South) Committee TUESDAY 17TH SEPTEMBER 2013 at 2.00P.M

E-mail: CommitteeServices@horsham.gov.uk

Direct line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 17TH SEPTEMBER 2013 AT 2.00p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman) Sheila Matthews Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur Liz Kitchen Adam Breacher Gordon Lindsay Jonathan Chowen Brian O’Connell Philip Circus Roger Paterson Roger Clarke Sue Rogers George Cockman Kate Rowbottom David Coldwell Jim Sanson Ray Dawe Diana van der Klugt Brian Donnelly Claire Vickers Jim Goddard

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20th August 2013 (attached)

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

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

5. To consider the following reports and to take such action thereon as may be necessary

Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A

Horsham District Council, Park North, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL Tel: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) www.horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 Chanctonbury DC/13/1265 Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close Storrington

A2 Henfield DC/13/1266 Land East of Manor Close Henfield

A3 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/13/1187 Land North of The Rise Partridge Green and West Grinstead

A4 Chantry DC/13/1038 Sandhill Farm House Sandhill Lane Washington Pulborough

A5 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/13/1325 Homelands Nursing Home Horsham and West Grinstead Road Cowfold

A6 Pulborough and DC/13/1048 Broomers Hill Park Broomers Hill Lane Coldwaltham Codmore Hill

A7 Bramber, Upper DC/13/0831 Francis Lodge Hyde Street Upper Beeding and Beeding Steyning Woodmancote

A8 Chantry DC/13/1342 Land South of Springwood Sandgate Lane Storrington

A9 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/13/1464 Whitefoots Dial Post Horsham and West Grinstead

A10 Bramber, Upper DC/13/0701 Land South of Stortford Coombe Drove Beeding and Bramber Woodmancote

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

DCS130820

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 20th August 2013

Present: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Sheila Matthews (Vice- Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, Roger Clarke, Brian Donnelly, Jim Goddard, Gordon Lindsay, Brian O’Connell, Roger Paterson, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson, Claire Vickers

Apologies: Councillors: George Cockman, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Liz Kitchen, Diana van der Klugt

DCS/26 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16th July 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/27 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor David DC/13/0609 Personal and Prejudicial – he lives Jenkins adjacent to the site Councillor Sue DC/13/0609 Personal and Prejudicial – she is a Rogers close associate of one of the complainants

DCS/28 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCS/29 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/0139 18 Downlands, Pulborough Mr and Mrs Les Boorman DC/13/0176 Lupin Cottage, Hampers Lane, Ms Davis Storrington DC/12/2378 Land south of The Chase, Mill Lane, Delcraven Ltd Partridge Green DC/13/0681 Greenlees, London Road, Henfield Mrs Emma Ratcliffe

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/29 Appeals (cont.)

Informal Hearings

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/0208 Adams Yard, West End Lane, Mr and Mrs C Jones Henfield

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/12/2133 10 Bedford Square, Mrs Pat Bourne Allowed Partridge Green DC/12/2317 Land east of Sawyards, Ms Yvonne Allowed Manleys Hill, Storrington Ferguson DC/12/1431 Old Oaks, Spinney Lane, Mr Patrick Shaw Allowed West Chiltington DC/12/0908 Walden Hall, Cowfold Mr David Dismissed Road, West Grinstead Bostock

The Committee noted that the appeal decision on DC/12/1431 was being looked into by officers.

DCS/30 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0735 – DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE UP TO 475 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, LAND TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL AND LAND TO ACCOMMODATE AN EXTENSION TO EXISTING DOCTORS' SURGERY, LAND FOR NEW DENTIST'S SURGERY AND CRECHE (FALLING WITHIN CLASS D1), WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PLAY SPACE. SUCH DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE PROVISION OF STRATEGIC LANDSCAPE, PROVISION OF NEW VEHICULAR, CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTES, ANCILLARY ENGINEERING AND OTHER OPERATIONS (OUTLINE) SITE: LAND EAST OF BILLINGSHURST TO NORTH AND SOUTH OF A272 EAST STREET BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: BELLWAY HOMES, RYDON GROUP, DEVINE HOMES AND RESIDE DEV

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the erection of up to 475 residential dwellings, land to accommodate a new primary school, an extension to a doctor’s surgery and a dentist's surgery and crèche with associated access and play space. The development would include strategic landscape provision as well as the provision of new vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access routes and ancillary engineering operations. As this was an outline application, details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be reserved for a future application with the access being the only matter for which approval was partially sought at this stage.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/30 Planning Application: DC/13/0735 (cont.)

The application had been amended since its original submission and full consultation had been undertaken on both the original and amended plans. Following detailed discussions the number of units had been reduced from up to 510 to 475. The scheme proposed 154 (32.4%) affordable homes comprising 50% rented and 50% shared ownership. The applicant had indicated that, should the affordable housing element of 154 units be reduced by 5%, a contribution of £1.72m could be paid towards community facilities within the Parish of Billingshurst.

The application site was located outside the built-up area and consisted of an almost wholly undeveloped greenfield site, except where the A272 crossed the site in an east-west direction as it entered Billingshurst. Existing residential development in Billingshurst was located to the west of the site. In general, the application site was more open on its northern side and bounded to the south and east by hedgerows and the western boundary was defined by mature trees. Billingshurst Conservation Area partially adjoined the application site on its western boundary.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP8, CP9, CP12, CP13, CP14, CP17 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC12, DC13, DC18, DC21, DC22 and DC40; the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); the Planning Obligations SPD; and the Billingshurst Design Statement were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/1654 Development comprising the demolition of Refused existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to provide up to 550 dwellings (Class C3), land to accommodate a new primary school and land to accommodate a dentist's surgery and creche (falling within Class D1), with associated access and play space. Such development to include provision of strategic landscape, provision of new vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access routes, ancillary engineering and other operations (Outline)

The previous outline application DC/11/1654 for up to 550 units had been refused by the Committee in July 2012 (Minute No. DCS/24 (17.07.12) refers). An appeal had been lodged against this decision, which had been recovered for determination by the Secretary of State. The appeal scheme had been amended to 510 units and the appeal would be considered in October 2013.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/30 Planning Application: DC/13/0735 (cont.)

The principle changes to the previous refused application and the current application included a reduction in the number of units, a reduction in some plot sizes, the provision of a green corridor, an increase in open space provision and planting including hedgerows.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee, together with the response from Environmental Health, received subsequent to the preparation of the report, who raised no objection subject to appropriate conditions. In particular the comments of the Landscape Architect were noted. The Parish Council objected to the application. 143 letters of objection, ten of support and one of comment had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and three members of the public spoke in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The application had been submitted under the auspices of the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This document had arisen from the need to provide flexibility to ensure that there was sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. The document set out the requirements against which such planning applications for development, on greenfield and brownfield sites adjoining defined settlement boundaries in the District, would be considered. Whilst, potentially, the application site fell within the remit of the FAD SPD and could be considered as being suitable for development, it was necessary for the proposal to meet the requirements of all the relevant criteria for support to be given for the development of up to 475 dwellings on a site outside the built-up area.

Billingshurst was a Category 1 settlement, as defined by Policy CP5, and was therefore potentially capable of accommodating some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.

Members noted that the first phase of the development would include the development of a new roundabout junction between the proposed spine road through the site and the A272.

Members accepted there was a need for more housing land to be identified and given planning permission in order to help meet the shortfall in the five year supply. The South East Plan had been revoked but its housing targets remained relevant to the determination of the application.

Members expressed concerns regarding the scale of the proposed development and considered it would have a significant impact upon the landscape and character of the area. However, it was acknowledged that government policies and targets had to be adhered to when determining the application and it was noted that, from a strategic perspective, in the current circumstances, there was no objection in principle to the development of the site that could be upheld should the application be reconsidered at Appeal.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/30 Planning Application: DC/13/0735 (cont.)

Members considered that the affordable housing units should benefit the local community and therefore be made available to local people in the first instance.

Whilst Southern Water and the Environment Agency had raised no objection, Members noted residents’ concerns regarding potential flooding and requested that drainage and potential flooding issues should be investigated during the determination of the application.

Members noted the £1.72m contribution offered by the applicants in lieu of 5% affordable housing and considered that the contribution to benefit the local community should be agreed during the determination of the application.

Members noted the amendments that had been made to the proposal in consultation with officers and considered the potential impact of the proposal on Billingshurst and on the visual character of the area in the context of current planning policy. On balance Members considered that in this case the potential benefits outweighed any potential harm and the application was therefore considered acceptable in principle, subject to an appropriate legal agreement.

RESOLVED

(i) That a legal agreement be entered into to secure financial contributions and highway works.

(ii) That the proposed 32.4% affordable housing provision be amended to 27.4% affordable housing to allow for the provision of a capital contribution of £1.72m towards community facilities.

(ii) That, subject to the completion of (i) and (ii) above, application DC/13/0735 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Local Members for the framing of conditions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/31 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0787 – DEVELOPMENT OF 160 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS (COMPRISING 10 X 5-BED, 49 X 4-BED, 24 X 3- BED, 67 X 2-BED AND 10 X 1-BED) TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE AND ACCESS SITE: LAND AT JUNCTION OF STONEPIT LANE AND WEST END LANE HENFIELD APPLICANT: MR ROB PHILLIPS

The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of 160 dwellings together with associated landscaping, open space and access. The proposal would provide 40% affordable housing in a mix of sizes and tenure split.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/31 Planning Application: DC/13/0787 (cont.)

The application site was located outside the built-up area boundary to the west of Henfield on the northern side of West End Lane. There were residential properties in Staples Barn Lane to the east and Hollands Road to the south of the site. Stonepit Lane which served a number of detached dwellings and Stonepit Kennels was to the west of the site. There was open countryside to the north and to the west and south there was a mix of smaller fields and paddocks characterised by sporadic residential development.

The South Downs Link public footpath was immediately to the east of the site, a public footpath followed the eastern boundary and crossed the middle of the site and a public footpath followed Stonepit Lane to the west of the site.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40; the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); the Planning Obligations SPD; and the Henfield Parish Design Statement were relevant to the determination of this application.

There was no relevant planning history in relation to this site.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Since preparation of the report the County Surveyor had raised concerns regarding access to the site and had objected to the proposal. In particular, it was noted that the Landscape Architect and Head of Environmental Health & Licensing had objected to the application. Southern Water’s comments regarding capacity of the local network were noted.

The Parish Council objected to the application. 653 letters of objection, 39 of support and 22 of comment had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and a representative of the Parish Council also spoke in objection to the proposal.

The proposal had been submitted under the auspices of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD which sought to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling 5 year housing land supply. Henfield was a Category 1 settlement, as defined by Policy CP5, and was therefore potentially capable of accommodating some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. It was noted that whilst, potentially, the application site fell within the remit of the FAD SPD and could be considered as being suitable for development, it was necessary for the proposal to meet the requirements of all the relevant criteria for support to be given for the development of 160 dwellings on a site outside the built-up area.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/31 Planning Application: DC/13/0787 (cont.)

Members were concerned that the scale, height and massing of the proposal would result in substantial material harm to the landscape character of the site and its rural surroundings. The site did not adjoin the identified built-up area boundary of Henfield and was separated from the village by the South Downs Link. It was considered that the proposed development would appear isolated and would not integrate with its surroundings and therefore the site was not suitable for development.

Members noted that no noise survey had been provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the measures proposed to reduce noise from the kennels.

It was noted that the Highway Authority had received insufficient information from the applicant regarding traffic counts, footway provision, West End Lane surfacing and traffic calming. Members were concerned that the site was unsustainable with regards to public transport links and traffic generated by the proposal.

Members accepted there was a need for more housing land to be identified in order to help meet the shortfall in the five year supply. However, this needed to be balanced against other factors, including concerns regarding potential adverse impacts on the landscape, the possibility of the development compounding existing problems in relation to noise, and uncertainty about the suitability of the site in highway terms.

In balancing these considerations, Members considered that in this case the potential harm outweighed any potential benefits and the application was therefore considered unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/0787 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of the defined built-up area boundary and is unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry, the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste. It therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CP1 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC1 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/31 Planning Application: DC/13/0787 (cont.)

02 The proposed development is unacceptable as there is no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport, education, community facilities and fire and rescue infrastructure and is thereby contrary to Policy CP13 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

03 The proposed development fails to protect the townscape character of the area as it is considered out of keeping with the development pattern and grain of the residential development to the east of the site. It consequently fails to integrate with the locally distinctive surroundings and as such is contrary to policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy (2007), and policy DC9 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies (2007).The proposal would also not accord with criteria 6 and 7 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

04 The proposed development by reason of its scale, height and massing would result in substantial material harm to the landscape character of the site and its rural surroundings. It is also considered the proposal would have significant adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy (2007), and policies DC1, DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies (2007).The proposal would also not accord with criterion 6 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

05 It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would provide a safe and adequate highway solution to serve the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policy DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies (2007).The proposal would also not accord with criteria 11 and 12 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

06 It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that future occupiers of the proposed development would not suffer a loss of residential amenity as a result of the noise arising from the neighbouring dog kennels. The proposed development is

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/31 Planning Application: DC/13/0787 (cont.)

not sustainable since it is contrary to Paragraphs 14 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CP2 of the Horsham District LDF: Core Strategy (2007) and criterion 13 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

07 The proposed development would adversely affect the setting of a Grade II listed building, Camelia Cottage, and as such would cause harm to the significance of the asset. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policy DC13 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DCS/32 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0609 – APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS RELATING TO LAYOUT, SCALE, APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING OUTLINE PERMISSION DC/10/1457 (OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 78 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ASSOCIATED GROUND PREPARATION WORKS, HIGHWAYS, ACCESS AND THE FIRST PHASE OF THE SANDGATE COUNTRY PARK) SITE: RMC ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD WORKSHOPS STORRINGTON ROAD WASHINGTON PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: BARRATT SOUTHERN COUNTIES (Councillor David Jenkins declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as he lived adjacent to the site. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the application. Councillor Sue Rogers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as she was a close associate of one of the complainants. She withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the application.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought permission for reserved matters relating to outline permission DC/10/1457 for up to 78 residential units which had been allowed on appeal in November 2012 (Minute No. DCS/184 (15.05.12) refers). The application related to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping. Access to the site had been approved as part of the outline permission.

The 78 units would comprise 24 5-bedroom, 23 4-bedroom, twelve 3-bedroom and 19 2-bedroom dwellings, 23% of which would be provided as affordable homes. The dwellings would all be 2-storey and of 10 different traditional designs using stock facing brick, coloured render, tile hanging and the occasional use of flint. There would be 237 car parking spaces provided, including 13 visitor spaces.

The application had been amended during the course of its consideration in response to officer concerns relating to the proposed layout of the development, including the location of the children’s play area and the lack of landscape planting along the frontages of the development.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/32 Planning Application: DC/13/0609 (cont.)

The application site was located outside any built-up area boundary and to the west of the village of Washington on the northern side of the A283. Clayton Boarding Kennels was located next to the vehicular access to the site and the South Downs National Park boundary was on the southern side of the A283. The majority of the surrounding area was characterised by sporadic residential development and, to the north and north-west of the site, there was residential development at Heath Common. To the east of the site was an area of National Trust land in agricultural use and beyond that a large area of public open space known as Warren Hill. The site had previously been excavated for sand and had been partially filled. The southern part of the site contained engineering workshops with associated hard standing and ancillary office buildings. This area was enclosed on two sides by very steep slopes which were subject to slippage. The northern part of the site was proposed as part of the first phase of the Sandgate Country Park and contained two ponds which had been flooded as part of the site restoration works.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40; the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); the Planning Obligations SPD; and Site Specific Allocations of Land Policy AL19 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/10/1457 The demolition of existing buildings and Refused – construction of up to 78 residential units, Allowed on associated ground preparation works, Appeal highways, access and the first phase of the Sandgate Country Park (outline) WS/20/88 The deposit of excavated material and Granted builders’ rubble. Condition 4 attached to this permission required the restoration of the northern part of the current application site

WS/34/84 The deposit of excavated material and Granted builders’ rubble to form support for the existing unstable quarry face

The site had a long planning history dating from the 1950s, relating to applications for workshops, maintenance buildings and ancillary offices.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/32 Planning Application: DC/13/0609 (cont.)

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. In particular, it was noted that the Landscape Architect had no objection to the proposal following the submission of an amended layout plan. Washington Parish Council and Storrington & Sullington Parish Council both objected to the application. Since preparation of the report, Storrington & Sullington Parish Council had written a further letter of objection. Heath Common Residents Association objected to the proposal and 12 letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and a representative of the Parish Council also spoke in objection to the proposal.

The principle of residential development and the means of access to the site had been established by the granting of planning permission at appeal in November 2012. It was noted that the conditions attached to the appeal decision would be discharged after the determination of the proposal. The bank stabilisation enabling works which had already commenced would allow the boundaries of the site to be safely and successfully planted.

Members noted that the loop road around the site proposed at outline stage had been amended to a smaller more central location. There would be clearly defined and accessible routes throughout the site with connections to the country park to the north and onto the bridleway along Hampers Lane.

Members considered that percentage of affordable housing and proposed tenure mix to be acceptable.

In response to concerns regarding lighting provision, officers confirmed that the proposed lighting scheme was being assessed. Details of planting on the western boundary would be considered when the applicant submitted the hard and soft landscape scheme required under Condition 5.

Members noted that the Country Park Management Scheme had not yet been submitted for consideration. Once approved it would be implemented prior to the occupation of the 39th dwelling. It was noted that the Country Park would be maintained at no cost to the District Council.

Whilst concerns regarding traffic, access, air quality and lack of infrastructure were noted by Members, they noted that the Inspector at appeal had concluded that none of these issues would outweigh the highway safety benefits brought by the proposal. It was noted that the Parish Council was awaiting a response from the Highways Authority and officers confirmed that they would ask the Highways Authority to expedite this.

Members considered that the amended scheme would result in a satisfactory development layout that would integrate into its surroundings, subject to the satisfactory implementation of the Landscape Master Plan which had been submitted by the applicant.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/32 Planning Application: DC/13/0609 (cont.)

Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/0609 be approved, subject to the conditions attached to DC/10/1457 and subject to the following conditions:

01 M1 – Approval of Materials 02 E3 – Fencing 03 J10 – Removal of permitted development

04 Before any other operations are commenced, the applicants shall agree with the highway authority and implement a system of road signing to warn road users on the A283 of the presence of construction vehicles. The signing shall then be retained throughout the whole period of construction.

05 Prior to the commencement of the development, and not withstanding the submitted Context Landscape Masterplan, the following specific details of the hard and soft landscape scheme, in addition to those set out in condition 3 attached to application DC/10/1457 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

 A written specification (National Building Specification compliant) of plating (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) and for hard works  Existing and proposed levels and cross sections for all external soft and hard landscape  Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing  Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials  Minor artefacts and structures – location, size, and colour and type of street furniture, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns  Details of the play equipment layout, play area surfacing, fencing and gates for the proposed young children’s play area in the central open space

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/32 Planning Application: DC/13/0609 (cont.)

The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details.

06 Prior to the commencement of the development full details of all underground services, including the position/layout, sizes and depths of service ducts, pipes, soakaways, manhole covers, and any above ground boxes/units shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the landscape scheme submitted pursuant to condition 5, and with existing trees on the site by submission of a plan overlaying these details on the landscape scheme. All such underground services shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

REASON

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

DCS/33 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/2260 – ERECTION OF 42 LATER LIVING APARTMENTS WITH COMMUNAL FACILITIES, CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AND RE-SITING OF CAR PARKING SPACES AT THE MILL STREAM MEDICAL CENTRE SITE: LAND NORTH OF MILL STREAM MEDICAL CENTRE RYECROFT LANE STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MCCARTHY AND STONE RETIREMENT LIFESTYLES LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of 42 retired housing apartments in a single block comprising 26 1-bedroom apartments and 16 2-bedroom apartments together with a communal residents lounge, laundry, guest suite, refuse area and house managers office. There would be 18 secure car parking spaces, mobility scooter parking and bicycle storage.

There would be a new vehicular access adjacent to the Medical Centre. The existing access from Ryecroft Lane would be closed. A separate pedestrian access was proposed, which was intended to join the riverside walk leading to the centre of Storrington.

The application site was located on the north eastern side of the centre of Storrington, along the west bank of the River Stor. It was of irregular shape and overgrown and uneven. It had previously been used for allotments. The site sloped by approximately three metres to five metres, dropping down to the River Stor to the south east.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/33 Planning Application: DC/12/2260 (cont.)

There was dense hedgerow along the eastern boundary and a line of trees and a raised bank topped by a dense beech hedge along the western boundary. There were several mature trees to the south.

The surrounding residential development to the north and west was generally two storey in height. The car park serving the Mill Stream Medical Centre and the library was to the south of the site.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP16 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC5, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC12, DC18, DC31 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

There was no relevant planning history in relation to this site.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. In particular, it was noted that the Housing Services Manager, Landscape Architect and the Highways Authority objected to the application.

The Parish Council had objected to the application but, since preparation of the report, had withdrawn their objection in response to amendments to the design of the roof and use of materials.

Seven letters of objection, 29 of support and seven of comment had been received. One member of the public spoke in support of the application and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the principle of development and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance on the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Members noted that the lack of affordable housing provision in the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy Policy CP12 which required 40% affordable housing on residential developments of this size. An independent assessment had concluded that, based on the submitted information, it would be possible to achieve a commuted sum of between £500,000 - £700,000 from the proposal. It was noted that the applicant had offered a contribution of £52,000 and progress had not been made in negotiations.

Whilst the Parish Council had withdrawn its objection, Members considered that the amended proposal had not sufficiently addressed concerns regarding the scale of the development and its impact on the character of the River Stor valley and the surrounding area.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/33 Planning Application: DC/12/2260 (cont.)

Members considered that the proposed parking facilities and new vehicle access were not satisfactory. Whilst the location was considered sustainable, the use of the footpath to Old Mill Drive would not provide a safe access for pedestrians to local services.

Members considered that the principle of development was acceptable, but the proposal would fail to make adequate provision for affordable housing and would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers.

Members therefore considered that in this case the potential benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the identified harm and the application was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/2260 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development makes no provision for affordable housing or a commuted sum in lieu thereof. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CP12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007)

02 The proposed development by virtue of its height, scale and massing would represent an over-development of the site and would thereby have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would also adversely affect the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers as it would appear over-bearing. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CP1 & CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

03 It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the development would provide safe access for pedestrians. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/33 Planning Application: DC/12/2260 (cont.)

04 The proposed development would erode the natural character of the River Stor valley and would thereby have an adverse visual amenity impact on users of the riverside walk and occupiers of immediately adjacent residential properties. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CP1 & CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

05 It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would not result in a significant loss of biodiversity on the site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

06 The proposed development is unacceptable as there is no provision for contributions towards improvements to community facilities, libraries and fire and rescue infrastructure and is thereby contrary to Policy CP13 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

DCS/34 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1027 – CONSTRUCTION OF A CONSERVATION LAKE SITE: HOES FARM COOLHAM ROAD SHIPLEY HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR PETER THOMPSON

The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought permission for a conservation lake measuring 155 metres by 40 metres. There would be gentle grading around the lake designed to produce a natural irregular shore line to enable a range of vegetation types to establish. The maximum depth would be 2.5 metres. The pond would be allowed to fill naturally over a period of time from water within the ditch to the east and an overflow would be piped into the river in accordance with Environment Agency directions. A wetland/reed bed adjacent to the lake extending into the floodplain to provide habitat for birds, insects and invertebrates was also proposed. Water levels would be controlled by a dam to the western end of the lake.

