is very busy with vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians, many of whom are severely disabled.
6.7 In the circumstances, it is considered that the tree’s amenity worth is outweighed by safety considerations, which in this case cannot be effectively assuaged other than by removal.
6.8 The applicants have recommended no replacement tree planting on the site, on the grounds that it contains a large number of self-seeded saplings around the peripheries. This is true, and acceptable in the case of T16. However, T2 is of particularly high amenity value in the locality, and can be regarded as a specimen tree. It is therefore considered that replacement should be required by condition so as to uphold and maintain the character and amenities of the area.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. L7a Replanting (note: refers to tree T2 only). INF7 Works limitations. INF8 Wildlife protection.
8. REASONS
ITRE2 The proposal may have an adverse impact on the character and amenities of the local area, but is justified on safety grounds.
Background Papers: DC/11/0020 Contact Officer: Will Jones.