All the spoil removed to create the lake would be spread at a thickness of 100mm deep, below the topsoil which would be stripped and re-spread, on two fields directly to the north of the A272.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/34 Planning Application: DC/13/1027 (cont.)

The site was located within a countryside location to the north of the A272. Hoes Farm was a Grade II Listed Dwelling with numerous outbuildings and 180 acres of grassland managed under the terms of a Countryside Stewardship Scheme overseen by Natural England. The lake would be 65 metres from the front of the house and over 200 meters from the A272 within two existing fields which sloped down to a central ditch. A hedgerow would be removed as part of the proposals. The River Adur ran to the west of the site and Flood Zone 2 and 3 extended into the application site. A public footpath ran to the east of the proposed lake.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC9, DC13 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/05/2662 Creation of a lake Withdrawn

DC/07/1482 Creation of a lake on agricultural land Withdrawn

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Members noted that the Environment Agency had no objection to the scheme subject to appropriate conditions. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the principle of the development and its affect on the visual amenities and character of the area and on the trees and hedges around the site. It was noted that the proposal had been amended to remove the proposed bunds along the A272. The oak trees within the hedgerow that was to be removed would be retained on an island.

Members noted that concerns regarding construction and landscaping would be controlled by condition. Officers agreed for there to be a Note to Applicant regarding the importation of materials onto the site during construction.

Members considered that the creation of a lake for nature conservation would increase the ecological value of the area and agreed that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/1027 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

02 Not withstanding the submitted planning application plans and documents, prior to the commencement of the development the following information shall be submitted to and approved by the local authority

 Existing topographical survey for the entire area proposed to be effected by the works including existing levels, precise position of existing trees and hedgerows etc at a scale of 1:500  Plan identifying those trees and hedges to be retained and those to be removed, with the root protection areas of those to be retained clearly identified, demonstrating a satisfactory area in terms of the BS Trees in Relation to Construction 2012 from the trees in which no excavation will take place.  A detailed proposed excavation and earthworks layout plan at a scale of 1:500 for the lake, scrapes and surrounding land areas for re-grading of excavated sub soil and topsoil to show proposed contours and spot levels and how they will be tied in with existing contours using the topographical survey as a base  Cross sections across the lake and scrapes at approximately 5Om intervals

03 Prior to the commencement of the development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and 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 and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details  A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Any proposed walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/34 Planning Application: DC/13/1027 (cont.)

The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting shall be carried out according to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.

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.

04 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for the lake and for all planted and seeded areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

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/organisations who will be maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for.

The plan shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of planting shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan.

05 The lake hereby permitted shall be used as a wildlife habitat and for drainage of ‘Hoes Farm’ and associated agricultural land. The lake shall not be used for any commercial or recreational purposes.

06 No fill material shall be imported to the site and the banking/landscaping works associated with the construction of the lake shall be formed from the excavated material emanating from the construction of the lake hereby approved.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/34 Planning Application: DC/13/1027 (cont.)

07 Prior to the commencement of development, a construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority detailing the type of plant to be brought onto site, how the plant will be transported to the site, the route the plant will take and any mitigating measures if these vehicles damage the verges along the access route and implemented in accordance with such approved details.

08 H6 Wheel Washing

09 Construction vehicles shall only be operated on the premises between 0800 in the morning until 1800 in the afternoon Monday to Saturday. No work shall be undertaken on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

10 The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved FRA contained within the Supporting Statement and the following mitigation measure detailed within the FRA:

 Provision of compensatory flood storage which should be provided on a level for level basis and located outside of the 1% flood zone

REASON

In accordance with the NPPF 2012

DCS/35 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1015 – ERECTION OF STABLES AND CONSTRUCTION OF SAND SCHOOL SITE: WELL FARM ADVERSANE BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MR JOHN FRY

The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought planning permission for the construction of a new stable block in a different location to the existing one with an associated sand school. The new stables would be 30 metres south-west of the farmhouse. The replacement of the existing stables with three new buildings related to a calf rearing unit was to be considered under separate applications.

The proposed stable block would have a maximum height of three metres and accommodate seven stables, a corner tack room and three open bays for hay storage around a central courtyard. The proposed sand school would require minor earthworks to level the ground and a new soakway for drainage.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/13/1015 (cont.)

The site was located outside the built-up area and comprised a detached two storey farmhouse, shed with adjoining stables, and open fields used for grazing. There was farmland to the east, south and west boundaries and the site adjoined a country lane to the north that provided access to the B2133 and Adversane.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC29 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

BL/105/86 Farmhouse and double garage Granted

BL/58/87 Farmhouse & double garage Granted

BL/59/86 Erection of an agricultural dwelling (outline) Granted (Agricultural occupancy condition) DC/13/0347 Erection of stables and construction of Withdrawn sand school DC/13/1003 Erection of livestock building Pending Consideration DC/13/1004 Erection of livestock and general purpose Pending farm building Consideration DC/13/1005 Replacement of existing livestock shed Pending with a cattle housing building Consideration

The response from the Environmental Health department was considered by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the principle of the development, its scale and form, and the potential impact on the countryside location and neighbouring occupiers.

It was noted that the applicant’s main activity would continue to be raising calves and lambing. The new stable block would therefore accommodate existing equestrian related activity and would not lead to increased activity or to an unreasonable intensification of buildings.

Members agreed that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the countryside location and was therefore acceptable.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/13/1015 (cont.)

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/1015 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

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

02 The stables hereby permitted shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the existing property Well Farm.

03 The stables hereby permitted shall not be used for commercial purposes or in connection with any form of riding establishment.

04 The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall strictly accord with those indicated on the approved details associated with the application.

05 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

06 No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

07 No stable waste shall be burnt on the land.

08 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/13/1015 (cont.)

REASON

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

DCS/36 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1276 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, PROVISION OF SECOND ACCESS AND FORMATION OF AN EQUINE HOSPITAL AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES SITE: WESTLANDS FARM BILLINGSHURST ROAD ASHINGTON APPLICANT: MR ROBERT VAN PELT

The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of three agricultural buildings and the erection of an equine hospital building comprising reception, waiting room, operating theatre, examination rooms, x ray rooms, offices, pharmacy, MRI, CT and Gamma rooms and, within the roof space, a staff rest room, bedsits and dormitory. There would also be a stable building, bone scan stables, hay and feed store, waste building, clinical waste store, trot up lanes, sandschool, lunge ring, 43 car parking spaces and a fully landscaped area to the east of the site. A second access to the site was also proposed.

The front section of the main building would measure 33 metres by 41.4 metres and have a ridge height of approximately seven metres. The rear of the building would have a ridge height of 8.8 metres with two single storey elements either side. The main stable building would consist of two blocks measuring 11 metres by 21 metres each. There would also be three smaller stables.

The application had been considered by the Committee in July 2013 and deferred until the next meeting of the Committee to seek amendments to the proposal to overcome concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring listed building (Minute No. DCS/20 16.07.13 refers). It was noted that subsequent to the meeting the applicant’s agent had submitted a report and amended plans, but had declined to meet with Local Members and officers.

Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of the site, relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal.

Amendments to the proposal included: the extension of the landscape area; a two metre high hedge around the landscape buffer zone; the removal of an artificial insemination building; and the horse unloading quai would have fully enclosed sides. The applicant had also addressed the Highway Authority’s comments regarding the provision of the new access.

A letter from the neighbouring property had been received since preparation of the report welcoming the proposed amendments to the proposal. The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/12/1276 (cont.)

It was noted that the proposal would support business in a rural area and Members considered that the amended proposal had overcome some concerns regarding the impact on the character of the rural area and the setting and residential amenities of the neighbouring Priors Barn, a Grade II Listed Building. It was noted that an approved comprehensive Landscape Master Plan would be required to ensure satisfactory integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations.

Whilst the development would alter the character of the site and still have some impact on Priors Barn, Members considered that the proposed equine hospital would bring jobs to the local area and benefit the local community.

Members therefore considered that on balance the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/12/1276 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission

02 J1 Use Limitation (Equine Hospital)

03 M1 Approval of Materials

04 D6 Finished Floor Levels

05 E2 Fencing

06 G4 Site Surfacing

07 G5 Recycling

08 H4b Construction Material Storage

09 H6 Wheel Washing

10 J7b Stables

11 J8 Hours of Opening “0800 hours – 1800 hours Monday – Friday, 0830 hours – 1300 hours Saturdays only, other than for emergencies”

12 O1 Hours of Working (including demolition)

13 O3 Site Clearance

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/12/1276 (cont.)

14 Before development commences details of the surface for the sand school, trot up lanes and lung pen shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – In the interests of amenity and in accordance with DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

15 L11 Works under canopies of retained trees “hardstanding”

16 S4 Surface Water Drainage “and foul water drainage” (Option A)

17 Deliveries and collections shall be limited to: 0800 – 1800 Monday to Friday; 0830 – 1300 Saturdays; There will be no deliveries or collections on Sundays or Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.

18 Any open storage of animal waste or waste bedding must be stored at least 30 metres from any residential boundary to prevent odour transmission. The waste shall be removed from site by a licensed waste removal contractor regularly.

19 Before work commences on site (including demolition), a survey shall be undertaken by a competent person to identify any asbestos or other hazardous materials contained either within the structure of the buildings or contained within them. The survey together with an appropriate remedial statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the commencement of demolition works.

20 Notwithstanding the approved lighting scheme, a detailed lighting management plan including: The location of the lights; The dimensions of the lights; The angle and wattage of the lights; The hours of use; shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed management plan shall be implemented thereafter.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/12/1276 (cont.)

21 No part of the development shall be utilised/occupied until the vehicular access onto Billingshurst Road serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved plan.

22 No part of the development shall be utilised / occupied until visibility splays of 2.4m by 165m to the east and 152m to the west have been provided at the proposed site vehicular access onto Billingshurst Road in accordance with the approved plans. Once, provided the splays shall thereafter be maintained and kept free of all obstructions over a height of 0.6 metre above adjoining carriageway level or as otherwise agreed.

23 No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the sightlines and visibility sightlines and surfacing of the existing vehicular access onto Billingshurst Road serving the development has been improved in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

24 No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained for their designated use.

25 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters:

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/12/1276 (cont.)

 the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders),  measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security,  details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

26 Notwithstanding the proposals shown on the submitted illustrative landscape proposals, prior to the commencement of the development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and 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 and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details  A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Existing and proposed levels for all external soft and hard landscape areas  Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels  Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials, including full details of the acoustic fence and its staining  Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/12/1276 (cont.)

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.

27 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. 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/organisations who will maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for

28 Prior to the commencement of the development full details of all underground services, including the position/layout, sizes and depths of service ducts, pipes, soakaways, manhole covers, and any above ground boxes/units shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the landscape scheme submitted pursuant to conditions 26 and 27, and with existing trees on the site by submission of a plan overlaying these details on the landscape scheme. All such underground services shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

REASON

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

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/37 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1006 – CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE BAY STABLE BLOCK WITH TACKROOM AND WC, STORAGE BARN AND SAND SCHOOL SITE: FRYERN PARK FARM FRYERN PARK FRYERN ROAD STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR JOE GOSWELL

Application withdrawn.

DCS/38 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/2345 – STATIONING OF ONE RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME FOR OCCUPATION BY GYPSY FAMILY SITE: LAND NORTH OF OLDFIELD COTTAGE FRYERN ROAD STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR J LIGHT

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the stationing of one residential mobile home on land to the north of Oldfield Cottage for occupation by a gypsy family. The proposed mobile home would be 12 metres by 6.5 metres and be accessed from the existing access onto Fryern Road.

The site was located outside the built-up area boundary on the western side of Fryern Road, to the north of the property known as Oldfield Cottage. There was a brick hay barn and stable block within the site. A panel fence and hedgerow defined the boundary with Fryern Road. The immediate area was characterised by individual houses, with paddocks and associated stables.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15, CP16 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC32 and DC40; and the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Options consultation document were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

SR/88/00 Vehicular access Granted (Land at Fryern Road Storrington) SR/63/97 Prior notification to erect an agricultural Refused building (Land At Fryern Road Storrington) SR/16/98 Erection of an agricultural building Refused (Land At Fryern Road Storrington) DC/09/0012 Retention of 2 stables and tack room and Granted associated hardstanding DC/09/1146 Retention of vehicular access Refused

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/38 Planning Application: DC/12/2345 (cont.)

DC/09/2282 Retention of vehicular access Granted

DC/10/1366 Erection of storage barn Granted

DC/10/2015 Erection of storage barn (Amendment to Granted DC/10/1366)

The responses from the Strategic and Community Planning Team and the County Surveyor, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Since preparation of the report the Landscape Architect had raised no objection, subject to conditions regarding the appearance of the mobile home. The Parish Council objected to the application. 21 letters of objection and three of support had been received. A petition of 30 signatures in support of the proposal had been received. The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the effect of the proposal upon the character of the landscape and street scene, and the amenities of neighbouring properties in the context of the identified need for gypsy pitches in the District.

It was noted that the applicant had proposed additional native tree and hedge planting along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries in order to help screen the mobile home and Members considered that the proposal would not appear unduly prominent in its landscape setting.

Whilst it was noted that the proposal would meet an established need, the site was outside the built-up area in a countryside location and Members considered that it was not reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities. Members were therefore concerned that the site was in an unsustainable location.

Members were concerned that permitting a development in the green belt between Storrington and West Chiltington would set a precedent which could threaten the integrity of these communities and the landscape character of the area.

Members therefore considered that, on balance and after careful assessment of all the relevant material considerations, the application was unacceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/2345 be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services to allow for the framing of reasons for refusal in consultation with Local Members. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be refused.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/39 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0901 – CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF EXISTING GARAGE TO FORM GRANNY ANNEX SITE: VENTERS STORRINGTON ROAD THAKEHAM PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: MR PETER SMITH

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the extension and refurbishment of a detached garage to create an annexe comprising a living space, bedroom and wet room. At first floor level there would be an additional bedroom and bathroom. The proposal would use materials to match the garage which was constructed on a brick plinth with weather boarding for the sides and a tiled roof. The proposal would extend the garage from 9.3 metres by six metres to 14 metres by nine metres. Its overall height would remain unchanged at six metres. The existing garage doors would be replaced by glazing, and an additional window and dormer would be placed on the north elevation. It would be extended to the south with a single storey lean to.

The application site was located outside the built-up area boundary to the west of Storrington Road. It included a large detached brick dwelling with a tiled roof located close to the northern boundary for the site. The garage was approximately five meters to the west of the main house. There were two vehicular accesses to the property, one to the north and one to the east.

There were residential properties along the opposite side of the road. Snapes Cottage, a Grade II listed building, was to the north west of the site. A new housing development of eight properties was being constructed to the south and east. Properties on the opposite site of the road generally followed a linear pattern of development.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC28 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

T/41/03 Two-storey & first-floor extensions & Granted detached 3 bay garage

T/8/04 Garage dormers forming 1st floor Granted storeroom

DC/06/1086 Rear dormer to garage and staircase to Granted existing first floor garage accommodation

The response from the Arboricultural Officer, as contained within the report, was considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to the application. One letter of objection from the occupier of Snapes Cottage had been received. 23 letters of support, including one from the applicant’s doctor, had been received.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/39 Planning Application: DC/13/0901 (cont.)

One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and the applicant’s agent both addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the principle of development in this countryside location. The garage was behind the main dwelling away from the road and it was considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the street scene.

Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed annexe would be larger than would generally be permitted under current policies, the proposal would meet the needs of a disabled child and accommodate carers in an appropriate environment.

Members considered the impact of the development on the neighbouring property and noted that the enlarged garage would be approximately 30 metres away with screening in between. Members considered that the potential impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers would not be significant.

Members acknowledged the unique circumstances of the proposal and considered that it would meet the applicant’s needs without materially affecting the character of the locality or the amenities of the neighbouring properties and was therefore acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/0901 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

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

02 The materials and finishes of all new external walls and roofs of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour and texture those of the existing building.

03 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, the building(s) shall not be extended or altered in any way unless planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on application in that respect.

04 The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes ancillary to the occupation and enjoyment of Venters as a dwelling and shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/39 Planning Application: DC/13/0901 (cont.)

REASON

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

DCS/40 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0984 – DEMOLITION OF DERELICT GLASS HOUSING AND REMOVAL OF FORMER CAR PARK AND THE ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH ACCESS OFF LITTLEWORTH LANE SITE: ABBOTS LEA LITTLEWORTH LANE PARTRIDGE GREEN APPLICANT: MR AND MRS WILLIAM COTTON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of two detached dwellings with access from Littleworth Lane and the demolition of the existing glass houses. The proposed dwellings would be to the west of Abbotts Lea with ridge heights of 8.02 metres. The would have stock brick and hanging tiles with plain tile roofs. Each dwelling would have a double garage.

The application site was a former retail nursery site located on the western side of Littleworth Lane, within Littleworth which was outside any built-up area. Neighbouring properties were individual in character and followed the road network.

The detached dwelling Abbots Lea and its garage were to the eastern end of the site and the former nursery outbuilding and glass houses were to the west. There was a public footpath along the southern boundary of the site. To the east a mature hedge screened the property from Littleworth Lane.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP4, CP5 and CP12; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC8 and DC9 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

WG/22/58 Proposed residential development Refused

WG/20/75 Lounge, kitchen/breakfast room, lobby, w.c Granted and 2 no shower additions WG/3/66 One dwelling unit Refused

WG/50/66 Erection of 2 dwelling units Refused

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/40 Planning Application: DC/13/0984 (cont.)

WG/48/69 Proposed erection of 1 detached bungalow Granted on and garaging Appeal WG/59/70 Erection of 1 private dwellinghouse and Granted garaging WG/71/71 Footpath to new dwelling and pedestrian Granted access WG/96/72 Convert garage to billiard room and erect Granted detached garage

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. Eight letters of support had been received. The applicant and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the principle of development in this countryside location and whether the proposal could be considered a form of sustainable development as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework.

It would be unlikely that future occupants would travel to Partridge Green on foot due to the lack of pavements and Members considered that the proposed new development would be likely to reinforce unsustainable development patterns. It was also noted that no evidence had been submitted by the applicant regarding a local housing need.

Members noted that the site, which had been derelict for 10 years, would not fall into the category of ‘previously developed land’ owing to its agricultural use as a nursery.

It was considered that the proposed dwellings by reason of their scale and design would appear out of keeping and would not respect the character of the surrounding area.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/0984 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The site lies in a rural area outside the limits of any existing town or village and the proposed development being unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry or the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste would therefore conflict with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and policy CP1, CP5 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/40 Planning Application: DC/13/0984 (cont.)

Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 and DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake.

02 The proposed dwellings by reason of their size, siting and design would be out of keeping with the character of the area and would represent a form of development which would be detrimental to the rural appearance of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts with paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC2, and DC9, of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies

03 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure and community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 and CP19 of the Core Strategy and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

DCS/41 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0906 – CONSTRUCTION OF 3 DWELLINGS (3 X 3-BED) AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE WORKS ON LAND TO THE WEST OF TREVELLAN, 23 KITHURST PARK SITE: TREVELLAN KITHURST PARK STORRINGTON APPLICANT: ROSECROFT ESTATES

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the construction of three dwellings with associated landscaping works. The application sought to divide the existing curtilage of Trevellan to create three additional house plots.

The proposed dwelling on Plot 1 would be a three bedroom single storey L shaped building. Plots 2 and 3 would include chalet style 3-bedroom properties. The proposed dwellings would be of stock brick with natural sand stone features and plain clay tile hanging, with handmade clay roof tiles. Plot three would have a two bay car port to the west of the dwelling.

A new vehicular access via Kithhurst Park was proposed, which would require Trevellen to be demolished. A dwelling to replace Trevellen had been approved under application DC/11/1388. The replacement dwelling would share the proposed access with the application dwellings.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/41 Planning Application: DC/13/0906 (cont.)

The application site was located within the built up area of Storrington on the southern side of Kithurst Park which was characterised by detached mainly single or one and a half storey bungalows on large mature plots. The southern boundary of the site adjoined the South Downs National Park with open views to the Downs, whilst to the south west was a small group of cottages extending outside the built up area into open farm land. There was a public footpath along the northern edge of Trevellan’s existing garden.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12 and CP13; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC4, DC9 and DC40; the South Downs Management Plan 2008-2013; and South Downs Planning Guidelines 2008 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/11/1387 Construction of 4 dwellings and associated Refused landscaping works on land to the west of Appeal Trevellan, 23 Kithurst Park Dismissed

DC/11/1388 Demolition of existing dwelling at 23 Refused Kithurst Park and construction of a replacement dwelling and associated landscaping works DC/11/2124 Demolition of existing dwelling at 23 Granted Kithurst Park and construction of a replacement dwelling and associated landscaping works

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. In particular, it was noted that the Landscape Architect had objected to the proposal and it was reported at the meeting that the applicant had written two letters in response to these objections. Since the preparation of the report the applicant had agreed to make provision for infrastructure contributions through a legal agreement should the application be granted.

The Parish Council objected to the application. 17 letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and two members of the public spoke in support of the proposal.

The application had been submitted following an earlier refusal for four dwellings (DC/11/1387) which had been dismissed at appeal. Members had considered that the proposal was unacceptable as it would have a harmful impact on the character of the National Park (Minute No. DCS/76 (20.09.11) refers). The Inspector had dismissed the appeal on a number of grounds regarding the significant harm the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the surrounding area

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/41 Planning Application: DC/13/0906 (cont.)

including the National Park. Members considered that the appeal decision was a material consideration in the determination of the present application.

Members considered the principle of development within the Category 1 settlement of Storrington and noted that this sensitive location, adjacent to the SDNP, could potentially sustain a carefully screened small scale development.

Whilst the number of dwellings had been reduced from four to three, Members noted the open nature of the site and relatively uniform design of the buildings and considered that the proposal would appear out of keeping with the immediate vicinity and detract from the character of the surrounding area including the adjacent South Downs National Park.

Members considered that the additional planting which had taken place within the site was not mature enough to screen the properties and were concerned that the proposed buildings would appear obtrusive.

Members considered that the proposal had failed to overcome fundamental concerns regarding DC/11/1387 which had been dismissed on appeal and that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character of the National Park.

Members therefore agreed that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/0906 be refused for the following reason:

01 The dwellings as proposed due to their number, scale and siting would result in overdevelopment of the site which would detract from the character of the surrounding area including the adjacent South Downs National Park contrary to Policy DC4 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 & CP1 & CP3 of the Core Strategy 200.

DCS/42 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1132 – REPLACEMENT OF KENNEL BUILDINGS WITH A DETACHED DWELLING AND DOUBLE GARAGE, WITH NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND REVERSION OF OTHER COMMERCIAL KENNEL BUILDINGS TO PURPOSES ANCILLARY TO THE EXISTING DWELLING SITE: ST ANDREWS FARM COOLHAM ROAD BROOKS GREEN APPLICANT: MS ANNIE SILVER

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission to demolish seven kennel buildings and build a detached chalet bungalow and a detached double garage. The proposed dwelling would face eastwards towards the proposed parking area and single-storey double garage

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/42 Planning Application: DC/13/1132 (cont.)

building. The dwelling would measure 17 metres by 13.5 metres, with a height of 6.6 metres and include four bedrooms within the roof space.

A new vehicular crossover to the south of a row of preserved oak trees along the verge of Coolham Road was proposed together with an access driveway approximately 140 meters long across the grassed field towards the application site where it would split, and continue towards the proposed dwelling site, and in an eastward direction towards the existing buildings to the east of the site.

The application site was located outside the built up area at an elevated level above the road. It was currently accessed from Coolham Road via a narrow steep shared access with the westerly neighbouring dwellings at St Andrews Farm and St Andrews Lodge. The kennels site could incorporate up to 60 dogs and 40 cats.

The surrounding area was predominantly rural and the grassed paddock to the south had previously been used for exercising dogs. To the east of the site there was a single storey animal crematorium that was run separately from the kennel business. To the north of the application site there was a public right of way and the neighbouring dwelling at Chilvers Farm was to the north-west.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP13 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC6, DC9, DC24 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/12/2024 Replacement of kennel buildings with a Refused detached single dwelling and double garage and new vehicular access and reversion of other commercial kennel buildings to purposes ancillary to the dwelling SP/9/96 Demolition of existing kennel block and Granted erection of a boarding block for cats SP/12/89 Erection of a bungalow, garage and new Refused vehicular and pedestrian access SP/1/88 Demolition of existing outbuildings and Granted erection of 24 additional boarding kennels SP/20/83 20 quarantine kennels Granted

SP/45/73 Use of existing building for breeding & Granted boarding of cats and dogs SP/13/62 Proposed residential development Refused

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/42 Planning Application: DC/13/1132 (cont.)

Previous application DC/12/2024 had been considered by the Committee in January 2013 and been refused due to concerns regarding harm to two oak trees of high amenity value, the loss of a commercial employment site and the creation of a new isolated residential dwelling in the countryside (Minute No. DCS/101 (15.01.13) refers).

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Since preparation of the report the Community and Strategy Planning Team had confirmed that the proposal would not contribute towards a local housing need. The Licensing Officer had commented that there would be grounds for objection if the pet crematorium remained in operation to the east of the site.

The Parish Council had not commented on the application. One letter of objection and six letters of support had been received, including a letter reiterating support due to the noise from the kennels. One member of the public spoke in support of the application and the applicant and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the principle of development in this countryside location and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would result in the loss of a rural commercial employment site which would fundamentally conflict withNational Planning policy guidance which sought to promote economic growth in rural areas. Members noted that the failure of the business had been largely caused by the change in law regarding quarantine for pets and that the business had been for sale for two and a half years. Local support for the proposal was noted and it was considered that the proposal would result in an improvement in visual amenity and a reduction in neighbouring noise disturbance.

Members considered the impact of the proposal on traffic and access and noted that the proposed access had been amended, since the Committee considered application DC/12/2024, to address concerns regarding the two oak trees. The Highways Authority had considered the existing access point to have sub-standard visibility in each direction and Members agreed that the proposed access would improve highway safety and alleviate access safety concerns caused by the existing kennel business.

Whilst Members noted concerns regarding sporadic development in a rural area, it was considered that the replacement of the business with a private dwelling would lead to a reduction in overall traffic movements.

Members therefore considered that, on balance and after careful assessment of all the relevant material considerations, the proposal was acceptable in principle.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/42 Planning Application: DC/13/1132 (cont.)

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/1132 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services for the framing of conditions, in consultation with Local Members. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/43 PLANNING APPLICATION: WG/17/93 – VARIATION OF LEGAL AGREEMENT S106/0623 SITE: OLD BARN NURSERIES DIAL POST APPLICANT: WYEVALE ACQUISITIONS BORROWER LIMITED

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the legal agreement S106/0623 to be varied to allow for more flexibility regarding the sale of goods in line with other garden centres within the district. The proposal would allow for a revised schedule of goods and the lifting of the restriction on the location of sold goods within the nursery site.

The proposal had been considered by the Committee in September 2011 and been refused due to concerns regarding the potential considerable expansion of the retail side of the business to the detriment of countryside amenity and the viability of nearby village centres (DCS/88 (20.09.11) refers).

The applicant had appealed the decision which was to be determined by way of an Informal Hearing. It had subsequently been discovered that the legal agreement would be in breach of several existing planning consents and conditions on the site if it were agreed. It had therefore been considered that the best way forward would be to negotiate a variation to the legal agreement with the applicant. The applicant had confirmed that if the variation to the legal agreement were granted they would withdraw their appeal.

The site was located in a countryside location to the east of the A24 and to the west of Grinders Lane. The site comprised 6.3 hectares of land in mixed use for the purposes of the garden centre and horticultural business use. The site was split into two, with the main garden centre, coffee shop and restaurant to the west of the site and the growing area to the east of the site, which was closed to the general public.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC25 and DC38 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/43 Planning Application: WG/17/93 (cont.)

The site had a complex planning history dating back to 1990. The legal agreement S106/ 0623 had been completed in April 2004 and limited the sale of particular goods to particular areas of the site. Application DC/10/1486 for the demolition of an existing building and the erection of a conservatory extension to the existing coffee shop had been permitted in 2010. This permission appeared to conflict with legal agreement S106/0623 regarding the restriction of goods sold.

The Parish Council had not commented on the proposal. No letters of representation had been received.

The existing legal agreement allowed sale of goods that had been of concern to the Local Planning Authority, including:

 Swimming Pools & Associated Equipment, Materials & Fittings for Pools;  Garden Offices;  Meats, Dairy Products & Beverages;  Books, Magazines, Periodicals, Videos, CDs, DVDs relating to leisure, hobby, travel, Sports, coffee table books and other literature other than fiction;  Pets;  Indoor & Outdoor hobbies, Toys, Games & Crafts;  Outdoor & Country Pursuits Equipment eg. Camping, Fishing, Equestrian, Hiking & Climbing;  Arts & Crafts Products.

Following negotiations, the applicant had agreed to delete the following items from the legal agreement:

 Swimming Pools & Associated Equipment, Materials & Fittings for Pools;  Garden Offices;  Pets;  Indoor & Outdoor hobbies  Outdoor & Country Pursuits Equipment eg. Fishing, Equestrian & Climbing.

The applicant had also agreed to restrict the sale of the following items through limiting floor space:

 Meats, Dairy Products & Beverages limited to 0.8% of total sales area;  Books, Magazines, Periodicals, Videos, CDs, DVDs relating to leisure, hobby, travel, Sports, coffee table books and other literature other than fiction limited to 1% of the total sales area;  Indoor Toys & Games limited to a maximum of 0.08% of the total sales area and outdoor toys and games limited to a maximum floor area 0.14% of the total sales area;  Arts & Crafts Products limited to a maximum floor area 1% of the total sales area.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/43 Planning Application: WG/17/93 (cont.)

It was noted that the restaurant, coffee shop and parking provision were controlled through separate planning permissions and conditions.

The applicant had also submitted a Retail Statement which assessed the proposal against policy, market trends and existing provision, and provided an impact assessment and sequential analysis.

Members considered the proposal in the context of national policy regarding the need to support rural economic growth and considered that the amended legal agreement would address concerns regarding considerable expansion of the business. It was noted that the proposed extension to the range of goods to be sold would be consistent with other garden centres within the district.

Members therefore considered that the proposal would resolve inconsistencies within the legal agreement and support sustainable development of the rural business and therefore was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application WG/17/93 to vary the legal agreement S106/623 be granted.

DCS/44 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1021 – PROPOSED GENERAL PURPOSE AGRICULTURAL BUILDING FOR STOCK HOUSING AND STORAGE SITE: BRIGHTHAMS FARM BINES ROAD PARTRIDGE GREEN APPLICANT: MR MICHAEL NASH

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for a general purpose agricultural building for housing livestock and storage. The proposed building would be approximately 60.96 by 19.8 metres with a ridge height of approximately 8.14 metres. It would be constructed with treated timber and a natural grey cement fibre roof.

The application site was located in a rural location to the south of Partridge Green and was accessed via a single lane track from the B2135. Brighthams Farmhouse, a Grade II Listed Building, a granary, cart shed and some former agricultural buildings were to the west of the proposed agricultural building.

To the south of the site was a group of more modern farm buildings, cattle buildings and slurry pit, and to the east there was a converted barn which had permission for use as holiday lets. The proposed building would be adjacent to an existing agricultural building used for storage of machinery and feed storage.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2 and DC29 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/44 Planning Application: DC/13/1021 (cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

DC/07/0714 Change of use and extension to building to Granted offices B1 use WG/94/02 Retention of Cattle Building Granted

WG/22/02 Certificate of lawful use relating to the Granted processing and distribution of milk and dairy products within former agricultural buildings

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the principle of development in this countryside location and noted that the proposal would enable the applicant to carry out activities, currently undertaken in a number of rented buildings, into one purpose-built building.

Members considered that the location of the proposed building would not appear out of keeping in its setting and would be viewed in context with the existing buildings. It was considered that the amenities of the occupier of the nearest residential property would not be harmed by the proposal.

Members noted that the proposal was required for the essential operation of the farm and considered that it would support the needs of a rural, agricultural business without adversely affecting the character of the immediate area.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/1021 be approved, subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 – Full Permission

02 O2 – Burning of Materials

03 Before development commence precise details for the disposal of animal waste, slurry, manure or any other waste arising from the use of the building hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The waste shall thereafter be disposed of in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Development Control (South) Committee 20th August 2013

DCS/44 Planning Application: DC/13/1021 (cont.)

04 B3 – Agricultural Occupancy and Use

05 B2 – Demolition Required “a condition agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority” “3 months”

06 M1 – Approval of Materials

07 L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping

REASON

IDP2 Based on individual circumstances of this case relating to the essential agricultural requirement for the proposal, it is considered appropriate development in this location.

The meeting closed at 5.10pm having commenced at 11.00am, with an adjournment for lunch from 12.55 –2 pm.

CHAIRMAN

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2013 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/13/0586 Insertion of door to allow access to existing extension roof terrace, balcony railings to surround with access gate and courtesy/privacy panel. 10 Hawthorn Way, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4NL For: Mr David Wright

DC/13/0897 Conversion of existing barns to a live/work unit with stables and hay store. Smallham Farm Barns, Kennel Lane, West Grinstead For: Dr David Hartnett

DC/12/1878 Proposed 3-bedroom chalet style house. 116 High Street, Billingshurst, West Sussex For: Mr Nigel Alexander

3. Public Inquiry

DC/13/0147 Residential development for 46 dwellings including new access, internal roads and footpaths, parking areas, garaging together with open space and play area provision (Outline Planning). Land at Daux Wood, Marringdean Road, Billingshurst For: Rydon Homes Ltd

DC/13/0752 Erection of up to 102 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing, with associated access (Outline). Land North of South Wood, Melton Drive, Storrington For: Wates Developments

Continued/…

4. Appeal Decisions

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

DC/12/0283 Retrospective permission for temporary use of land to the west end of Rosier Business Park for loading and unloading of containers by Acorn + Waste Recycling Service for a period of three years. Land West of Unit S3A, Rosier Commercial Centre, Coneyhurst Road, Billingshurst For: Mr Nick Pope Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/13/0176 Proposed two storey extension and alterations. Lupin Cottage, Hampers Lane, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 3JB. For: Ms Davis Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated) APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th September 2013 Development of up to 75 dwellings including the creation of an access point from Water Lane. Provision of open space including children's play DEVELOPMENT: area, linear park, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site (Outline) SITE: Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/13/1265 APPLICANT: Mr Neil Kelly

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Sec106 Agreement.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks outline consent for the erection of up to 75 dwellings with a new access, associated parking with open space and play area provision. Consent is here sought for the means of access to the site with all other matters reserved for future determination.

1.2 The application site has an area of 4.47hectares of which approx. 1.4 hectares would be provided for on-site informal open space.

1.3 Whilst the application is in outline form the applicant has indicated that the proposed development would comprise the following mix of units:- 8 x 2 bed flats, 10 x 2 bed houses, 37 x 3 bed houses, 13 x 4 bed houses and 7 x 5 bed houses. The proposal would provide 30 affordable units which would equate to 40% affordable housing provision and the remaining 45 units would be for open market housing.

1.4 A new vehicular access would be created off Water Lane to serve the majority of the development and it is also proposed that 3 dwellings would utilise the existing private driveway serving Snapes Cottage off the B2139, Storrington Road.

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site lies to the north-east of the village of Storrington, on the northern side of Water Lane, but falls within the parish of Thakeham. The site is irregular in shape and comprises rough grassland bounded by field hedging and trees. A stream flows within the site along the southern boundary.

1.6 Water Lane and the Water Lane Industrial Estate abut the south western boundary of the site. To the south and east the site is bounded by residential properties in Brook Close, Rother Close, Concorde Close, Jubilee Way, Rainbow Way and Snapes Road. Snapes Cottage a Grade II Listed Building lies to the north of the site. A residential development of 8 dwellings is currently under construction to the east of the site (DC/11/0111). To the north and west of the site are open fields and planning permission has recently been granted for a warehouse building in the field immediately to the west of the site for Tesla, a local company on the Water Lane Estate.

1.7 The site slopes from north to south and the southern boundary along Water Lane, in particular, is predominantly screened by a hedgerow and mature trees, some of which are covered by Tree Preservation Orders.

1.8 The application site is outside of any built-up area as currently defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework. The applicant states that the proposal has been submitted under the terms of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD which seeks to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling 5 year housing land supply.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development - Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11 are relevant to the proposal.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application

2.4 Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 Guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD is also relevant to the determination of the application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal and external consultation, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic Planning Policy Manager: has summarised that the proposal would be contrary to the Council’s current adopted planning policies (CP1 & DC1) which seek to protect the countryside by preventing development in the countryside unless it is considered essential to its countryside location.

It is acknowledged that the Council does not have a 5 year housing supply against the South East Plan and as such the NPPF states that the relevant housing policies of the Horsham District Local Plan should not be considered up-to-date. However, the FAD SPD has been used as a local approach to address the Council’s shortfall in housing supply. The consistency of the FAD SPD against the objectives and principles of the NPPF has been recently endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate through the appeal decision at the RMC Engineering Works.

The site is located adjacent to the BUAB of Storrington, a Category 1 settlement, meaning the application is able to be considered under the FAD SPD guidance. The proposal is considered to be in broad compliance with the criterion listed within this policy, therefore from a policy perspective, there is no objection in principle to this proposal.

3.2 Landscape Architect: has no objection to the proposal subject to the submission of satisfactory and additional information. It is considered that key landscape and visual issues relating to the need to mitigate any potential significant adverse impact on the wider countryside to the north, to ensure some attractive framed and glimpsed views from the site of the South Downs are maintained, and to demonstrate a sensitive approach overall to integration of the development into the site landscape have generally been satisfactorily dealt with. However some important specific concerns must be addressed in relation to the following:

 Excessive proposed parameter plan maximum building ridge heights at the northern edge of the development  The general design approach to planting and boundary treatments adjoining existing residential gardens  Sustainable urban drainage features and their design as positive landscape features  Responsibilities for long term management and maintenance

3.3 Arboricultural Officer: has no objection to the proposal as the scheme has been devised sensitively towards the existing tree stock.

3.4 Head of Public Health & Licensing: raises no objection.

In respect of noise some concern was initially raised relating to the potential conflict of uses between the proposed residential site and the site immediately to the west for which planning permission has recently been granted for the erection of a warehouse for B2 use. However, this concern has been addressed following the submission of a further acoustic report which contained a noise assessment taking into account a different level of noise generation assuming a more intense manufacturing process than that approved.

With regard to air quality, the applicant has submitted an air dispersion modelling assessment of air quality impacts associated with the increased road traffic associated with the proposed development. The results show that the development would cause an ‘Imperceptible’ to ‘Small’ increase in pollutant concentrations, and therefore that the impact of the proposed development on air quality is considered to be ‘negligible’ for both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM10). However, in the context of Storrington, nitrogen APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

dioxide concentrations within the AQMA are significantly in excess of the UK air quality objective and the cumulative impact of even small additional increases in pollution are counter to the objectives of the air quality action plan for Storrington, which is to bring pollution levels to within the air quality objective limits. It is therefore recommended that the applicant submit a ‘Low Emission Strategy’ (LES) proposal, specific to the development, detailing a range of measures intended to fully mitigate against the predicted increase in traffic emissions.

It is also recommended that a Construction Environmental Management Plan be submitted to control adverse impacts from noise, dust and waste from construction activities.

3.5 Technical Officer: has no overall objections to the preliminary surface water drainage strategy proposed until detailed design information has been submitted at the appropriate planning stage subject to the imposition of drainage conditions.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.6 West Sussex County Council: as highways authority has considered the highway safety and capacity impacts arising from the proposal. The assessment has taken into account both the impact of the proposed development and other permitted developments within the immediate area. In this regard, Government guidance contained within the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. In light of the information submitted, it is not considered that this development would give rise to any severe impacts upon highway capacity. Therefore, no highway objection is raised subject to the imposition of conditions.

3.7 County Archaeologist: has no objection on archaeological grounds subject to suitable archaeological safeguards to be secured by way of conditions.

3.8 County Ecologist: has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions.

3.9 Environment Agency: has no objection in principle to the proposal and has no concerns over the location of properties in relation to fluvial flood risk. It is also advised that the applicant’s approach to surface water flood risk is comprehensive and provides more than enough capacity to limit flows to current levels, and possibly be an improvement to existing levels.

3.10 Southern Water: comment that a public water trunk main crosses the application site and states that all existing infrastructure must be protected which could be controlled via a planning condition.

It is also advised that Storrington catchment is currently under a hydraulic issue relating to excessive surface water infiltration, which is under investigation, and there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. As the proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development.

3.11 NHS Property Services: advise that both GP practices in Storrington are already at or above capacity with a total complement approaching 13,000 patients and that infrastructure improvements are a pre requisite to enable further registration of new patients from such proposals. A Section 106 contribution of £33,595 is therefore sought.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.12 Thankham Parish Council: strongly object to the proposal and a copy of their full comments are attached at Appendix A..

The Parish Council’s specific objections are listed below:

 The application is outside the built up area of Storrington and Sullington  There is no local need for more housing  Air pollution in Storrington will be exacerbated – fails FAD criterion 13 and NPPF  Undesirable coalescence of settlements – against FAD criterion 4  Insufficient infrastructure – fails FAD criterion 17 and NPPF

3.13 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council strongly object to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to comply with all the criteria listed in the FAD SPD.

More specifically, the site has been classified as not currently developable in the recently published Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The existing infrastructure in respect of education, health and drainage is inadequate and the proposal will have an adverse impact on the AQMA.

3.14 162 letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following grounds:

 Increased traffic congestion  Inadequate local services  Lack of public transport  Loss of wildlife habitat  Over-development  Suburban sprawl  Adverse impact on air quality  Light, noise and air pollution  Greenfield site  Flooding  Lack of local need  Adverse impact on the local landscape  Loss of biodiversity

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application are (i) whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government and APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6

development plan policy (ii) the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area (iii) highway safety (iv) air quality and (v) flooding.

At the forefront of the assessment of the application is the prevailing policy context set by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its advice for decision makers which is set out below before addressing the key issues identified above.

Policy context

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s planning policy. In this regard, the NPPF has the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through it as a golden thread. Para.7 of the NPPF explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development:- an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. Para.8 advises that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Therefore whereas previously the concept of sustainability in relation to development in rural areas has been widely interpreted to relate purely to transport sustainability, in fact, the concept should be applied on a much wider basis to encompass all aspects of sustainability. This broader view, now encompassed in the NPPF, requires an assessment at the overall impact of a development on the community.

6.3 Specific advice for decision taking is set out in Para.14 which requires that development which accords with the development plan should be approved without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, to grant permission unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.4 The site lies outside any defined built-up area and is therefore subject to the countryside protection policies of the Local Development Framework. However, the application has been submitted under the auspices of the FAD SPD. This document has arisen from the need to provide ‘flexibility’ to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. The document sets out the requirements against which those planning applications for development, put forward by landowners/developers as a response to the evolving circumstances, on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries in the District will be considered.

6.5 The approach put forward in the document is a criterion based one to enable all stakeholders to determine if sites may be considered suitable for development. Sites put forward under this policy approach should be ‘deliverable’ at the time that the site is put forward for planning permission. In the case of housing, there is likely to be a specific need in the short term, therefore sites should be capable of delivering housing completions during the life of the Core Strategy.

6.6 A willingness to develop and hence deliverability, is not the only criterion which governs the permitting of potentially suitable sites. LDF policy also requires that development is in ‘sustainable’ locations. Category 1 settlements are considered sustainable locations, as these are town and villages with a good range of services and facilities, as well as some access to public transport; they are also deemed capable of sustaining some expansion. In the case of Category 2 settlements only small scale development within the settlement and minor extensions to the settlement may be permitted providing that they address a specific local need. In both cases any site would be expected to adjoin the defined Built-up Area Boundary.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7

6.7 The scale of development will impact on the deliverability and the sustainability of a development. The size of all developments that come forward under this approach will be considered in terms of their scale in relation to the settlement to which they are attached.

6.8 The three issues of deliverability, sustainability and scale form the basis for the approach to be taken in considering proposals on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries and are a constant theme running through the FAD SPD. All development proposals should also respect the requirements of Policy CP8 by assisting ‘in the gradual evolution of the communities by enabling development which meets their needs but does not fundamentally undermine their qualities which make them or their countryside setting unique and special’.

6.9 The SPD sets out a number of criteria against which development proposals will be assessed. These include:

- The site boundary is contiguous (at least one boundary must physically adjoin in whole or part) with an identified Built-Up Area Boundary to accord with policies CP5 and CP8 of the Core Strategy.

- The scale of the development adjoining a Category 1 settlement does not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or cumulatively, to accord with the aims of the policies CP1, CP3, CP8, CP9, CP15, CP19 and DC9. Any development adjoining a Category 2 settlement would be expected to be of a much smaller scale in accordance with policies CP3, CP5, CP8, CP15 and DC1, DC9.

- The impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, around the edges of a settlement does not result in the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements in accordance with policy DC3.

- The impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, does not prejudice comprehensive, long term development, in order not to conflict with the development strategy set out in the Core Strategy and/or not to prejudice the review of the Core Strategy.

- The landscape and townscape character is protected, and conserved and/or enhanced, in accordance with policies CP1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC11 and DC12

- The biodiversity of a site is protected, conserved and enhanced where relevant, in accordance with policies CP1 and DC5

- Existing natural features, such as woodland, trees and hedgerows are retained wherever possible, in accordance with policies DC2, DC6 and DC9

- The site and proposed development is sustainable in accordance with PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, and the Core Strategy (2007) in particular policies CP5, CP8, and CP9. A sustainability report must be submitted with any planning application following the criteria and scoring guidelines set out in the Appendix.

- In order to assess and where necessary compare sites adjoining the same settlement, the advice in paragraph 75 of PPG13, that is, the length of short journeys that are likely to be replaced by walking are those under 2km, shall also be used. Sites where it is possible to walk to a wide range of facilities will be considered preferable to sites which are further away and make car journeys into town/village centres more likely

- The development is of a high quality, in all aspects, including layout and design, to accord with policies CP3 and DC9. In addition, high standards of sustainable construction APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

are expected as well as the inclusion of renewable and low carbon energy generation where feasible, in order to comply with policies CP2 and DC8.

- Where housing is proposed there is a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures in accordance with policy CP12; on developments of more than 15 dwellings up to 40% of the dwellings are required to be ‘affordable’ dwellings, and a mix including smaller units is required by policy DC18.

- The proposal satisfies the criteria relating to transport and access set out in policy DC40. Note that criteria b of Policy DC40 requires that the development is of an appropriate scale to the transport infrastructure in its location. Infrastructure contributions may be required. A Green Travel Plan will be required for developments that exceed Travel Plan thresholds.

- The Council is satisfied that the site is deliverable and sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate this. Applicants must be prepared to accept time limited permissions which have regard to new policy development

6.10 It can be seen from the above criteria that, potentially, the application site could fall within the remit of the SPD and therefore could be considered for development. However, it would be necessary to meet the requirements of all the criteria for a favourable recommendation to be given to construct up to 75 dwellings on a site outside of the built-up area.

Principle of development

6.11 The application site lies in the countryside outside of the Built-up Area Boundary of Storrington as defined in the Proposals Map of the Local Development Framework and as such would normally be considered contrary to Policy CP1. However, in light of the Council’s current lawful position in relation to 5 year housing land supply as outlined by the Strategic Planning Policy Manager at Para.3.1, the Council’s approach is to consider the proposal against the criteria outlined in the FAD SPD. Members will also be aware that planning permission has previously been granted for 78 residential units relating to the former RMC site, Washington Country Park (DC/10/1457) on appeal. This recent appeal decision is a material consideration in the determination of this current application. Given the Council’s ‘substantial shortfall’ in housing supply of over 2,000 dwellings that he had identified, the Inspector considered that the development would make a modest but valuable contribution to meeting the shortfall. As such, the Inspector gave substantial weight to the contribution of the site to meeting the Council’s housing land requirements and very little weight to the requirements of the criterion. Members will also be aware that another Inspector took a similar view in relation to the appeal allowed for 46 dwellings at Daux Avenue (DC/11/2385).

6.12 Storrington is a Category 1 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 and is therefore potentially capable of accommodating some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. The proposal complies with Criteria 1 of the FAD which requires at least one boundary to physically adjoin in whole or part with the Built-up Area Boundary. The south eastern and south western boundary of the application site adjoins in whole the Built-Up Area Boundary running along the north side of the properties fronting Brook Close, Rother Close and Jubilee Way.

6.13 However, there are other criteria which are of relevance when considering the principle of development. Criterion 3 requires that the scale of development adjoining a Category 1 settlement should not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or cumulatively. The proposal seeks the development of up to 75 dwellings and does not form part of a cumulative development that exceeds 150 dwellings and hence complies with the criterion. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9

6.14 Another matter for consideration in terms of principle is whether the development individually or cumulatively prejudices the comprehensive, long term development strategy set out in the Core Strategy and /or the review of the Core Strategy. Criterion 5 of the FAD is relevant here. The Inspector in the Oddstones (87 dwellings) appeal decision (DC/09/0488) took the view that unless the development actually hinders or holds back other developments in the Core Strategy or prevents something being taken through the Core Strategy Review, it can not be considered contrary to this criterion. Whilst Storrington has been previously suggested as a strategic location for development in the Core Strategy review process, the Council has taken the decision to respond on an ad-hoc basis to planning applications whilst working on the review. Therefore, there is no justification for a refusal of the proposal on this basis.

6.15 In terms of the general principle of development, it is considered that an objection could not be sustained as the proposal meets the first criterion of the FAD, also taking into consideration the comments of Strategic Planning Policy Manager at Para.3.1 and the Inspectors in the recent appeals for 78 residential units at the former RMC site and 46 dwellings at Daux Avenue.

Landscape Impact

6.16 Whilst there is no objection in principle to residential development of the site, normal development control criteria must also be fulfilled to ensure that the development complies with all the criteria set out in the FAD. In this regard, Criterion 6 requires that the landscape and townscape character be protected, and conserved and/or enhanced, in accordance with policies CP1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC11 and DC12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

6.17 More specifically, policy DC2 states:

Development will be permitted where it protects and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located, including:

a. the development pattern of the area, its historical and ecological qualities, tranquillity and sensitivity to change; b. the pattern of woodlands, fields, hedgerows, trees, waterbodies and other features; and c. the topography of the area.

6.18 The Landscape Architect considers the site to be of overall moderate-high sensitivity due to its elevated moderate to steeply sloping landform which then continues to rise more gently to a ridgeline to the north. The site is also seen against the backdrop of existing suburban residential development and the industrial development of Water Lane. In addition, the recently granted permission for a new building for TESLA on land immediately to the north west of the site must also be taken into consideration. It is also not a particularly visually prominent site in views from the South Downs.

6.19 In terms of impact on the very attractive, mostly unspoilt rural character of the land to the north it is not considered overall there would be any significant adverse impact taking into consideration the location of the development on the site, existing boundary trees and vegetation and subject to additional appropriate planting mitigation measures. Furthermore, the submitted landscape and visual appraisal satisfactorily demonstrates that any adverse visual impact from the local rights of way network in the countryside to the north will be limited. It has also been demonstrated through the illustrative layout, indicative visualisations, and parameter plans that it should be feasible to retain framed corridor views and glimpsed views of the South Downs between buildings.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10

6.20 It is acknowledged that there would be a substantial change in the visual amenity of the residential properties adjoining the southern boundaries of the site, especially where there is less existing boundary vegetation or there is insubstantial/poor boundary fencing. Therefore the applicant has been requested to provide further details as to how existing vegetation and new planting can be retained in the long term. In addition, the proposed building heights at the northern edge of the development are a concern and an amended building heights parameter plan has also been requested. These additional details are awaited at the time of writing this report.

6.21 There is therefore no objection in principle to development of the southern part of the site subject to appropriate mitigation, as the illustrative layout is considered to be generally sensitive and responsive to the local landscape character and the local distinctiveness of Storrington.

Highway safety

6.22 The site is proposed to be served by way of two vehicular access points. The access onto Water Lane is proposed to serve 72 dwellings, with 3 dwellings served by way of an existing access onto the Storrington Road. The vehicular access arrangements are considered to comply with current highway design guidance. The construction and use of the access points are not anticipated to result in any detriment to highway safety, however, details would need to be secured via conditions. It is also recommended that only the proposed access onto Water Lane is used for the purposes of construction.

6.23 In terms of traffic generation, and taking into account previously permitted development, the Transport Assessment demonstrates that the mini-roundabout at the junction of Water Lane/Thakeham Road would continue working within capacity in opening and future years scenarios. It is anticipated that queuing would take place on the Thakeham Road west arm. However, it is advised that viewing the situation with or without development, it is evident that the proposal would result in minimal additional queuing or delay.

6.24 It is recognised that there are local concerns regarding increased congestion on the highway network and relating to the worsening of air quality, especially through the High Street. The Highway Authority acknowledges that the development would result in increased traffic flows on the surrounding highway network but it is not anticipated that the increase in movements would be such as to warrant a reason for refusal.

Air Quality

6.25 The consultation response from Environmental Health at Para.3.4 considers the air quality issue in relation to the proposed development. The air quality assessment submitted by the applicant found that the current proposal will increase nitrogen dioxide concentrations at 24 of the 29 identified receptor locations. The receptor locations were agreed by Environmental Health prior to submission of the air quality assessment and represent residential properties on routes likely to experience a change in traffic volume both in the immediate vicinity of the site and within the existing AQMA. The results show that the development would cause an ‘Imperceptible’ to ‘Small’ increase in pollutant concentrations, and therefore that the impact of the proposed development on air quality is considered to be ‘negligible’ for both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM10).

6.26 However, in context of Storrington, nitrogen dioxide concentrations within the AQMA are significantly in excess of the UK air quality objective and the cumulative impact of even small additional increases in pollution are counter to the objectives of the air quality action plan for Storrington, which is to bring pollution levels to within the air quality objective limits.

The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) paragraph 124: APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11

“Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”

6.27 On this basis, whilst there is concern about the impact of the development on air quality it is unlikely that there would be sufficient grounds to recommend refusal of the application on these grounds alone. It is however recommended that a Low Emission Strategy be submitted specific to the development, detailing a range of measures intended to fully mitigate against the predicted increase in traffic emissions.

Flooding

6.28 It is acknowledged that a number of local residents have raised flooding as an issue within the locality of the site and Southern Water has advised that the Storrington catchment is currently under a hydraulic issue relating to excessive surface water infiltration. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, would be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Following further discussions with Southern Water in this respect, it is advised that whilst the proposed enhancements to the infrastructure to accommodate the development would not provide a solution to the current problem, which is under investigation, it would also not exacerbate the existing situation. In addition, the Council’s Technical Services Engineer has advised that the proposed drainage strategy appears acceptable at this stage and no adverse comments have been received from the Environment Agency. It is therefore considered that a reason for refusal on this basis could not be substantiated.

Other Matters

6.29 Storrington& Sullington Parish Council have raised the issue that the site is currently classified as ‘not currently developable’ within the SHLAA. The SHLAA is a live document and the status of a site can change subject to the level of information available. The SHLAA is a tool used to identify opportunities for housing development within the District and sites are assessed according to their ‘suitability’, ‘achievability’ and ‘availability’. If following a review of the information submitted in support of a site, together with a site visit, a site is found to be suitable, available and achievable, then the site is found to be deliverable (1-5 years) or developable (6-10 years). If constraints are highlighted in either of these three categories, then it may be that the site is classified as ‘not currently developable’ until more information is known about the potential for overcoming such constraints.

The SHLAA does not look at potential sites in the same level of detail as a planning application and therefore cannot be used in the consideration of a planning application.

S106 obligations

6.30 In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, the applicant has been advised that there would be a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town &Country Planning Act. This requirement is set out in policy CP13 of the Core Strategy and within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12

Summary

Having regard to the assessment above the key factors to be taken into account in reaching a decision in respect of this application are:-

 The NPPF has the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through it as a golden thread. The three dimensions to sustainable development comprise:- an economic role, a social role and an environmental role and these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. This broader view, now encompassed in the NPPF, requires an assessment at the overall impact of a development on the community.

 The proposal would represent an opportunity to help meet the housing land requirements within the District and Members will be aware of the current shortfall in the 5 year housing supply. In this respect, the comments of the Inspector on the Daux Avenue appeal are again of particular relevance. The Inspector identified the shortfall as 2,410 dwellings which in his view represented a ‘very substantial shortfall’. The current proposal for 75 units would thus make a valuable contribution to tackling the existing shortfall in the housing land supply.

 Given the shortfall in the provision of affordable housing in the District, the provision of some 30 affordable housing units would be a welcome increase in the number of affordable housing units coming forward.

 The proposed development would give rise to some important economic and financial benefits. There is no dispute that the construction of the development would generate jobs. It is also recognised that the expenditure by the occupants of the development in local shops would put money into the local economy thereby indirectly supporting retail and service jobs. The economic and financial benefits of the development should be accorded due weight in the assessment of the proposal.

 There is strong local opposition to the proposed development but none of the concerns raised are considered to be of sufficient weight to off set the benefits from the development of the site as set out above.

Conclusion

6.31 The application must be determined in accordance with central government guidance and development plan policy. National planning policy is clear that a high priority must be given to meeting the fully assessed need for housing and this requirement has been clearly demonstrated by recent appeal decisions. Therefore, there have to be extremely clear and specific reasons for refusal if the housing supply position is to be over-ridden by other factors. The report has demonstrated the benefits arising from the development and notwithstanding the objections raised to the proposal as set out in the report, these objections need to be balanced against the contribution the development would make to the Council’s 5 year housing land supply shortfall which the Inspector at the RMC, Washington appeal, described as ‘…the pressing need in Horsham District for housing in general, and affordable housing in particular’. In the circumstances, it is therefore considered that the proposal should be supported for the reasons set out in the report.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the relevant contributions and the following conditions:-

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13

1. A1 – Outline Permission 2. M1 – Approval of Materials 3. E3 – Fencing 4. H4a – On site parking 5. M8 – Sustainable Construction 6. D6 – Finished Floor Levels 7. D10 – Floodlighting 8. G6 – Recycling 9. L6 – Burning of Materials 10. O1 – Hours of Working 11. H6 – Wheel washing

And such other conditions as recommended by the various consultees.

Background Papers: DC/13/1265

DC/13/1265

Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close

Scale : 1:5000

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 04 September 2013

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT 0

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th September 2013 The development of the site for up to 102 residential dwellings together DEVELOPMENT: with associated landscaping, open space and access (Outline Application) SITE: Land East of Manor Close Henfield West Sussex WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/13/1266 APPLICANT: Welbeck Strategic Land

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To grant outline consent subject to the completion of a Sec106 Agreement to secure financial contributions in respect of community facilities, transport infrastructure, education, health and fire and rescue and the provision of 3 fire hydrants.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application is an identical application to DC/11/1962 for which planning permission was granted on appeal in September 2012. A copy of the original Committee reports in respect of this application is attached at Appendix A. The current application has been submitted to renew the approved consent which expires in March 2014 with the standard three year time limit for the submission of the reserved matters. It is maintained that the resubmission is necessary due to the on-going delay in assessing the application for town or village green status of the site.

1.2 Matters for consideration under this outline application comprise the principle of the development and the access. The appearance of the buildings, landscaping, layout of the site and scale would be dealt with as subsequent reserved matters.

1.3 The site has a total area of 4 hectares and the proposed density of development is given as 25.5dph. Whilst the application is in outline form the applicant has indicated that the proposed development would comprise the following mix of units:- 4 x 2 bed apartments, 5

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

x 2 bed houses, 81 x 3 bed houses and 12 x 4 bed houses, of which 40% would be for affordable housing.

1.4 Vehicular access to the proposed development would be from an existing access point at the north-western corner of the site off Wantley Hill Estate. A second access point from Benson Road in the southern part of the site would be for pedestrian and cycle access only. A total of 213 car parking spaces would be provided with an additional 29 spaces for visitor parking.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site lies to the east of Manor Close and is bounded to the south by residential development in Furners Lane. A recreation ground lies adjacent to the northern boundary and the eastern boundary is formed of ditches, hedgerows and individual trees though with significant gaps in the vegetation. Open countryside lies beyond the eastern boundary and the land slopes gently from north to south. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and consists of 4 open fields of pasture with no built development.

1.6 Whilst there are no definitive rights of way which cross the application site, Footpath no 2542 runs diagonally in a north-east to south-west direction to the north from which there are clear views of the site. Long distance views can also be obtained from the Brighton Road at the junction with the Albourne Road.

1.7 The application site is outside of any built-up area as currently defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework. The proposal has again been submitted under the terms of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD which seeks to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling 5 year housing land supply.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development - Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11 are relevant to the proposal.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.4 Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 Guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD is also relevant to the determination of the application.

PLANNING HISTORY

There have been a number of applications in respect of this site but the most relevant are set out below: APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

DC/11/1962 Development of the site for up to 102 residential dwellings NONDET & together with associated landscaping, open space and access allowed on (Outline Permission) appeal

DC/12/1004 The development of the site for up to 102 residential dwellings, REF together with associated landscaping, open space and access (Outline)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal and external consultations, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which are available to view on the public file as www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Spatial Planning Manager: advises that as this application is a duplicate of DC/11/1962 & DC/12/1004, her comments submitted in relation to these applications remain relevant, including those in relation to the 5 year housing land supply. From a strategic planning perspective, there remains no specific objection to the development of this site in principle.

3.2 Housing Services Manager: has confirmed that his comments on the two previous applications remain valid and he welcomes the intention to provide up to 40% affordable housing.

3.3 Landscape Architect: has no objection to the principle of the site being developed for housing, but maintains an objection to the proposal unless his concerns relating to the access, and the likely scale, form and layout of the development are satisfactorily addressed.

3.4 Arboricultural Officer: has no objection to the scheme.

3.5 Technical Officer: has confirmed that his comments have not altered from the previous application and has advised that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) describes how the flood risk from all sources of flooding to the proposed development site would be managed including taking into account climate change. He has no overall objection to the drainage strategy proposed until the detailed design information is submitted at the appropriate planning stage subject to the imposition of drainage conditions.

3.6 Head of Public Health & Licensing: has advised that the comments in respect of the previous applications remain relevant to the current application. In principle he has no objection to the proposal but would require the submission of a detailed scheme to control adverse impacts to local residents from noise, dust and waste during site clearance, site preparation and construction. In respect of air quality, he recommends that low emission measures are incorporated into the development.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.7 West Sussex County Council as highways authority has advised that the highway implications of the proposal have been considered in detail as part of the scheme permitted under DC/11/1962. It is not considered that there has been any significant material change in circumstances that would justify a change in recommendation from that previously offered. On that basis, no highway objection would be raised. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

3.8 County Archaeologist: has no objection on archaeological grounds subject to suitable archaeological safeguards to be secured by way of conditions.

3.9 County Ecologist: has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions base on those recommended for the previous application.

3.10 Sussex Police: have advised that as this is an identical application to DC/11/1962 their comments remain extant in conjunction with this application and welcome the statement that the development would be designed to the principles of Secured by Design

3.11 Southern Water: advise that foul sewage disposal can be provided to service the proposed development but would require a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. It is further advised that the Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposal to discharge surface water to the local watercourse.

3.12 Environment Agency: advises that the proposed development would only be acceptable subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development.

3.13 NHS Property Services: have requested a contribution towards healthcare as the potential new residents would utilise some or all of the health services and put further pressure on medical services generally.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.14 Henfield Parish Council: objects to the proposal firstly on the grounds put forward in respect of DC/11/1962, a copy of which is attached at Appendix B. Secondly, as the application has been submitted under FAD, the applicant has failed to demonstrate a desire and willingness to develop in the short-term.

3.15 336 letters of objection have been received from local residents reiterating their original concerns relating to DC/11/1962 and these are repeated below for ease of reference:-

 Site is used for informal recreation  No train station to access main areas of employment  Existing sewerage system cannot cope  Land would be lost to food production  Lack of parking in the village  Doctor’s surgery is full to capacity  Outside the built-up area  Loss of commercial business due to traffic congestion  Over-development of the site  No affordable housing provision  Does not meet the criteria outlined in the FAD document.

3.16 Henfield Community Partnership strongly objects to the application and fully supports the submission from Henfield Parish Council.

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principle of residential development on this site has been established with the grant of outline consent in September 2012 under DC/11/1962. The key issues in the determination of this application are therefore (i) whether there has been a material change in circumstances to justify a refusal of planning permission and (ii) the time limit for the submission of reserved matters

Policy context

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

First Issue

6.4 The current application has been submitted under the auspices of the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD. This document has arisen from the need to provide ‘flexibility’ to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. The document sets out the requirements against which those planning applications for development, put forward by landowners/developers as a response to the evolving circumstances, on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries in the District will be considered.

6.5 Members will recall that the previous application DC/11/1962 was also submitted under the auspices of the FAD SPD and was recommended for approval by officers as the proposal was considered to accord with all the FAD criteria. The Inspector in determining the appeal on the non-determination of DC/11/1962 was also of the view that the proposal would not result in material harm to any of the safeguards in the FAD criteria and therefore did not conflict with the policies referred to in the FAD. Consequently, it was considered that the proposal was in accordance with the development plan.

6.6 Furthermore, the Inspector held that even if the proposal did not accord with the development plan and the FAD, Government guidance in Para.49 of the NPPF advises that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if a five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated by the local planning authority. As there is a demonstrable need to deliver housing within the District, including affordable housing, and material harm had not been demonstrated, the Inspector concluded that the proposal was consistent with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF.

6.7 A further material consideration in the determination of the application is the revocation of the South East Plan (SEP) on 25th March 2013. Whilst the SEP has been revoked, Inspectors at appeal have held the view that there is no more up-to-date and objective assessment of housing need available and as such the SEP still sets the housing supply requirement of the District.

6.8 It remains the case, therefore, that there is a shortfall in the District’s housing land requirements of over 2,000 dwellings. In this respect, two recent appeal decisions are also a material consideration in the determination of this application – the RMC, Washington appeal (DC/10/1457) and the Land east of Daux Avenue, Billingshurst appeal (DC/11/2385). In both cases, the Inspectors held that the shortfall in the five year housing land supply was substantial and the proposed developments of 78 and 46 dwellings respectively would make a significant contribution to meeting the pressing need in the District for housing in general and affordable housing in particular. It is therefore clear that the Inspectors attach great weight to the contribution that such developments would make to meeting the substantial shortfall in the housing land supply. Given the continuing shortfall in the housing land requirements it is considered that there are no grounds on which to justify a refusal of planning permission on this basis.

6.9 Notwithstanding the housing land supply issue, Members will note that no objections to the proposal have been raised by the respective consultees. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Landscape Architect maintains his objection to the scheme on the basis of the scale, form and layout of the proposed development nevertheless no objection in principle is raised to the proposal and it is considered that the identified concerns would be addressed at the reserved matters stage.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7

Second issue

6.10 The applicant proposes a three year time period for the submission of reserved matters and implementation. It should be noted that this is the standard time period for the submission of reserved matters following the grant of an outline consent. However, criterion 18 of the FAD SPD states that applicants must be prepared to accept time limited permissions to ensure that such sites are deliverable. This requirement was supported by the Inspector on the DC/11/1962 appeal who imposed a condition limiting the period for the submission of reserved matters to 18 months in recognition of the need for additional housing, including affordable housing, within the area.

6.11 In justification of this proposal, the applicant has advised that there are on-going delays with the determination of the village green application. The application has been before West Sussex County Council (WSCC) for 14 months and is not scheduled to go to Committee before December 2013. If the Committee refer the application to an Inspector, then it may take up to six months for an Inquiry date to be set and the Inquiry to take place. The Inspector’s conclusions at the Inquiry would then need to be referred back to the County Council Committee for a final decision.

6.12 Furthermore, the Daux Avenue appeal was allowed by the Inspector with the full three year time limit for implementation. In this case the Inspector concluded that, notwithstanding the ‘need to address housing shortfall as a matter of urgency’, the standard time limit for commencement was applied as it was acknowledged by the Inspector that the village green application could take some time to resolve.

6.13 In the circumstances, it is therefore considered that, on balance, the imposition of a three year time limit for the submission of reserved matters would not be unreasonable.

Section 106

6.14 In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development there is a requirement for the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act. The contributions to be secured in respect of this development are listed below and were allowed by the Inspector on the DC/11/1962 appeal:

 Affordable housing  Refuse & recycling  Health provision  Community facilities in respect of parking improvements  Fire and rescue  3 fire hydrants  Education  Transport

Conclusion

6.15 This application is identical in all respects to DC/11/1962 which was allowed on appeal as the Inspector held that the proposal did not conflict with the policies referred to in the FAD criteria and was therefore in accordance with the development plan. Given there is a continuing shortfall in the housing land supply in the District, it is considered that there has been no change in circumstances which would justify a refusal of planning permission APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8

It is acknowledged that there is strong local opposition to the proposed development, however, the concerns that have been raised were all considered by the Inspector who considered that the demonstrable need for deliverable housing sites outweighed all other matters.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that outline consent be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement and the conditions attached to DC/11/1962.

Background Papers: DC/11/1962 & DC/12/1004 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1 DC/13/1266 Appendix A DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th April 2012 Development of the site for up to 102 residential dwellings together with DEVELOPMENT: associated landscaping, open space and access (Outline Permission) SITE: Land East of Manor Close Henfield West Sussex WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/11/1962 APPLICANT: Welbeck Strategic Land LLP

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development and forthcoming appeal – Public Inquiry

RECOMMENDATION: To agree that the appeal is not contested

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application and forthcoming appeal.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application was validated on 7th October 2011 and the 13 week target date was 6th January 2012. The appeal was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 13th March 2012 and is to be heard by way of a Public Inquiry, the date of which is to be arranged. As the appeal has been lodged, the Local Planning Authority can no longer determine the application, this will now be undertaken by the Planning Inspector. However, it is necessary for the Committee to consider the proposal and if appropriate agree that the appeal is not to be contested.

1.2 The outline application seeks to establish the principle of developing the site with residential development of up to 102 dwellings. Matters for consideration under this outline application comprise the principle of the development and the access. The appearance of the buildings, landscaping, layout of the site and scale would be dealt with as subsequent reserved matters.

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2 DC/13/1266 Appendix A 1.4 Vehicular access to the proposed development would be from an existing access point at the north-western corner of the site off Wantley Hill Estate. A second access point from Benson Road in the southern part of the site would be for pedestrian and cycle access only.

1.5 A total of 213 car parking spaces would be provided with an additional 29 spaces for visitor parking.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The application site lies to the east of Manor Close and is bounded to the south by residential development in Furners Lane. A recreation ground lies adjacent to the northern boundary and the eastern boundary is formed of ditches, hedgerows and individual trees though with significant gaps in the vegetation. Open countryside lies beyond the eastern boundary and the land slopes gently from north to south. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and consists of 4 open fields of pasture with no built development.

1.7 Whilst there are no definitive rights of way which cross the application site, Footpath no 2542 runs diagonally in a north-east to south-west direction to the north from which there are clear views of the site. Long distance views can also be obtained from the Brighton Road at the junction with the Albourne Road.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development - Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11 are relevant to the proposal.

2.3 Policies SP1, CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, H1 & H3 are among the policies of the South East Plan relevant to the determination of the application.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.6 Guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD is also relevant to the determination of the application.

PLANNING HISTORY APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3 DC/13/1266 Appendix A

2.7 HF/55/91 – An application for the erection of a doctor’s surgery/medical centre & car parking (outline) was withdrawn in September 1991.

2.8 HF/61/91 – An application for the erection of a doctor’s surgery and associated car parking (outline) was refused in November 1991.

2.9 HF/65/91 – Outline consent was sought for the erection of 10 village houses, village car park and reserve for extension of medical facilities or village housing phase 2 but refused in November 1991.

2.10 HF/25/92 – Outline consent was again sought in March 1992 for the erection of 10 social & 66 dwellings, car park extension, public open space and toddlers play area, health centre with parking but the application was withdrawn.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Head of Strategic & Community Planning has made the following comments on the scheme:-

‘’This application needs to be considered against the development plan and other relevant planning policies. At the present time the development plan consists of the South East Plan and the adopted Development Plan Documents that form part of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (LDF); the Core Strategy (2007), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD and the Proposals Map (2007). Other relevant local development documents are the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (May 2009) and the Planning Obligations SPD. National policies are also relevant to the consideration of the application, in particular PPS3, Housing, PPS1, Delivering Sustainable Development and PPG13, Transport. Emerging national policy in the form of the draft national planning policy framework and emerging local policy in the form of the 2009 Core Strategy Review consultation document, ‘Leading Change in partnership to 2026 and beyond’ also need to be taken into account.

The Core Strategy (2007) sets the spatial vision for the District and along with the other LDF documents delivers the spatial planning strategy for the future of the District. The strategy was based around two large scale strategic locations: west of Crawley and west of Horsham, with limited provision for small scale ‘greenfield‘ allocations elsewhere. Policy CP 5, Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land), sets out a settlement hierarchy by identifying Category 1 and Category 2 settlements. Policy CP 5 states that:

Priority will be given to locating new development within Horsham Town and the other towns and villages which have defined built-up areas in accordance with the hierarchy and criteria listed below. • Category 1 Settlements – towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport – capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. • Category 2 Settlements – villages with a more limited level of services which should accommodate only small-scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs.

The strategy then is to locate development in sustainable locations and the hierarchy of settlements provided within Policy CP 5 identifies these more sustainable towns and villages. Henfield is identified as a Category 1 settlement. The application site, however, falls outside of the Built- Up Area Boundary. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4 DC/13/1266 Appendix A

Another key policy is Policy CP4, Housing Provision, which sets out the total housing requirement for the plan period; 2001 – 2018. In order to provide sufficient ‘flexibility’ to enable it to deal with any changing circumstances a “hook” was added to the policy during the Examination of the Core Strategy that ‘reserve sites’ (at one or more Category 1 settlement) be included in a subsequent DPD, with their release managed through Policy CP 9, Managing the Release of Housing Land, should any shortfall in housing supply occur.

The Council, therefore, began work on a draft Reserve Housing Sites (RHS) DPD and an Issues and Options paper (which did not identify sites) was published in October 2007, followed by a Preferred Options document published in June 2008, which identified the application site as a possible site.

At the end of the consultation and after a period for the analysis of the representations, however, it was decided not to pursue the RHS DPD for the reasons set out in the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD (2009) paragraphs 1.4 to 1.8. Hence, it was deemed appropriate to look for an alternative solution, such as a broader, criteria-based policy, and this developed into the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (2009), thereby ensuring that development in the District would still be plan-led. The provisions of the FAD SPD apply when housing is not coming forward in accordance with the development plan targets, as envisaged by the strategy and in accordance with the development plan targets.

You will be aware that it is the Government’s intention to abolish the South East Plan; this has now been enshrined in law in the form of the Localism Act. The weight given to the ‘intention’ therefore has increased; however, until the abolition the South East Plan, May 2009, remains the most up-to-date development plan in terms of setting housing targets.

Under the South East Plan, the Council continues to have a shortfall in five year housing land supply, being able to show only a 77% supply (Annual Monitoring Report, April 2010 – March 2011). Previous similar shortfalls (a 73% supply) have been described as ‘significant’ by Inspectors in recent appeal decision letters.

Although the Core Strategy (2007) also forms part of the development plan, it is not the most up-to-date element in terms of housing land supply. The housing targets within it are based on the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001 -2016 and the Core Strategy looks to 2018. Under the Core Strategy targets, the Annual Monitoring Report 2010 -2011 shows that the Council is able to show a five year supply (105.8%).

The application, then, would normally be considered contrary to planning policy – Policy CP1, Landscape and Townscape Character of the Core Strategy and Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), because the site lies in the countryside outside of the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of Henfield as defined on the Proposals Map (2007). However, due to the Council’s current lawful position in relation to 5 year housing land supply, the Council’s approach is to consider the proposal in light of the criteria based approach set out in the FAD SPD.

By virtue of the fact that the site adjoins the BUAB on the eastern side of the settlement and that Henfield is a Category 1 settlement, as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy and is therefore considered capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment, the development of this site can, in principle, be considered acceptable in accordance with Criteria 1 of the FAD SPD.

In relation to Criteria 3 of the FAD SPD, which states that “the scale of development adjoining a Category 1 settlement does not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5 DC/13/1266 Appendix A cumulatively, to accord with the aims of policies CP1, CP3, CP8, CP9, CP19 and DC9”, the proposal is also considered acceptable in principle. There have been no other applications submitted under the auspices of the FAD SPD in Henfield.

Permission has been granted at Parsonage Farm, Deer Park, Henfield (DC/09/1222 & DC/11/0787) for 130 dwellings recently but this was on an allocated site which had been through an Examination in Public and is located within the BUAB as defined by the Proposals Map (2007); not a site brought forward under the FAD SPD.

The issue of proposed housing numbers on the Parsonage Farm site was of considerable discussion at that time. This was because the proposal was for 130 dwellings and the policy, Policy AL12 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD, stated around 90 dwellings. I would refer you back to my comments dated 23rd September 2009 which specifically considered this issue of housing numbers on the site.

It is also worth noting that the recent appeal decision on the Marringdean Road site, Billingshurst (DC/10/0939) where the cumulative total exceeded the 150 dwellings (a total of 217) referred to in the FAD SPD the Inspector took the view that the development as ‘evolutionary’, ‘not radical’ making it acceptable within the spirit of the document.

Another matter for consideration in terms of principle is whether the development individually or cumulatively prejudices the comprehensive, long term development strategy set out in the Core Strategy and /or the review of the Core Strategy – Criteria 5 of the FAD SPD. The Inspector in the Oddstones appeal decision (DC/09/0488) took the view that unless the development actually hinders or holds back other developments in the Core Strategy or prevents something being taken through the Core Strategy Review, it can not be considered contrary to this criterion. Although I do not necessarily fully agree with the stance taken by the Inspector, we have to be mindful that in this case at the current time his reasoning is likely to still stand. In other words, substantial, robust and clear evidence would be required to justify refusal on this basis. Henfield has not been suggested as a strategic location for development so far in the Core Strategy review process and the Council has also taken the decision to respond on an ad-hoc basis to planning applications (rejecting the draft Interim Statement approach) whilst working on the review. At the present time, therefore, I see no justification for a refusal of the proposals on this basis.

As part of the aim of the FAD SPD, deliverability is a significant concern as it is designed to address the shortfall in housing over the five year period. Criteria 18, therefore, should still apply and the applicant should be able to demonstrate that the scheme is deliverable over the shorter term to assist with the Council’s housing land supply position. The time limit condition attached to any planning permission should reflect the more immediate timeframe that the development is required.

The other criteria in the FAD SPD refer to the Core Strategy (2007) and General Development Control Policies (2007) and need to be considered by the case officer; along with specialist advisors, although I will touch upon some of those later.

As the Council does not have a five year housing land supply against the South East Plan, Paragraph 71 of PPS3 Housing is also relevant. This states that the local planning authority ‘should consider favourably planning application for housing, having regard to the policies in this PPS including the considerations in paragraph 69.’

Paragraph 69 sets out five points that Planning Authorities should have regard to when deciding applications:

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6 DC/13/1266 Appendix A a. Achieving high quality housing – It is considered that the quality of the scheme and the housing would be best judged by the case officer. Henfield Parish have an adopted Parish Design Statement which will offer further guidance on design and quality issues. b. Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing… The mix of housing should be considered against Policy DC18, Smaller Homes/ Housing Mix of the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, taking into account the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (May 2009). Affordable Housing policies are referred to later. The Housing Development & Strategy Manager will be able to comment in relation to the mix of the affordable housing element of the scheme. c. The suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability. – Clearly you will receive up-to-date comments in this respect from other experts. The criteria in the FAD SPD are also relevant. Perhaps here though, it is appropriate to note that the site was put forward in the Reserve Housing Sites Preferred Options consultation document in June 2008 as a sustainable location for development. The Non-Technical Summary of the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment that accompanied the document summarised it as follows; ‘Henfield has a good range of services and facilities, and a bus service to a wide range of destinations. The site is relatively free from environmental constraints’. Although the document was not taken forward and therefore carries no weight, it is clear that robust evidence would have to be provided to refute the position as previously described by Council Officers should the application be refused. d. Using land effectively and efficiently. – It is considered that this is a detailed element of the proposal and, therefore, should be assessed by the case officer. e. Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives… Housing objectives are set through the policies in the development plan and the issue of need and demand are addressed through housing land supply as considered above. The spatial vision for the District is set out in Chapter 3 of the Core Strategy (2007) and as part of that vision paragraph 3.9 states: ‘Our aim will be to protect the distinctive character of the smaller towns, villages and hamlets within the District, accepting that some communities have already experienced major change in recent years……’. This is particularly relevant to Henfield, however it is also noted that paragraph 3.5 makes reference to ‘The south-eastern corner of the District may also have a role in supporting the sustainable economic growth and regeneration of the Sussex Coast Sub- region.’ The spatial objectives, set out in paragraph 3.17, flow from the spatial vision. Using these nine spatial objectives, it is considered that a number of these will relate to the comments from the specialist officers and will need to be assessed and balanced by the case officer. These will also need to be balanced against the housing land supply position as set out above.

The draft National Planning Policy Framework (published July 2011) is also a material consideration to be taken into account, in particular the approach towards housing supply is of interest. Within the draft document it states that ‘the Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes’ (paragraph 107). The five year supply requirement also remains; ‘local planning authorities should identify and maintain a rolling supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements’ (paragraph 109). The draft NPPF also mentions an additional housing allowance; ‘The supply should include an additional allowance of at least 20 per cent to ensure choice and competition in the market for land’ (paragraph 109). However, in the Council’s response to the consultation, it considered that there needs to be further clarification around the additional 20% requirement when calculating the housing land supply position.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7 DC/13/1266 Appendix A Other Considerations

The application provides 40% affordable housing units and therefore meets the target set out in Policy CP 12, Meeting Housing Needs, of the Core Strategy. The mix of affordable houses provided should be reflective of the overall development, and take account of the comments of the Housing Development & Strategy Manager.

It is understood that the Highway Authority have raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions, including requiring a Travel Plan and therefore there is no objection under Policy DC40, Transport & Access of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

It is understood that the scheme incorporates renewable energy in accordance with Policy DC8; you are best placed to assess whether the proposals are sufficient to meet the aims of the policy.

Similarly, you are best placed, along with the Design & Conservation Officer and Landscape Officer, to assess whether the scheme accords with amongst others the criteria in Policy DC 9, Development Principles.

Prior to the application being reported to Committee the necessary infrastructure contributions should be agreed in accordance with the CIL regulations and the adopted Planning Obligations SPD. I would be happy to offer further advice if necessary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, from a strategic planning perspective, there is no specific objection to the development of this site in principle, subject to an appropriate Section 106 agreement. Clearly there are issues which need to be considered following the receipt of specialist advice and which will need to be balanced in your recommendation. If it is helpful I would be happy to offer further guidance once you are in receipt of all the relevant information. Moreover I will update you should the situation regarding national policy change over the coming weeks/ months.’’

3.2 The Housing Strategy & Development Manager welcomes the intention to provide up to 40% affordable housing, but would point out that should planning consent be granted for this site, it will be sold to a developer and issues of viability will almost certainly be raised, with the potential to reduce the percentage of affordable housing.

The Strategic Planning Officer states that the mix of affordable houses provided should be reflective of the overall development. The proposed mix is as follows:

4 x 2 bed flats 5 x 2 bed houses 32 x 3 bed houses

The open market units proposed consist entirely of 3 and 4 bed houses – however, the large number of affordable family homes is welcome, and the mix is supported. Should planning consent be granted and the site sold on, future owners may apply to change the mix.

There is no mention of tenure split. The overall target is to provide 25% of the total affordable housing as rented properties with other forms, including shared ownership and shared equity, comprising the rest of the affordable housing (15%). However, the tenure split will be determined in the light of up-to-date information, particularly on local need and supply. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8 DC/13/1266 Appendix A

The Section 106 Agreement should set out the mix and tenure split, with any revision of the mix and split to be referred to the Council for approval.

3.3 The Council’s Landscape Architect has no objection in principle to the proposal but raises an objection on the following grounds:-

‘’ On balance I have no objection to the principle of this site being developed for some housing.

The existing landscape character of the site is not distinctive and the current urban edge is harsh and abrupt so there is an opportunity for enhancement of the settlement edge. Nevertheless development on the site is likely to be very exposed to view from the wider landscape to north east and east and I do have considerable concerns about the access, and the likely scale, form, layout of the development.

1. Access

Vehicular access will be entirely along Wantley Hill Road, with no alternative access to the site. This road is already relatively narrow with parked cars. The quality of the pedestrian walking experience along this road could be considerably adversely affected by a significant increase in vehicle movements and congestion especially at peak times. Existing residents and local people taking walks into the countryside east of Henfield use this road. I would question in the light of the effects of vehicle movements whether up to 102 homes can be justified. Manual for streets makes clear that propensity to walk is influenced not only by distance, but also the quality of the walking experience

2. Layout

It is appreciated that layout is a matter reserved for future consideration and I presume the layout is illustrative although it does not say so on the drawing.( needs to be clarified) Nevertheless the issues, concerns identified below have a bearing on whether up to 120 dwellings are achievable and indeed may need to be less to conform with relevant landscape character policy, and development quality policy. I would also advise against approval of an illustrative layout if we are not satisfied it conforms with relevant policies.

1. The location of the northern community park seems very poor in respect of pedestrian access to it. People from approx over half the development area would be forced to cross the busy access road to be able to use it. This could lead to poor usage and surveillance of the open space Also the boundary of the park is adversely affected by a series of isolated car park spaces.

There is no attempt illustrated to integrate the site in this area with the wider countryside and take advantage of attractive views in this location towards the Adur Valley. This presumably is because there is a conflict with planting mitigation measures on the boundary to try and hide the development.

2. Sense of arrival - The access from Wantley Hill Road seems to be lacking in any sense of arrival with no strong built or landscape gateway feature with a risk that it will be dominated by lighting columns and car parking

3. Adverse visual impact of car parking - The layout includes some substantial areas unrelieved by any proposed softening planting

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9 DC/13/1266 Appendix A 4. The landscape buffers to existing housing do not show any provision for access for maintenance of planting which would require a minimum of 2m grassed strip between the structure planting and new housing and several access points into the area .

5. The layout illustrated is very regimented and formal. This does not demonstrate attention to local settlement character and distinctiveness. Whilst suburban semi detached development adjoins the site I do not think we should be repeating this. The design and access statement provides illustrations of historic buildings in Henfield but there is no analysis of distinctive street and lane patterns, spatial arrangements of buildings, variations in plot sizes and set backs, use of hedges and different boundary treatments etc that should be informing the design principles for the layout.

6. Both the layout and the landscape masterplan are not helpful in that they do not distinguish between existing vegetation to be retained and proposed planting

3. Scale/height of development

This matter is reserved for future consideration. However it is my view that it is critical to establish some height parameters now

The landscape and visual assessment does not seem to identify what height of development was assumed for the purposes of the assessment. This needs to be clear.

I note the photomontages for viewpoint 4 from footpath 2452, a close view of the site demonstrate that the local topography/effects of vegetation are such that existing development boundary is currently not visible but when development is introduced on the site before 15 years of mitigation planting the impact of housing is visually very dominating on the local landscape and this effect could be increased depending on the exact height envisaged.

This leads me to the view that it is critical to avoid a wall effect of development on the eastern boundary and that there needs to be a much more substantial visual break in the new edge such as could be provided by an area of new woodland which could also provide a landscape and biodiversity enhancement

A drawing should also be submitted establishing a max height parameters for the development. In my view this should not be any higher than the minimum for two storey development 8.2m and allow for some variation in height by including some chalet bungalows height dwellings particularly at the edges.

4. Suds

I note The WSP assessment advises the intention to rely on pervious paving draining to underground storage areas under the roads. However this is provisoed by advice that this is subject to further site investigation and there could be a need to create dry basins in the open space areas. I would argue this is an important issue that needs to be clearly established one way or another at this stage as the use of dry basins in small open space areas could compromise their functionality and appearance. It is critical to avoid any risk of deep hollows with steep sided slopes being created

On the basis of the above comments I would advise I would maintain a landscape objection to approval of up to 102 dwellings, unless the above identified matters are now satisfactorily addressed and there may in all likelihood need to be a reduction in the number of dwellings.’’ APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10 DC/13/1266 Appendix A

3.4 The Design & Conservation Adviser has made the following comments on the application:-

‘’This site is immediately adjacent to the urban settlement of Henfield, and it is clear from the proposals can be accessed via the existing street network. From the wider landscape there are views of the urban edge of Henfield, including glimpsed views of rear garden, roofs, close boarded fences etc. The site is also contained within these views and does not intensify any urban spread towards the countryside; to the east this has already been carried out by the development of the Wantley Hill estate and the suburban houses and their gardens of Furners Lane. In principle therefore the development of the site for residential is acceptable from a design point of view.

Turning to the specifics of the access and layout, I note the application is outline, with all matters except access, reserved. However the application does provide an illustrated layout and a DAS with examples of local architecture.

The access from the Wantley Hill Estate appears logical, and would connect into an existing street, ensuring the development has connectivity to the existing built up area. Furthermore a foot/cycle path has been provided on the south end, again ensuring connectivity of the scheme to the urban area and wider network.

The internal illustrative streets show buildings facing open spaces, and an access street around the edge, facing out of the site. These general principles are supported.

However there is some concern regarding the illustrative layout in that the groupings of the buildings appear overly urban in some places and could respond better to the countryside edge environment of the site. The DAS is useful in outlining the architectural character of the Henfield, however could include more to demonstrate the character of the layout and how it responds to local patterns. A discussion with the architects may help unlock this issue and ensure the application is compliant with DC9 and FAD policies. As a suggestion, it may be that a two different character areas (one for the edge and one for the more urban parts of the site) are adopted, providing different development pattern for each part of the site.’’

3.5 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the scheme for the following reasons:

‘’ I visited the site on 9th February 2012 and report accordingly.

 As the site is almost completely open, there are no tree issues within it. There are some trees of very minor merit along the remnant hedge running east/west between the northern and southern fields, but it appears that these are due to be retained as part of the southern community park area.  The field edge hedgerow along the eastern boundary is management lapsed in places, but has some merit; it includes some semi-mature trees, though none of especial or particular merit. I am pleased to see that this boundary foliage is retained, and indeed the form of the site layout design, with an internal access road running between the hedge and the proposed dwellings to the west, makes this sustainable and realistic. I note the proposal to enhance this strip, which is commendable.  To the immediate north of the site, in the southern verge to Manor Way, are a line of 5 trees of considerable amenity merit. They are off-site, and appear to be in the ownership of the West Sussex County Council Highways network. Growing presently in very close proximity to the kerbside, the two specimens to the east (trees T27 and T28 on the submitted tree survey) are specimens of poor merit, but the three to the west (T30, T31, T32) are category B trees, worthy of retention. (Note: there is no T29). I note from the APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11 DC/13/1266 Appendix A submitted Proposed Site Access and Associated Visibility Splay drawing (90720-01, rev A) that not only T26 and T27 are to be felled, but also that the lime tree T30 will need to be removed. This is a small shame, but in my view it is acceptable, as it is in rather too close proximity to the larger tree to the west, T31.  The drawing indicates the retention of the two westerly trees, T31 and T32, which happen to be the best of the group. Care will be needed when works to realign the highway and footway are carried out in this area, but the development appears realistically achievable whilst ensuring the trees' retention. For their successful retention, the kerb line adjacent to them would need to be retained wholly undisturbed.

On the basis that this can be achieved, I have NO OBJECTION to the scheme’’.

3.6 The Council’s Technical Officer has advised that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) describes how the flood risk from all sources of flooding to the proposed development site would be managed including taking into account climate change. He has no overall objection to the drainage strategy proposed until the detailed design information is submitted at the appropriate planning stage subject to the imposition of drainage conditions.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.7 The County Surveyor has no objection to the proposal and has commented on the issues of sustainability, capacity and safety as follows:-

‘’ Sustainability

Walking and Cycling The Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG 13) considers that walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips. The accompanying document “PPG13: A Guide to Better Practice” expands on this by suggesting that 2km is the maximum most people will walking, that 1.6km is a realistic distance for the majority and trips less than 800m rarely use motorised modes of transport. PPG 13 also suggests that 5km should be considered as the maximum cycling distance.

The site is located approximately 0.5km from the Town Centre where a number of services essential to the functioning of a residential estate can be accessed. This includes food retail, dental care, pharmacy and a library. Located approximately 0.6km – 0.8km from the site are primary education, health centre and a leisure centre.

Henfield benefits from a developed footway network which, in the vicinity of the site, is well lit. Continuous footpath provision with a pedestrian crossing facility exists between the site and the High Street

The closest secondary school is located in Hassocks, a journey of 8km, and there are no major centres of employment within 5km of the site. Shoreham or Burgess Hill are likely to be the closest locations for such an opportunity.

Sheltered and secure cycle parking should be provided to a ratio of 1 space per 1 or 2 bed dwellings and 2 spaces for 3+ bed dwellings.

Public Transport The closest train station to the site is located in Hassocks. While it is possible that residents could access the station via bus, it would be an unattractive option to do so given APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12 DC/13/1266 Appendix A the inconvenience to the traveller. As such, train travel would not be considered a viable alternative in this instance.

The Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation publication “Guidelines for Planning for Public Transport in Development” states that the maximum walking distance to a bus stop should not exceed 400m. With this in mind it is noted that there are a number of stops within such a distance to the site with services to urban centres such as Brighton, Horsham and Burgess Hill. Services are frequent during weekdays and on Saturday, although there are no services after 20.00 or on Sundays.

Travel Plan (TP) A TP will be essential for this site in order to maximise the use of sustainable modes of transport locally and the applicant has submitted a framework TP for review. This is being assessed by our Travelwise Officer, Andy Mouland, who will request modifications prior to approving. It is recommended that the approval and implementation of the TP is secured via condition.

Capacity

Traffic Generation Movements associated with the development have been calculated using the TRICS database. The results indicate peak hour movements of 0.58 in the AM (60 movements) and 0.60 in the PM (61 movements). The results are similar to those accepted for another local development at Parsonage Farm. As such, we are satisfied that the results are representative of the expected number of traffic generation.

Junction Assessment In line with WSCC Transport Assessment (TA) Methodology, assessment has been carried out on the Wantley Hill Estate (WHE)/London Road junction using PICADY software. A Ratio of Flow to Capacity of 0.850 would indicate that the junction is approaching theoretical capacity; however, tables 6.1 and 6.2 demonstrate that there is still significant capacity remaining at this junction after the impact of the development and annual traffic growth has been considered.

From the WHE/London Road junction it is anticipated that distribution of vehicles will be such that the threshold of 30 vehicle movements will not be met again. Although only a small number, some traffic will be expected to route through Furners Lane to the east or through Church Street and west. No further analysis will be required and the assessment submitted in support of the application demonstrates that the proposed development will not have a material impact on the Highway network.

Safety

Parking The WSCC Parking Calculator suggests that the development will generate a demand for 229 spaces, while the application proposes a total provision of 213 spaces. However, there is sufficient space for any excess parking to be retained on-site and the presence of cars parked in the development will assist in reducing speeds, consistent with Manual for Streets guidance. A width of at least 4.1m is sufficient to enable two cars to pass one another and this is achieved throughout the site.

Widening During pre-application discussions it was highlighted by WSCC that parking on the bend of WHE (40a-41a) could have a negative impact on the safety of the access by restricting forward visibility. The applicant has proposed road widening to improve the visibility and APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13 DC/13/1266 Appendix A alleviate the problem. A Road Safety Audit: Stage 1 has been undertaken with consideration given to the proposed widening; no problems have been noted.

Road Safety Audit (RSA) An RSA Stage 1 and designer response has been submitted by the applicant. This has been reviewed by a WSCC in-house auditor who is satisfied with the audit and has no further comments or recommendations to add.

Summary The site location meets a number of the criteria set out within PPG 13 in regard to encouraging alterative and sustainable modes of transport. Walking and cycling are viable alternatives for a majority of local journeys and public transport also exists as an option for longer trips, although these methods are more likely to be suited to occasional use. The development is likely to lead to some dependency on the private motor car due to the need to commute for employment opportunity. On balance, the proposed development would be considered acceptable in regard to sustainability if an approved TP is implemented.

The TA submitted in support of the application demonstrates that the proposed development will not have a material impact on Highway capacity.

Highways are satisfied that the access conforms to recognised standards and that it has been demonstrated that the development will not have a negative impact on Highway safety.’’

As such, no objection is raised to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a number of conditions and the payment of financial contributions in respect of transport infrastructure, education and fire and rescue.

3.8 The County Council as an adjacent landowner objects to the application and considers it is detrimental to the Council’s adjoining site completely blocking access to this site and effectively sterilising it. It is also outside the built-up area boundary and contrary to current Local Development Framework Policies. It is also contrary to criterion 3 of the FAD document and would put unnecessary pressure on the identified infrastructure issues in the village that should be addressed through a wider strategic development of the east of Henfield through allocation in the Local Development Framework. The County Council would wish to bring forward land in its ownership to the north of this proposed development as part of a comprehensive development of the east side of Henfield and considers this should be the preferred route for any development of this area

3.9 The County Archaeologist has advised that archaeological remains of prehistoric, Roman and medieval date have previously been reported to the south, south-west and south-east of the application site. These areas of known ancient remains may extend into the application site and, if present, may be affected adversely during the course of development works.

Provision should be made through the use of a suitable planning condition for the mitigation of development impacts involving archaeological field investigation and recording of buried ancient features where appropriate.

3.10 Subject to condition the County Ecologist has no objection to the principle of the development in this location. He has advised that should the Local Planning Authority be minded to approve the application he would recommend the imposition of a suitably worded condition to secure a detailed Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan to support the Reserved Matters application and prior to any preparatory works. The plan or strategy would be expected to pick up the recommendations made within the submitted APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14 DC/13/1266 Appendix A ecological report detailing plant species and number, sowing mixes, reptile hibernacula, reptile mitigation timing, nest and roost boxes (number and location) and a bat sensitive lighting scheme etc.

3.11 The Environment Agency has advised that the proposal would only be acceptable subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of drainage details based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development.

More specifically, and with regard to surface water drainage, it is recommended that infiltration testing is carried out during the winter period so as a reasonable portrayal of groundwater can be determined and it is also recommended that the proposed ponds be considered as part of the future attenuation.

3.12 Southern Water has no objection to the proposal but requires the submission of a formal application for a connection to the public foul sewer and the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal.

3.13 Sussex Police has advised that the level of crime and anti-social behaviour at this location is average when compared to the rest of England and Wales. They are pleased to note that the Design & Access Statement mentions the crime prevention measures to be considered in the design and layout but will provide a more detailed breakdown of crime prevention observations and recommendations at the reserved matters stage.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

3.14 Henfield Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal and their comments are attached in full at Appendix A of this report. The Parish Council is extremely concerned as to the effect of the proposed development on the landscape and intrusion into the countryside together with the loss of tranquillity which would result from development of this site. Whilst principally affecting the residents adjacent to the site the effect would be felt throughout the village as a result of additional traffic and resulting noise and pollution.

The Parish Council is very mindful of the National Planning Policy Framework, the underlying principle of which confirms that local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities. The application does not reflect Henfield’s community needs nor does it support its health and well being. It does not enhance the environment nor does it satisfy any discernible need and if accepted the development would effectively be turning a Village into a Town.

3.15 152 letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following grounds:-

 Sussex countryside being destroyed  Increase in traffic congestion  Greenfield site  Rrestricted emergency access from Manor Road  No local employment would lead to an increase in number of commuters  Adverse impact on local school and doctor’s surgery  No public transport  Henfield would become a dormitory village  Wantley Hill Estate is heavily parked and the development would lead to chaos  Children would have to cross the busy A281 to community facilities  High density of development APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15 DC/13/1266 Appendix A  Increased flooding to surrounding roads  Increase Henfield population by 10%  Adverse impact on wildlife  Noise and dust pollution from construction works  Site forms a transitional area to the fields beyond  Site rejected as a Reserve Housing site in 2009/2010  Site is used for informal recreation  No train station to access main areas of employment  Existing sewerage system cannot cope  Land would be lost to food production  Lack of parking in the village  Doctor’s surgery is full to capacity  Outside the built-up area  Loss of commercial business due to traffic congestion  Over-development of the site  No affordable housing provision

3.16 A petition containing 74 signatures has been received objecting to the development for the same reasons as cited above.

3.17 2 letters of support have been received and 1 further letter of support provided the development provided 100% affordable housing

3.18 1 letter of comment has been received.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application are i) whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government and development plan policy ii) the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area and iii) highway safety

6.2 The application has been submitted under the auspices of the FAD SPD. This document has arisen from the need to provide ‘flexibility’ to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. The document sets out the requirements against which those planning applications for development, put forward by landowners/developers as a response to the evolving circumstances, on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries in the District will be considered.

6.3 The approach put forward in the document is a criterion based one to enable all stakeholders to determine if sites may be considered suitable for development. Sites put forward under this policy approach should be ‘deliverable’ at the time that the site is put forward for planning permission. In the case of housing, there is likely to be a specific need APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16 DC/13/1266 Appendix A in the short term, therefore sites should be capable of delivering housing completions within the five year period up to 2013.

6.4 A willingness to develop is not the only criterion which governs the permitting of potentially suitable sites. LDF policy also requires that development is in ‘sustainable’ locations. Category 1 settlements are considered sustainable locations, as these are town and villages with a good range of services and facilities, as well as some access to public transport; they are also deemed capable of sustaining some expansion. In the case of Category 2 settlements only small scale development within the settlement and minor extensions to the settlement may be permitted providing that they address a specific local need. In both cases any site would be expected to adjoin the defined Built-up Area Boundary.

6.5 The scale of development will impact on the deliverability and the sustainability of a development. The size of all developments that come forward under this approach will be considered in terms of their scale in relation to the settlement to which they are attached.

6.6 The three issues of deliverability, sustainability and scale form the basis for the approach to be taken in considering proposals on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries.

6.7 The SPD sets out a number of criteria against which development proposals will be assessed. These include:

- The site boundary is contiguous (at least one boundary must physically adjoin in whole or part) with an identified Built-Up Area Boundary to accord with policies CP5 and CP8 of the Core Strategy.

The scale of the development adjoining a Category 1 settlement does not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or cumulatively, to accord with the aims of the policies CP1, CP3, CP8, CP9, CP15, CP19 and DC9. Any development adjoining a Category 2 settlement would be expected to be of a much smaller scale in accordance with policies CP3, CP5, CP8, CP15 and DC1, DC9.

- The impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, around the edges of a settlement does not result in the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements in accordance with policy DC3.

The landscape and townscape character is protected, and conserved and/or enhanced, in accordance with policies CP1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC11 and DC12

The biodiversity of a site is protected, conserved and enhanced where relevant, in accordance with policies CP1 and DC5

Existing natural features, such as woodland, trees and hedgerows are retained wherever possible, in accordance with policies DC2, DC6 and DC9

The site and proposed development is sustainable in accordance with PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, and the Core Strategy (2007) in particular policies CP5, CP8, and CP9. A APPENDIX A/ 1 - 17 DC/13/1266 Appendix A sustainability report must be submitted with any planning application following the criteria and scoring guidelines set out in the Appendix.

- The development is of a high quality, in all aspects, including layout and design, to accord with policies CP3 and DC9. In addition, high standards of sustainable construction are expected as well as the inclusion of renewable and low carbon energy generation where feasible, in order to comply with policies CP2 and DC8.

6.8 It can be seen from the above criteria that, potentially, the application site could fall within the remit of the SPD and therefore could be considered for development. However, it would be necessary to meet the requirements of all the criteria for a favourable recommendation to be given to construct up to 102 dwellings on a site outside of the built-up area.

6.9 The comments of the Head of Strategic & Community Planning are outlined at Para 3.1 and Members will note that from a strategic perspective, in the current circumstances, that there is no objection in principle to the development of the site, subject to an appropriate Section 106 legal agreement.

6.10 More specifically, the application site lies in the countryside outside of the Built-up Area Boundary of Henfield as defined in the Proposals Map of the Local Development Framework and as such would normally be considered contrary to Policy CP1. However, in light of the Council’s current lawful position in relation to 5 year housing land supply, the Council’s approach is to consider the proposal against the criteria outlined in the FAD SPD. Given the site adjoins the Built-up Area of Henfield along its northern boundary and that Henfield is a Category 1 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 and is therefore considered capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment, the development of the site could, in principle, be acceptable in accordance with Criterion 1 of the FAD SPD.

6.11 Having regard to the Criterion that the scale of the development adjoining a Category 1 settlement should not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or cumulatively, the proposal is also considered acceptable in principle. There have no other applications submitted under the auspices of the FAD SPD in Henfield. Whilst permission has recently been granted for 130 dwellings at Parsonage Farm, Deer Park, Henfield under applications DC/09/1222 & DC/11/0787, nevertheless, this was an allocated site which had been APPENDIX A/ 1 - 18 DC/13/1266 Appendix A through an Examination in Public and is located within the BUAB as defined by the Proposals Map (2007) and is not a site brought forward under the FAD SPD. Members should also note that at the recent appeal decision on the Marringdean Road site, Billingshurst (DC/10/0939) where the cumulative total exceeded the 150 dwellings (a total of 217) referred to in the FAD SPD the Inspector took the view that the development was ‘evolutionary’, ‘not radical’ making it acceptable within the spirit of the document.

6.12 Another matter for consideration in terms of principle is whether the development individually or cumulatively prejudices the comprehensive, long term development strategy set out in the Core Strategy and /or the review of the Core Strategy – Criterion 5 of the FAD SPD. The Inspector in the Oddstones appeal decision (DC/09/0488) took the view that unless the development actually hinders or holds back other developments in the Core Strategy or prevents something being taken through the Core Strategy Review, it can not be considered contrary to this criterion. Henfield has not been suggested as a strategic location for development so far in the Core Strategy review process and the Council has also taken the decision to respond on an ad-hoc basis to planning applications (rejecting the draft Interim Statement approach) whilst working on the review. Therefore, there is no justification for a refusal of the proposal on this basis.

6.13 The Head of Strategic & Community Planning therefore remains of the view that at the present time an objection in terms of the above criterion could not be sustained and re- iterates that only if there is robust evidence relating to the wider infrastructure issues and more specific details of the scheme, should an objection be raised.

6.14 The proposed housing mix is considered broadly acceptable in terms of Policy DC18. Whilst the scheme does not provide the 64% target of 1 & 2 bedroom units as stated in the policy, nevertheless, the policy does provide flexibility in response to locality and character of the area. The application does provide 40% affordable housing and therefore meets the target set out in Policy CP12 but the mix of affordable houses should be reflective of the overall development. In this respect, the open market units consist entirely of 3 & 4 bed houses whereas the affordable units are 2 & 3 bed houses, however, the Housing Strategy & Development Manager has advised that he supports the affordable mix given the large number of affordable family homes proposed.

6.15 It is also important to note that normal development management criteria must be fulfilled to ensure that the document complies with the criteria set out in the SPD. Development considered under the FAD document must, for example, respect townscape character, complement the character of the settlement and be of high quality in terms of layout and design.

6.16 Government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and such requirements are further embodied in Local Development Framework policies such as Policy DC9. The views of the Design & Conservation Officer were sought as part of the consultation process and her comments are reproduced at Para 3.4 above.

6.17 In her opinion, the development of the site as proposed does not intensify the urban spread into the countryside as views of the site are contained within the development of the Wantley Hill Estate and the development of Furners Lane to the south. In principle, therefore, the development of the site for residential purposes is acceptable from a design point of view. Furthermore, the illustrative street scenes show buildings facing open spaces with an access street around the edge and these general principles are supported. However, she does express some concern regarding the illustrative layout in that the building groupings appear overly urban in some places and could respond better to the countryside edge environment of the site.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 19 DC/13/1266 Appendix A 6.18 With regard to the impact on the surrounding landscape, the Council’s Landscape Architect has no objection on balance to the principle of the development of the site for housing. However, he maintains a landscape objection to approval of the scheme for up to 102 dwellings unless his concerns with regard to the access and the likely scale, form and layout of the development are satisfactorily addressed and he considers that there may well be a need to seek a reduction in the number of dwellings. In particular he considers the indicative layout is very regimented and formal and does not demonstrate attention to local settlement character and distinctiveness. Furthermore, concern is expressed with regard to the scale and height of the proposed development with particular reference to the eastern boundary of the site where in his view it is critical to avoid a ‘wall’ effect of development.

6.19 Whilst your officers share the above concerns with regard to the indicative site layout, it should be noted that outline consent is sought for the principle of development of the site and the means of access thereto. The issues of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are all reserved matters and would be the subject of negotiation in the preparation of the reserved matters application. In this respect, the applicant advised that he did not wish to amend the scheme given it has been submitted in outline form as the amendments would relate to detailed matters reserved for subsequent approval.

6.20 With regard to the proposed access the County Surveyor has provided detailed comments in relation to sustainability, capacity and safety and has no objection to the proposed development. Whilst his advice was based on government advice contained in PPG13 which has since been superseded following the adoption of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) nevertheless, the current policy guidance is reflective of PPG13. In terms of sustainable transport, the NPPF advises that planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. In this respect, the County Surveyor has advised that walking and cycling are viable alternatives for a majority of local journeys and public transport also exists as an option for longer trips, although these methods are more likely to be suited to occasional use. The development is likely to lead to some dependency on the private motor car due to the need to commute for employment opportunity. However, on balance, the proposed development would be considered acceptable in regard to sustainability if an approved Travel Plan is implemented. In the circumstances the site is considered to be in a reasonably sustainable location thereby meeting Criterion 12 of the FAD SPD.

6.21 Furthermore, he has advised that the Transport Assessment submitted in support of the application demonstrates that the proposed development would not have a material impact on highway capacity. With regard to highway safety, the County Surveyor is satisfied that the access conforms to recognised standards and it has been demonstrated that the development would not have a negative impact on highway safety.

6.22 The concerns of residents in respect of the proposed development’s impact on the wildlife in the area and the water and sewage infrastructure are noted and the respective statutory consultees have been duly consulted. However, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, no objection has been raised in respect of these matters and reasons for refusal based on these issues could not therefore be substantiated.

6.23 With regard to financial contributions towards infrastructure requirements arising from the development, it is noted that the County Council have requested contributions towards education, transport infrastructure and fire and rescue and the provision of 3 fire hydrants. A community facilities contribution would also be payable but given the application has been submitted in outline form the precise sums are unknown at this time as they would be dependent upon the number and type of affordable housing units.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 20 DC/13/1266 Appendix A 6.24 In conclusion, this is an outline application which seeks to establish the principle of development and the means of access to the site with all other matters reserved for future determination. Notwithstanding that the Council’s Landscape Architect has raised an objection with regard to the submitted indicative layout, the principle of development is considered acceptable and the County Surveyor is satisfied that the proposed access conforms to recognised standards. The concerns raised by the Councils’ Landscape Architect would be a matter for negotiation at the reserved matters stage. It is acknowledged that there are strong local objections to the application, however, given the Council’s position with regard to the current 5 year housing supply and the comments of the various consultees on the scheme, it is not considered that there is any justification for the refusal of the application on planning grounds. Therefore, for the reasons stated above it is your officers’ view that the proposed development is acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 The Committee is recommended to confirm that the appeal is not contested and that had the Committee been in a position to determine the application that it would have resolved to approve the application subject to the completion of a Legal Agreement to secure financial contributions and the provision of 3 fire hydrants and the following conditions:-

1. A1 – Outline Permission…please amend time limit for ARM from 3 years to 18 months 2. D6 – Finished Floor Levels 3. D10 – Floodlighting 4. E3 – Fencing 5. G6 – Recycling 6. L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping 7. L6 – Burning of Materials 8. M1 – Approval of Materials 9. O1 – Hours of Working 10. H4a – On Site Parking 11. H6 – Wheel Washing 12. M8 – Sustainable Construction 13. L2A – Protection of trees 14. Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water. 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. 15. The development, hereby permitted, shall not be brought into use until the junctions and Highway improvements shown on drawing numbers 90720-01 Rev A and 90720-02 Rev B have been designed, constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the District Planning Authority, following consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason – In the interests of road safety. 16. No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until covered secure cycle parking spaces have been provided and car parking marked out and surfaced in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. Reason – To provide parking for the development in accordance with standards or alternative modes of transport in-line with PPG13 17. No development, hereby approved, shall commence until the Travel Plan has been approved to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority, and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Business Travelwise Officer, Andy Mouland, (tel. 01243 753667). APPENDIX A/ 1 - 21 DC/13/1266 Appendix A Reason – For the reasons of sustainability and encourage the use of alternative modes of transport in-line with PPG13 18. Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority LPA). The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall also include:

 overland flood flow exceedance route should drainage systems surcharge

 details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system. 19. No development shall be carried out on the land until the applicant, or their agents or successor in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The site is potentially of archaeological interest. 20. No development shall commence until a detailed Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by 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. 21. L12 – Protection of trees about entry into the site

Note to Applicant

1. Prior to the commencement of works within the public highway the applicant shall obtain the appropriate Agreement from West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority. This Agreement will be dealt with under the provisions of a Section 278 Agreement of the Highways Act, 1980, details of which can be obtained by contacting the Development Control Section, Highways and Transport Unit of the County Council at Chichester. (tel. no. 01243 642105). The agreement must be completed and the works implemented prior to the commencement of development.

2. Section 59 Agreement Prior to the commencement of works forming the subject of this planning permission, the applicant/developer shall agree with the Highway Authority the condition of the publicly maintainable highway and obtain the appropriate Agreement from West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority. This Agreement will be dealt with under the provisions of a Section 59 Agreement of the Highways Act, 1980, details of which can be obtained by contacting the relevant Area Highway Engineers (tel. no. 01243 642105). The agreement must be completed and the works implemented prior to the commencement of development.

3. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James APPENDIX A/ 1 - 22 DC/13/1266 Appendix A House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester SO23 9EH (Tel 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Background Papers: DC/11/1962

DC/13/1266

Land East of Manor Close

Scale : 1:5000

SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th September 2013 Development of 55 residential dwellings comprising 15 x 2-bed, 25 x 3- bed, 10 x 4-bed and 5 x 5-bed units, with associated parking and DEVELOPMENT: garaging, informal open space and play area, together with new attenuation pond (Outline) SITE: Land North of The Rise Partridge Green West Sussex WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/13/1187 APPLICANT: Rydon Homes Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE 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 seeks outline planning permission for the erection of 55 No. residential dwellings. This outline application seeks only to establish the principle of residential development in this location and the proposed access to the site. The details of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping are all reserved for consideration at a later date should outline permission be granted. The proposed 55 No. units would comprise 15 No. 2 bed dwellings, 25 No. 3 bed dwellings, 10 No. 4 bed dwellings and 5 No. 5 bed dwellings.

1.2 The proposed development would be accessed from the western side, with a vehicular access provided off Littleworth Lane and positioned towards the south eastern corner of the site. The layout submitted with the application, whilst only indicative, shows this access road extending perpendicular to the highway and running along the southern section of the site and then branching off towards the north and forming a loop towards the north eastern corner of the site and a cul-de-sac leading back towards the west.

1.3 The proposal shows a mix of single, two and two and half storey dwellings, with the majority being detached or semi-detached and only two short terraces. Of the 55 No. dwellings 40% are proposed as affordable units. This equates to 22 No. dwellings, comprised of 2 bed dwellings and 3 bed dwellings, with these proposed to be split 50/50 between affordable rent and shared ownership.

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site lies outside the built-up area of Partridge Green, a category 2 settlement as defined within the Horsham District Local Development Framework. The site is positioned to the east of Littleworth Lane and to the north of The Rise, which forms the edge of the built-up area envelope of Partridge Green. The site currently comprises a largely open grassed field extending to approximately 2.3 hectares.

1.5 The site is roughly rectangular in shape and slopes gently downwards towards the north from a high point just to the east of the centre of the southern boundary. The site is currently enclosed by means of a mature hedgerow and a number of trees along the western boundary with Littleworth Lane and by a line of trees and shrubs along the southern, eastern and northern boundaries. The northern boundary and part of the eastern boundary are also formed by existing drainage ditches, with the northern ditch forming a stream. There is an open barn and a number of stable buildings located to the north western corner of the site.

1.6 The properties of Beauchamps, The Barn and Blanches House are located to the north of the site, but set approximately 75m away and separated by an area of rough grassland and scrub. The existing properties, largely single storey in nature, located along The Rise to the south are positioned approximately 12m from the edge of the site. Open fields exist to both the east and west of the site. There is an existing vehicular access point serving the site located along the western boundary, just to the north of the centre point. This access leads to the existing barn and stable buildings and there is post and rail fencing running along the southern edge of the driveway in this location.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

- Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport - Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7: Requiring good design - Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) policies:

- 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 - CP8: Small Scale ‘Greenfield’ Sites - CP12: Meeting Housing Needs - CP13: Infrastructure Requirements APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

- CP15: Rural Strategy

2.4 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) policies:

- DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement - DC2: Landscape Character - DC5: Biodiversity and Geology - DC6: Woodland and Trees - DC7: Flooding - DC8: Renewable Energy and Climate Change - DC9: Development Principles - DC10: Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments - DC18: Smaller Homes/Housing Mix - DC22: New Open Space, Sports and Recreation - DC30: Exceptions Housing Schemes - DC40: Transport and Access

2.5 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Documents:

- Facilitating Appropriate Development (2009) (FAD) - Planning Obligations (2007)

2.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance:

- Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement (2001)

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no planning history for this site relevant to the proposed development.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Arboricultural Officer (summarised): No objection  The suitability of any development, in Arboricultural terms, rests with the retention and protection of the existing hedgerow and occasional large trees, predominantly oak, which surround the open field;  The loss of a small section of hedgerow along Littleworth Lane would not be unreasonable given the context of the development scheme as a whole;  Comments are on the basis of the submitted indicative layout and accordingly are without prejudice to any scheme subsequently submitted showing an altered layout.

3.3 Landscape Architect (summarised): Objection  Objection to the cumulative adverse landscape character, including settlement character, of the proposed development;  Although the mainly two storey development will only be visible in occasional glimpsed and filtered views from the surrounding area, a number of key concerns remain;  The illustrative layout appears to show a suburban form of development that would have an urbanising effect on the site and erode the attractive, undeveloped rural landscape character of the surroundings; APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

 The layout shows a dominance of car parking with limited scope for tree planting of larger native species. This would not therefore allow for a more landscape dominated development that would be more appropriate for the rural edge of Partridge Green;  Whilst some single storey development is proposed, this could be extended across the rising landform to avoid extending the impact of built development on the wider rural character;  The narrow buffer between dwellings and the northern edge of the site would not form an attractive transition to the rural area, but rather would be dominated by housing development;  The attenuation basin could become a steep sided muddy hollow due to the limited space available;  No information has been submitted to show if the intended open space and LAP would accord with adopted standards;  The proposal would appear to erode the small, but important, gap between Partridge Green and Littleworth;  It has not been evidenced that the proposed development would be accommodated without adverse landscape character effects.

3.4 Technical Services (Drainage) (summarised): No objection subject to condition The preliminary surface water drainage strategy proposed is acceptable, therefore until detailed design information has been submitted at the appropriate planning stage, drainage conditions should be applied.

3.5 Housing Services Manager (summarised): Objection  Partridge Green is a Category 2 settlement and as such any housing should meet an identified local need;  The Housing Needs Survey Report states that there are 44 No. households in need of affordable homes in the West Grinstead Parish area;  The affordable housing mix proposed does not reflect the profile of need established by the Survey, which suggests that a majority of smaller (1 or 2 bed) homes are required;  The proposed tenure split is unacceptable and does not accord with the Council’s guidelines or correspond with the overwhelming need for rented accommodation;  The applicant will need to clearly demonstrate that the market homes proposed would meet the needs of families in the village who at present cannot access suitable housing.

3.6 Strategic Planning (summarised): Comment  The Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, however, the Inspector’s decision on the RMC Engineering Works site (DC/10/1457) suggests that rather than regarding the Council’s housing policies as out-of-date, a more flexible approach should be given to policies CP5 and DC1;  The FAD SPD provides the mechanism to achieve this flexibility and the proposal should be considered in light of this document;  There is a general need for housing across the District, but Partridge Green, as a Category 2 settlement is considered to have a more limited level of services and facilities than other Category 1 settlements;  The proposal for 55 units in this location has the potential to impact the character of the area and adverse impacts should be balanced against the additional local housing that it could bring.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

Environment Agency: No comments

Natural England (summarised): No objection APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

 No objection on statutory nature conservation sites or European Protected Species grounds;  Advises to refer to standing advice for domestic species.

Southern Water (summarised): Comment & recommends condition There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Section 99 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested (by the developer) and provided to drain to a specific location.

The applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of any SuDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity.

WSCC Archaeology (summarised): No objection subject to condition

WSCC Ecology (summarised): No objection subject to condition

WSCC Highways Strategic Planning (summarised): No objection subject to conditions  To achieve the requirements of the Manual for Roads and Bridges a forward visibility 94m distance would be required, this would necessitate some trimming back of he hedge along the western boundary;  However, the 61m forward visibility required by the less stringent Manual for Streets may be more applicable;  The applicant has stated that they wish to extend the existing 30mph limit northwards, this is not a requirement of the development and would require a revision to the Traffic Regulation Order;  The development would give rise to additional vehicular movements over a 12hour period, but would only marginally increase the peak hour traffic flow;  The trip rate would not meet the thresholds set out in the WSCC Transport Assessment Guidance to warrant specific junction assessments;  In light of the existing traffic flows and the anticipated increased movements, it is not considered that the impacts would be classed as severe, as required by paragraph 32 of the NPPF in order to refuse permission on these grounds.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

West Grinstead Parish Council (summarised): Objection  Partridge Green does not have enough services and facilities to accommodate this amount of housing;  The level of development proposed is unsustainable;  The proposed development is not designed to address a specific local need. The West Grinstead Parish Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 44 dwellings for people with a local connection who cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market;  The Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey show that developments of this kind are not needed or wanted;  Littleworth Lane is dangerous and increasing traffic here is very undesirable;  The assessment of impacts of the development on local traffic is not comprehensive enough;  Further development would exacerbate existing sewage problems;  The development would give rise to problems with water run-off and compound flooding APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

issues;  It would set a precedent for other developments around the village;  The current proposal is overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement;  The proposal would destroy the settlement gap between Partridge Green and Littleworth;  There are potential brownfield sites that could be made available for development.

A total of 28 letters of representation have been received from nearby residents. These letters raise the following summarised objections:  This is an inappropriate location for the proposed development;  The scale of the development is too large;  Littleworth Lane is too narrow for an access to such a development;  The submitted Road Safety Audit is flawed;  Existing congestion and parking problems would be worsened;  Significant additional vehicle movements would arise from the development;  There is a limited bus service to Partridge Green thereby causing additional vehicle trips;  There is poor visibility to the north of the proposed access due to a bend in the road;  An application for a caravan access to Littleworth Lane was refused permission;  Extending the lower speed limit area will not actually reduce speeds;  The increased traffic would be likely to cause more accidents on local roads;  The site and adjacent lane are subject to flooding;  The ditch to the north of the site forms a stream that is prone to flooding;  The proposed development would impede surface water drainage and the proposed attenuation pond would worsen the situation;  The stream and attenuation pond would be dangerous to children;  There is insufficient capacity within local sewers;  There are existing problems with utility services in the area;  Mature trees and wildlife, including rare butterflies, will be lost to this development;  The development could set a precedent for other future developments;  Properties along The Rise have accesses into the site;  There is insufficient capacity in the local school and doctor’s surgeries;  Local infrastructure and facilities would be placed under increased pressure;  The proposed properties would overlook existing dwellings in The Rise;  There are enough houses being built in the District already;  The development would cause noise and disturbance to local residents.

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

 The principle of the development  Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area  Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents  Affordable housing provision  Highway impacts  Drainage, ecology and archaeology issues  S106 obligations

Principle of the development

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision-taking. In terms of the determination of planning applications this should mean the approval of developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise.

6.3 The site lies in the countryside to the immediate north of Partridge Green, outside of, but adjoining, the edge of the identified built-up area. Partridge Green is a Category 2 settlement, as defined within policy CP5 of the Core Strategy. As the site lies outside an identified built-up area, the proposed residential development must be considered in the context of policies CP15 of the Core Strategy and DC1 of the General Development Control Policies.

6.4 Policy CP15 states that any development should be appropriate to the countryside location and should contribute to sustainable farming enterprises, other countryside based enterprises, the wider rural economy and/or promote recreation or the enjoyment of the countryside. This policy also requires development to be contained within existing buildings, within an existing rural industrial estate, or result in substantial environmental improvements. Policy DC1 states that ‘outside built-up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location’ and that any development must not lead to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside.

6.5 It is not considered that the proposed development of the site for 55 No. residential dwellings would constitute a development which is essential to this countryside location. Neither is it considered that the proposal would contribute to existing rural enterprises, activities or recreation opportunities, or re-use existing buildings. The development of a ‘greenfield’ site could not be argued to provide a substantial environmental improvement to the area. It is for these reasons that the proposed development fails to accord with policies CP15 or DC1.

6.6 As detailed above, the site lies adjacent to the edge of the built-up area of Partridge Green, which is a Category 2 settlement. Policy CP5 states that Category 2 settlements are those with a more limited range of services (compared to Category 1 settlements), which should accommodate only small scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs. This location means that the proposed development should also be considered with regard to the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD (FAD).

6.7 The FAD SPD provides the flexibility to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy, and sets out the requirements against which planning applications for development on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries will be considered. The FAD SPD sets out three initial APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8

requirements for the consideration of development proposals, followed by 18 No. criteria, which must be met in order for such schemes to be considered acceptable.

6.8 The three requirements set out in the FAD SPD are: deliverable; sustainable; and scale. In relation to these requirements, the applicant has stated that the site is deliverable within a 5 year period as it is under the control of a local house-builder. They have advised that housing completions could be accomplished by 2015 and that the development could be completed by the end of 2016. However, as the application is currently only in outline form with all matters except for means of access being reserved for consideration at a later date, there is a realistic possibility of a delay to this schedule. There is some doubt as to the true deliverability of the site in the short-term, however, it is considered that this would be difficult to demonstrate given the existing control of the site.

6.9 The second requirement of the FAD SPD relates to the sustainability of the site. The applicant submits that the proposed development would be located within walking distance of a number of local services and facilities, however, Partridge Green is defined as a Category 2 settlement and therefore has less facilities and services than a Category 1 settlement. Indeed the opportunities for public transport within Partridge Green are limited to hourly services only on Mondays to Saturdays and serve only Horsham and Brighton.

6.10 In terms of scale, the FAD SPD requires that sites should propose residential development not exceeding 150 dwellings, and on greenfield sites, this should be less. In the case of this proposal, the site adjoins the edge of a Category 2 settlement, rather than the edge of a Category 1 settlement, and therefore the scale of development should be proportionate to the size of the settlement to which it relates. This current application proposes 55 No. dwellings on a greenfield site. It is considered that this level of development could not automatically be considered out of scale, as it is considerably less than the limits stated within the SPD, however, this is discussed in further detail below in paragraphs 6.22 to 6.27.

6.11 The 18 No. criteria, which are set out within the FAD SPD, must be met in order for development on sites within the countryside, and in particular those on greenfield land, to be considered acceptable. With regard to these criteria, it is accepted that the proposed site is contiguous with the built-up area boundary of Partridge Green, that its development would not prejudice a comprehensive long term development of the site or result in the loss of existing sport or recreational space, and would not cause harm to heritage assets.

6.12 In addition, the applicant has submitted information detailing that the proposed development would not cause harm to the existing biodiversity value of the site and would not adversely impact upon protected species. Furthermore, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment states that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and could be provided with an attenuation basin to limit surface water run-off rates to those of the existing greenfield site. As this application is only outline in form, no details of the design and construction of the proposed dwellings have been provided, however, these could be controlled through any reserved matters submissions and by conditions, to ensure that they are appropriate and that sustainable construction methods are employed.

6.13 The second criteria within the SPD, along with policy CP5, states that development adjoining a Category 2 settlement shall only be acceptable if evidence is provided to show that the proposal is to meet an identified local need. Local need is to be assessed on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified local requirements for housing, including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services, and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns. In addition, policy CP8 states that outside the provision of sites through the Site Specific Allocations of Land DPD, permission will only exceptionally be granted where APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9

additional local, social or economic needs arise or where development would result in substantial environmental enhancement compatible with the character of the location.

6.14 The applicant has submitted a copy of the Housing Needs Survey Report for West Grinstead (January 2012) carried out by Action in Rural Sussex, which identifies the affordable housing need across the West Grinstead Parish. This report concludes that there are 44 No. households within the Parish in housing need. However, this survey does not provide details of market housing need across the Parish or within Partridge Green. The applicants have not provided any evidence detailing a specific local need for market housing.

6.15 The application proposes a total of 55 No. dwellings of which 40% (22 No.) would be provided as affordable and the remainder (33 No.) would be provided on the open market. Whilst the 22 No. affordable dwellings would assist in meeting an identified local need, the proposed 33 No. market dwellings have not been shown to meet a specific local need.

6.16 Although, across the wider District there is a shortage in the 5 year supply of housing land, the location of open market housing development within the countryside adjacent to a Category 2 settlement is considered unacceptable, unless a specific local need has been identified. As stated above, no evidence has been submitted to show that there is a specific need for market housing in this location. It is not considered that the lack of a 5 year housing land supply is sufficient justification for development of this site adjacent to a Category 2 settlement, i.e. a settlement with more limited services than Category 1 settlements. It is therefore considered that the proposal would result in the loss of an existing open greenfield site within the countryside, contrary to policies CP5 and CP8 and such that it would outweigh the potential benefits of the scheme.

6.17 Separately, policy DC30 allows for exceptions housing schemes where limited amounts of land may be released for the development of affordable homes. This policy does allow for some sites that would otherwise be considered unacceptable for the provision of market homes, to be brought forward for the provision of affordable housing only. In relation to this policy, the submitted proposal does not seek to provide 100% of the 55 No. dwellings as affordable and as such the site cannot be considered acceptable under the terms of this policy.

6.18 The acceptability of the proposal in relation to the criterion relating to landscape and townscape character, affordable housing provision and accessibility are discussed separately below.

6.19 Whilst the application is only outline in form, it does specifically state the sizes of the proposed dwellings, this being 15 No. 2 bed dwellings, 25 No. 3 bed dwellings, 10 No. 4 bed dwellings and 5 No. 5 bed dwellings. Given that this level of detail is provided, it is appropriate to consider the appropriateness of this mix of dwelling sizes. Policy DC18 requires that on developments of more than 5 No. units the size and type of those units should meet the identified need for smaller homes. This policy goes on to specify that at least 64% of the homes should be provided as 1 and 2 bed dwellings.

6.20 The application, as submitted, proposes only 15 No. dwellings falling within this smaller home size. This equates to just 27% of the total of 55 No. dwellings. On a site of this size, 35 No. would be expected to be provided as 1 or 2 bed dwellings. The application therefore fails to comply with the requirements of policy DC18.

6.21 Taking into account the lack of an identified local need for market housing in this location, together with the proposed provision of only 40% of the dwellings as affordable, rather than the 100% affordable required for a rural exception site, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable in principle. Whilst it is acknowledged that support for development on some APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10

greenfield sites has recently been given at appeal (Land at Daux Avenue, Billingshurst and Oddstones, Pulborough), these developments adjoined the built-up areas of Category 1 settlements with a greater range of services and facilities than Partridge Green. In addition, the proposed housing mix, as specified within the application, fails to meet with the requirements of policy DC18.

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

6.22 The existing site is characterised by its open rough grassland appearance, gently undulating landform and approximate containment with mature trees and hedgerows. This appearance is typical of the surrounding rural areas. The site provides an area of open land between the northern edge of Partridge Green and the cluster of properties which make up the hamlet of Littleworth, situated to the north. The Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement states that the traditional arrangement of buildings within Partridge Green is typically low density, with the buildings being secondary to the natural landscape.

6.23 The proposed development would position 55 No. dwellings across this open grassland area and inevitably create an urbanised appearance to this site, which would detract from the existing rural character. Although the site benefits from existing hedgerow screening to some degree around all sides, the proposed two and two and half storey built development would be visible, both above the vegetation and through the new access point. This would be particularly apparent across the raised land towards the southern portion of the site. Although a few single storey dwellings are indicated to the south eastern corner of the site, the indicative layout does still show two storey properties across the higher parts of the site.

6.24 The proposed development would be accommodated within the existing open field area and would largely retain the existing mature trees around the periphery of the site, which would ensure that the proposed development does not adversely impact upon existing trees from an arboricultural point of view. However, whilst the majority of these trees could be retained, the overall appearance of the landscape of the surrounding area and the prevailing rural character of the locality would be detrimentally impacted upon. The proposed development would be of a scale that would result in an urbanising of the site, through the introduction of significant built form and considerable expanses of hardstanding, and would only provide limited open space and opportunities for landscaping within the site.

6.25 It is considered that the proposed development would not allow for a preservation, conservation or enhancement of the landscape character of the area, but rather would detract from the pattern of open fields that characterises the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies CP1 and DC2.

6.26 In addition, the location of the application site is such that it lies between the cluster of properties that make up the hamlet of Littleworth and the northern edge of Partridge Green. Policy DC3 specifically seeks to prevent the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements within the District. Whilst Littleworth is not identified as either a Category 1 or Category 2 settlement, it clearly forms a small distinct and separate hamlet from Partridge Green. The proposed development along the Littleworth Lane would occupy the only existing open space between these two settlements. This loss of the visual break between Littleworth and Partridge Green, together with the urbanising effect of considerable new built form and a new vehicular access in this location, would result in a perceived coalescence of these two settlements.

6.27 Given the existing open and rural nature of the application site the proposed development of 55 No. residential dwellings would lead to a significant urbanising effect that would be detrimental to the landscape character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the APPENDIX A/ 3 - 11

positioning of substantial built form in this location would lead to a perceived coalescence of Partridge Green with the hamlet of Littleworth to the north. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to policies CP1, CP3, DC2 and DC3 and also the criteria for assessing sites set out within the FAD SPD.

Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents

6.28 The site is located to the north of the existing residential properties of The Rise, Partridge Green. These residences are characterised by single storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. A number of these properties have extended into their roofspaces to create first floor level accommodation, some with substantial dormer window additions. The properties to the northern side of The Rise back onto the southern edge of the application site. These properties are afforded some views towards the site, however, the existing vegetation along this southern boundary provides screening. The arrangement and relationship between dwellings along The Rise limits any views from the public realm along this road to those available above the single storey garages which sit between properties.

6.29 The properties to the north of The Rise benefit from rear gardens of approximately 12m in length, the proposed development (as shown on the indicative layout) would then be situated a further 18m from this shared boundary, with the majority of the existing trees and vegetation here shown to be retained. It is accepted that the highest ground level of the site lies towards the southern edge of the site and that the properties within The Rise are currently afforded some views across this open land. However, it is considered that the separation distance that could be retained between the proposed dwellings and those along The Rise would ensure that the amenities of these residents would not be significantly adversely impacted upon. In addition, the indicative layout shows the three dwellings to the south easternmost corner of the site to be single storey properties. This relationship between the proposed new dwellings and those existing to the southern side would not be dissimilar to existing relationships between dwellings fronting Blanches Road and Littleworth Lane, just to the south. This level of separation, together with the retained boundary screening, is considered to constitute an acceptable relationship in terms of the amenities of both existing and any future residents.

6.30 The existing residential properties to the north of the site, those located along Littleworth Lane, would be separated from the proposed development by an existing area of rough grassland and vegetation. The nearest residential property, Beauchamps, would be situated approximately 75m from the northern boundary of the site. The existing hedgerow and vegetation to the northern boundary is shown to be largely retained and as such it is not considered that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of these residents, or those of the adjacent properties to the north of the site along Littleworth lane.

6.31 In terms of the acceptability of the proposed scheme in relation to the amenity levels of future occupiers of any new dwellings, as the proposal is only submitted in outline form with an indicative layout, it is not possible to accurately consider this issue at this stage. However, the indicative layout provided does show that the number of dwellings proposed, could, with careful consideration of siting, landscaping and screening, be provided within the site without a likelihood of giving rise to significant amenity issues for future residents.

Affordable housing provision

6.32 As the application site lies outside the built-up area limits of Partridge Green and a local need for market housing has not been justified through the submission of appropriate and adequate evidence, the proposal should be assessed with regard to policies CP12 and DC30. These policies seek the provision of 100% of dwellings in the countryside as affordable units.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 12

6.33 The application proposes 40% of the total number of dwellings as affordable, this therefore does not meet with the requirements of either policy CP12 or policy DC30. Furthermore, there is an identified need for affordable dwellings within the Parish of West Grinstead (including Partridge Green), as set out within the submitted Housing Needs Survey Report. This states that West Grinstead Parish has a need for 44 No. affordable dwellings. Whilst the proposal would provide 22 No. of these, without a justified argument as to why market housing is required in this location, the proposal should seek to provide only affordable dwellings.

6.34 In addition, as detailed above, the proposed development would provide only 15 No., or 27%, of the total dwellings as 2 bed properties, with no 1 bed dwellings to be provided at all. The NPPF requires, at paragraph 50, that Local Authorities plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and the needs of different groups within communities. Policy DC18 sets out the District’s requirements for an appropriate mix of housing and specifically seeks to deliver 1 and 2 bed properties. The limited provision of smaller dwellings proposed does not accord with the requirements of policy DC18, and specifically does not help to address the need for properties for single person households, which is identified within the Housing Needs Survey Report as being by far the largest group in need of affordable homes.

6.35 Furthermore, the applicant has proposed a 50/50 tenure split of the affordable dwellings between affordable rented properties and shared ownership properties. The Council’s adopted Planning Obligations SPD states, at paragraph 12.17, that affordable homes should be provided with 62.5% as affordable rent and 37.5% as shared ownership. The applicant has not provided any evidence of a lack of viability that would justify a move away from this preferred and adopted position. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would fail to meet the needs of the District’s communities and as such is also contrary to policy CP12.

Highway impacts

6.36 The application seeks to provide a vehicular access onto Littleworth Lane, positioned towards the southern side of the western boundary. The proposed access would be positioned between 2 No. existing mature oak trees and would necessitate the removal of a short stretch of hedgerow in this location.

6.37 The Highways Authority at WSCC have reviewed the proposed access and have not raised any objections to the proposed development. Whilst WSCC have advised that some of the hedgerow along the western boundary of the site would need to be trimmed back in order to provide forward visibility for right turning traffic at this access point, in accordance with the more stringent requirements of the Manual for Roads and Bridges, they do not raise an objection to the siting of the access in this location.

6.38 Similarly, no objection is raised by the Highway Authority in relation to traffic movements and highway capacity or safety. It is acknowledged that the proposed development would give rise to an increase in vehicular movements to and from the site over a 12 hour period compared to the existing situation. However, these additional movements would only result in a marginal increase in the peak hour traffic flow and it is not considered that further specific junction capacity assessments are required as part of this proposal.

6.39 Whilst the layout submitted is indicative only, the car parking shown would provide at least 2 No. spaces per dwelling, in either driveway parking, garages or small parking courts. The WSCC Parking Calculator provided by the applicant indicates that a total demand for 127 No. parking spaces would result from the proposed development. The indicative layout shows that the proposal could comply with this.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 13

6.40 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ It is not considered that the proposed development would lead to impacts upon the highway that could be considered severe. The proposal would create a new vehicular access that could accommodate development at the scale proposed, would not cause any significant impact in terms of an increase in traffic movements within the vicinity of the site and could provide car parking to a level that would accord with the WSCC Parking Calculator. The proposal therefore complies with policy DC40.

Drainage, ecology and archaeology issues

6.41 The site lies within Flood Zone 1, as identified by the Environment Agency, and therefore has a low probability of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding in any year). Within Flood Zone 1 all forms of development and land use can be considered appropriate and as such the proposal can be considered acceptable in this regard, as it would not be at a significant risk of flooding. In addition, it is considered that the potential risk of flooding at the site from off-site sources is low.

6.42 In terms of the management of surface water run-off, the application as submitted shows the creation of a water attenuation feature towards the north eastern corner of the site, which would be connected to an underground storage tank and would provide storage of surface water run-off with this then to be discharged at a greenfield rate. It is acknowledged that a number of local residents have raised flooding as an issue within the locality of the site, however, the Council’s Technical Services Engineer has advised that the proposed drainage strategy appears acceptable at this stage and no adverse comments have been received from the Environment Agency. It is therefore considered that a reason for refusal on this basis could not be maintained.

6.43 The application has been submitted with an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Assessment. This report concludes that the site consists of semi- improved grazed grassland, trees, hedgerows and scrub and could provide a potential habitat for reptiles, bats and birds, and that there are water bodies within the locality. Consequently, the report recommends that additional survey work be carried out in respect of determining the presence/absence of reptiles, Great Crested Newts and bats. The applicant has therefore submitted an additional Reptile Survey and Great Crested Newt Survey. These reports concluded that neither Great Crested Newts nor reptiles were found to be present at the site, but made a number of recommendations should development works commence.

6.44 The County Council’s Ecologist has not raised any objections to the proposed development or contested the findings of the submitted reports. Similarly, Natural England have not raised objection to the proposal. Whilst no additional information has been supplied in terms of assessing the likely presence of bats, it is not considered that the proposed development would lead to any potential impacts that could not be satisfactorily mitigated against, should development proceed.

6.45 In terms of archaeological impact, the application site is not identified as being of likely archaeological importance. The submitted Archaeology South-East desk based assessment also concludes that the site is likely to have a low potential for containing archaeological remains. However, WSCC’s Archaeologist does not concur that a lack of existing evidence necessarily means that there is a lack of buried remains. It is their opinion that there is a potential for the site to contain buried archaeological finds and features or deposits of a prehistoric date. This is not however, considered to be a barrier to future development, but rather would necessitate further investigations at the site prior to the commencement of works.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 14

6.46 Therefore, had the development been otherwise acceptable, details of the drainage scheme, ecological mitigation measures and archaeological investigations could be satisfactorily controlled through future reserved matters applications and conditions, in order to ensure compliance with policies DC5, DC7 and DC10.

S106 obligations

6.47 In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, the applicant has been advised that there would be a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. This requirement is set out in policy CP13 of the Core Strategy and within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations.

6.48 Although the application has been submitted in outline form only and the exact scale of the proposed dwellings would be considered at a future date, the proposal does provide an indicative layout with dwelling sizes and tenures shown. This information has been used to calculate the relevant infrastructure requirements for the development, however, should the scale and form of development subsequently alter, then the calculations may need to be revised at that time.

6.49 Based on the information submitted, the current proposal would require contributions to Horsham District Council of £130,828 to cover open space, sport and recreation; community centres and halls; local recycling; and public art. An additional contribution of £467,302 would be required to West Sussex County Council to cover education; libraries; transport; and fire and rescue services. The applicant has been advised of the requirement to provide a S106 agreement to cover these aspects, but at the time of writing this has not been received and such this is reflected within the recommendation.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The site lies adjacent to, but outside, the identified Category 2 settlement of Partridge Green and is therefore located within the countryside. The proposal does not constitute development that is essential to a countryside location and it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would address specific local needs, as set out within policies CP5 and CP8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007). The development therefore represents an unacceptable form of development within the countryside and would not provide 100% of properties as affordable homes. The development is therefore contrary to policies CP5, CP8 and CP12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), policy DC30 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and the criteria set out within the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD (2009).

2. The proposed development would fail to provide an appropriate level of smaller homes and would therefore fail to fulfil the needs of the District’s population. The development as proposed is therefore not in accordance with the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework and is contrary to policy DC18 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, form and location, would result in an urbanising effect that would be detrimental to the attractive, open rural landscape character of the surrounding area. In addition, the loss of this open landscape in this location would result in a perceived coalescence of the settlements of Partridge Green and Littleworth. The proposal is therefore contrary to the advice within the National APPENDIX A/ 3 - 15

Planning Policy Framework, policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), policies DC2, DC3 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and the criteria set out within the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD (2009).

4. The proposed development does not provide a mechanism for the provision of affordable dwellings or contributions towards improvements to transport, education, libraries, community facilities, open space and recreation, recycling, public art or fire and rescue infrastructure and is therefore contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) or the Planning Obligations SPD (2007), as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

Background Papers: DC/13/1187 DC/13/1187

Land North of The Rise

Scale : 1:2500

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 17th September 2013

DEVELOPMENT: Creation of pond to north of property

SITE: Sandhill Farm House Sandhill Lane Washington Pulborough

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/13/1038

APPLICANT: Mr Roger Wilmhurst

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a wildlife pond on land to the north east of Sandhill Farmhouse. The proposed pond would be oval in shape and would be approximately 67.5 metres long and approximately18.5 metres wide at its widest point. The pond would be 1 metre deep at it deepest point, with the depth at the edge being 0.35 metres. The proposed pond would be fed from the existing pond to the south of the site through a proposed dyke, with a weir at the eastern side of the new pond allowing the water to flow back into Honeybridge Stream. Spoil from the pond would be removed from the site although some spoil would be spread evenly on the north and west side of the pond to gradually merge with the existing levels. The spoil would be reseeded with grass and meadow flowers.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The application site is located to the north east of Sandhill Farm House, in a rural countryside location. Sandhill Farm House is a Grade 2 Listed Building. To the west of the site is the A24, and a storage building used in conjunction with Sandhill Farm House, whilst to the east is Honeybridge Stream. The site is screened by hedgerow planting to all boundaries. A public footpath runs through the site along the southern boundary and then travels along the eastern boundary. There is an existing pond to the south west of the site.

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

1.3 The site is a 4 acre field formally used for agriculture prior to the construction of the A24 Washington Bypass, and since used for the grazing of horses. The applicant now seeks to increase the biodiversity of the site through the construction of the proposed wildlife pond. The site is within Flood Zone 2 and 3. The proposed pond would be located approximately 53 metres from the boundary of the nearest residential property which is Sandhill Farm House.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant Government Policies are contained within the National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012.

2.3 Relevant parts include Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application:

CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP2 – Environmental Quality, CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development & CP15 – Rural Strategy.

2.5 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC5 – Biodiversity & Geology, DC9 – Development Principles, DC13 – Listed Buildings & DC40 (Transport & Access).

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/11/2236 Retention of building used for the storage of equipment and PER machinery used in the maintenance of the holding

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 None undertaken

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Highways comments are awaited, and will be reported verbally to the committee.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

3.3 Public Rights of Way comments are awaited, and will be reported verbally to the committee.

3.4 Ecology comments are awaited, and will be reported verbally to the committee.

3.5 Environment Agency have confirmed that they have no comments to make on the application having regards to the development type and the location of the proposal.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.6 Washington Parish Council has raised no objection to the application provided that the pond is used for private not commercial use.

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

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

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

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

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 effect of the development on the visual amenities and character of the area.

Principle of the Development

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policy. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sustainable development is seen within the document as having three roles, namely an economic, social and environmental role which should be a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Section 11 of the NPPF relates to the conserving and enhancing of the natural environment and notes that development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted.

6.3 The proposed pond would be sited in a rural location in an area formerly used for the grazing of horses. The pond would be sited in the south eastern corner of the site approximately 12 metres from an existing pond to the south of the site. The proposed pond would utilise water from this pond. Water from the pond would then flow back into Honeybridge Stream through a weir on the eastern side of the pond. Due to the contours of the land the pond would be formed using the natural shape of the field with a limited area to the north and west being graded so as to merge in with the existing land levels. Any further spoil would be removed from the site. The pond would be formed with gently rising sides with the deepest part of the pond being 1 metre deep and the shallowest part some 0.35 metres deep. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

6.4 The Environment Agency has confirmed that they have no comments to make on the application having regards to the development type and the location of the proposal, and therefore it is not considered that concern could be raised to the application on flooding grounds.

Visual Amenities and Character of Area

6.5 The application seeks to create a pond for nature conservation purposes, and therefore in principle, such a proposal is considered to be acceptable as the proposed pond would increase the ecological value of this area. The pond would be sited towards the corner of the field and would be seen against the existing vegetation along the eastern and southern boundary. It is considered that the shape and size of the pond is acceptable as it utilises the natural contours of the land and would be viewed in the overall context of the wider area which includes an existing pond and stream. There would be views of the pond from the public footpath but it is not considered that the pond would be visually intrusive, within its setting.

Conclusion

6.6 It is therefore considered in conclusion that the proposed pond would represent an opportunity to increase the biodiversity of the area and would not harm the overall rural character of the area. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal accords with policies DC1 and DC2 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and CP1 and CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1) A2 Full Permission

2) Not withstanding the submitted planning application plans and documents, prior to the commencement of the development the following information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

 Existing topographical survey for the entire area proposed to be effected by the works including existing levels, at a scale of 1:500  A detailed proposed excavation and earthworks layout plan at a scale of 1:500 for the pond, and surrounding land areas for re-grading of excavated sub soil and topsoil to show proposed contours and spot levels and how they will be tied in with existing contours using the topographical survey as a base.

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)

3) Prior to the commencement of the development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

. A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice . Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers . A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)

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.

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)

4) Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for the pond and for all planted and seeded areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

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/organisations who will be maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for.

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).

5) The pond hereby permitted shall be used as a wildlife habitat only. The pond shall not be used for any commercial or recreational purposes.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in the interests of the character of the area in accordance with policy DC1 & DC2 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

6) No fill material shall be imported to the site and any landscaping works associated with the construction of the pond shall be formed from the excavated material emanating from the construction of the lake hereby approved. Prior to the removal of any excavated material from the site, details of the proposed disposal of the excavated material shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The material shall thereafter be disposed of as per the agreed details.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the countryside and in accordance with policy DC1 & DC2 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

7) Prior to the commencement of development, a construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority detailing the type of plant to be brought onto site, how the plant will be transported to the site, the route the plant will take and any mitigating measures if these vehicles damage the verges along the access route and implemented in accordance with such approved details.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policies DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

8) H6 Wheel Washing

9) Construction vehicles shall only be operated on the premises between 0800 in the morning until 1800 in the afternoon Monday to Saturday. No work shall be undertaken on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason – N10

Note to Applicant

The applicant is advised that the detailed earthworks plans, planting proposals and management plan should be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect.

The applicant is advised that the lake design shall follow the Environment Agency and other best practice design guidance in terms of the provision of a variety of lake edge profiles.

Note to Applicant

The applicant is advised to ensure that appropriate safety signage is in place to advise footpath users of the works.

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Background Papers: DC13/1038 DC/13/1038

Sandhill Farm House

Scale : 1:2500

SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th September 2013 Demolition of part two storey and single storey building and replacement DEVELOPMENT: with two storey extension with rear conservatory SITE: Homelands Nursing Home Horsham Road Cowfold Horsham WARD: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/13/1325 APPLICANT: Medicrest Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing single and two storey extension on the west elevation of the building and its replacement with a two storey extension and a new conservatory to the rear of the building. The proposed extension would be sited to the west of the property and as part of the proposal an existing extension to the building would be removed which contains two bedrooms, stores, a laundry, office and food preparation areas. The area to be removed would be 12.8 metres wide and 12 metres deep at its deepest point at ground floor level with the first floor element measuring some 4.3 metres in width. The proposed extension would be 18.9 metres wide, and would range in depth from 13.1 metres to 18.25 metres at its deepest point. The extension would have a height of 10.3 metres. The extension would provide on the ground floor six en-suite bedrooms, a plant room, assisted bathroom, hairdresser and chiropodist, lobby and waiting area, and a food preparation room and servery. At first floor level the proposal would provide seven further en-suite bedrooms, a quiet room, visitor toilet and staff room. The proposal would increase the number of bedrooms within the nursing home to 40 with one guest bedroom. The existing home has 31 bedrooms and a guest bedroom. The materials for the proposed extension would match those of the extension at the eastern end of the property.

1.2 The proposed conservatory would be located on the southern elevation of the property extending from the existing dining room. The conservatory would be approximately 8

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2

metres wide and 7.1 metres deep. The conservatory would be approximately 4.6 metres high and would be used as an activity room.

1.3 The application also seeks to improve the existing access through the provision of 2.4 x 120m visibility splays to the south, and 2.4 x 175m visibility splays to the north. The proposal would result in the widening of the existing entrance to 5.5 metres, with the existing stone walls and piers relocated and a retaining wall to allow lowered levels in the area of the visibility splay.

1.4 The proposal would also result in the provision of a parking area for visitors and staff which would provide 28 car parking spaces, 4 disabled spaces, 4 motorcycle spaces and 8 cycle spaces. The visitor parking areas would be located to the east of the main building. The staff parking area would be located to the west of the main nursing home and would require the removal of the existing conifer hedge. A landscaping scheme has been submitted as part of the proposal which suggests proposed tree planting locations. A wild meadow walk is also proposed to the south of the nursing home for use by residents and visitors.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The site is located within a countryside location being located approximately 0.6 miles north of the centre of Cowfold Village. Homelands Nursing Home is located on the western side of Horsham Road and is accessed via an existing access drive. The nursing home is approached from the front of the property and the drive also gives access to five other residential properties in separate ownership. These neighbouring residential dwellings are located to the west of the site and 86 metres are retained between Homelands Nursing Home and Barn Owls, the nearest neighbour.

1.6 The care home is operated in the main house (Homelands) and from the Coach House (Annex) which is located 45 metres to the north west of the main building. The sole kitchen is located in the Coach House which is also licensed for 17 bed spaces.

1.7 The care home has recently been extended to the eastern side of Homelands under application DC/09/1721 which also included the provision of a conservatory to the rear. There is a row of conifer trees to the west of the building which are to be removed as part of this application. The land to the south of the site drops away. The eastern boundary of the site consists of vegetation of approximately 4m in height which screens the majority of views into the site. The care home currently employs 44 full time staff with 4 part time staff and it is estimated that with the proposed extension this will rise to 50 full time and 6 part time staff.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National planning policies are embodied in the National Planning Policy Framework which came into effect in March 2012. This replaces Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Planning Policy Statements.

2.3 Paragraph 9 states “Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to): APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3

 Making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages;  Moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;  Replacing poor design with better design;  Improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and  Widening the choice of high quality homes.”

2.4 Paragraph 56 states “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

2.5 Paragraph 57 states “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.”

2.6 Paragraph 64 states “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

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

2.8 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development Principles & DC31 – New / Extensions to Retirement Housing and Care Home Schemes.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has a detailed planning history relating to its use as a nursing home. The most recent applications for the site are set out below;

DC/09/1721 3-storey side extension and rear conservatory PER

DC/11/2630 To form and construct 2 additional dormers on South rear PER elevation of main building

DC/12/0832 Proposed 3-storey extension to existing nursing home, rear REF conservatory, new vehicular access, car park & bunds

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Public Health and Licensing – comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4

3.2 Highways – comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Cowfold Parish Council has raised no objection to the application but would like to see the access realignment take place before work starts on the extension.

3.4 One letter has been received supporting the application.

3.5 Two letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds;  Concern at position of the public car park  Nature walk would provide open views of the neighbouring property  Previously debris was burned on site which is unacceptable  Property in a rural location  15 mature trees would be removed on the boundary and provision should be made for their replacement  The two windows in the western elevation at first floor level would result in overlooking of neighbouring property.  The proposed car parking area is clearly visible from the A281.

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

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

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policy and at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sustainable development is seen within the document as having three roles, namely an economic, social and environmental role which should be a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Paragraph 9 notes that sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5

6.3 Policy DC31 (New/extensions to retirement housing and care home schemes), of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Polices relates specifically to nursing and care homes and 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 need for the form and type of development in its particular location is fully justified as being essential to the identified care provision.”

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.”

Principle of Development

6.4 The site is within a rural location, and whilst the proposed extension would result in an increase in the number of bedrooms on the site, it is considered that the proposal would meet the criteria contained within policy DC31, as the site has provided nursing care for a number of years and is established on the site. The applicant has submitted information explaining why the nursing home needs to expand. This is due to regulations requiring larger lounges, dining rooms and single bedrooms with en-suite facilities for residents. The agent has also stated that Horsham Social Services has approached Homeland’s in respect of providing day care as local authority facilities are being closed and there is an urgent need in Horsham District for good quality dementia care. Homeland’s is recommended by the Alzheimer’s Society. It is therefore considered that the principle of an extension to the nursing home can be justified in this instance.

Design

6.5 Policy DC9 relates to Development Principles and states planning permission will be granted for development which:

a) make efficient use of land whilst respecting any constraints that exist; b) do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking or noise, whilst having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development; c) ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings, open spaces and routes within and adjoining the site, including any impact on the skyline and important views; d) are locally distinctive in character, respect the character of the surrounding area (including its overall setting, townscape features, views and green corridors) and, where available and applicable, take account of the recommendations/policies of the relevant Design Statements and Character Assessments; e) use high standards of building materials, finishes and landscaping;

6.6 An earlier application for an extension to the nursing home was refused in July 2012 (DC/12/0832) on the grounds that the proposed extension due to its size, siting and design would be an unsympathetic form of overdevelopment, which would harm the character of the existing building and the visual amenities of the locality. The current scheme has been reduced in size from the previous application, with the design of the extension amended and the extensions size reduced from 31.4 metres in width to 18.9 metres. The number of APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6

proposed bedrooms within the nursing home has also been reduced from 60 to 40. It is considered that these changes have resulted in the extension now appearing in keeping with the main nursing home and not detracting from the overall character of the locality. With regards to the proposed conservatory it is considered that the structure would be viewed against the background of the existing property and would be appropriate in this context.

Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

6.7 Concerns have been raised with regards to the provision of two secondary windows at first floor level in the western elevation of the extension. These windows provide light to a bedroom. It is considered as the extension is located some 41 metres from the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property, the windows would not cause undue harm with regards to the amenities of the neighbouring property, however these windows as they are secondary could be obscure glazed and fixed shut to overcome the concerns of the neighbouring property.

6.8 The proposed scheme would amend the layout of the parking on the site with the provision of parking to the east and west of the building. It is considered that the proposed scheme although resulting in the loss of a row of conifer trees would (provided appropriate replacement planting was undertaken) not harm the rural character of the area. The applicant is proposing to plant groups of native trees to screen the eastern element of the car park from the A281, and to plant additional native standard hedging on the western boundary to further screen the proposed car park from the neighbouring property. The scheme also seeks to provide a wild flower meadow to the south of the property, in which residents can walk. It is considered that the provision of a path in the field to the south of the property would provide a benefit to the residents of the home, and increase the biodiversity of the area through the addition of meadow plants. It is considered that the provision of a path into the field would not on balance harm the rural character of the area and that the path would not harm the amenities of the nearest neighbouring property which is approximately 108 metres away to the south.

Highways

6.9 The previously refused scheme for the site proposed a new access to the nursing home and bunding to the boundary. The current scheme has removed this element and the existing access is to be retained and the existing visibility splays improved to the north and south.

Conclusion

6.10 In conclusion it is considered for the reasons given above; that the proposed development has overcome the concerns raised in the earlier application, and that the current scheme would be appropriate in this location.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to the following conditions;

1. A2 – Full Permission 2. D4 – Obscured Glass – “first floor western elevation” 3. D5 – No windows 4. D13 – Demolition “shown dotted on plan number 1724/36” “1 month” 5. G3 – Parking, Turning and Access APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7

6. H10 – Cycling Provision 7. G4 – Site Surface “to prevent water flooding onto the public highway” 8. H1 – Access (General) 9. H4a – On Site Parking 10. H6 – Wheel Washing 11. L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping – “including details of the proposed wildflower meadow and path” 12. M4 – Matching Materials 13. O1 – Hours of Working 14. O2 – Burning of Materials – “in connection with the development” 15. Details of any proposed extraction ventilation system (including proposed adaptions) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The details so approved shall thereafter be retained as part of the development. Reason; As per O3

Informative The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader (01243 642105) to commence this process.

Background Papers: DC/12/0832, DC/13/1325 DC/13/1325 Homelands Nursing Home

Scale : 1:5000

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th September 2013 Proposed development of 10 No. B1/B8 units with 65 parking spaces, 2 DEVELOPMENT: disabled spaces & 10 LGV parking spaces and outline consent for a further B1/B8 unit. SITE: Broomers Hill Park Broomers Hill Lane Codmore Hill West Sussex WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham APPLICATION: DC/13/1048 APPLICANT: WT Lamb Holdings Ltd (Mr Colin Rayner)

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To Grant Outline and Full Planning Permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement securing the Transport Access Demand by 23rd September 2013.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal seeks full planning permission for 10 No. B1/B8 units with 55 parking spaces. 2 disabled spaces & 10 LGV parking spaces and outline consent for a further B1/B8 unit with 10 parking spaces. It is therefore a hybrid planning application with part of the site marked ‘A’ on the plan to be considered as an outline application and part ‘B’ subject to a full planning application.

1.2 Full planning permission (Part B) is sought for two B1 / B8 buildings as set out below:

 The first building would measure 12.4m by 42m with a ridge height of 9.1m. This building would comprise of 5 units and would be sited along the southern boundary of the site. Three of these units would have a floor area of 95 square metres and two would have 140 square metres of floorspace which includes a mezzanine level.

 The second building would measure 12.4m by 32.6m with a ridge height of 9m. This building would comprise of 5 units and would be sited along the eastern boundary of the site. Three of these units would have a floor area of 73 square metres and two would have 108 square metres of floorspace which includes a

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2

mezzanine level. 55 car parking spaces, 2 disabled spaces and 10 LGV spaces would be provided for these 11 units.

1.3 Outline consent (Part A) is also sought for a further B1/B8 unit with 10 car parking spaces. This building would be sited to the northern side of the site and is shown to measure 39m by 15m and would have a ridge height of 6.3m. This building would provide 650 square metres of B1 and/or B8 floorspace. It is worth noting that all matters other than the principle of the development are reserved.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The site is in a countryside location and to the south of Broomers Hill, to the east of Stane Street and to the west of the railway line. There are open fields to the south of the site which are broken up by hedgerows and native trees. The western side of the site consists of the existing Broomers Hill Park. There are currently 4 main buildings on the site in B1, restricted B2 and B8 uses. There is a main vehicular access point via Broomers Hill and parking is adjacent to the buildings and to the eastern side of the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 28 states “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

 Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.”

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP10 – Employment Provision & CP15 – Rural Strategy.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Polices Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection & Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development Principles, DC25 – Rural economic development and the expansion of existing rural commercial sites/intensification of uses & DC40 - Transport & Access.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no relevant planning history for the site

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3

3.1 Landscape Architect has no objections to the amended plans subject to landscape conditions.

Officers have given consideration to the full comments of the consultee which can be viewed on www.horsham.gov.uk

3.2 Strategic & Community Planning has no objection in principle to this proposal. Broomers Hill Park is identified as being well occupied and accessible in the ELR and the proposed new units are considered to address the objectives of policies CP15 & DC25. Furthermore, the proposal is in line with the one of the key planning principles of the NPPF which is to support a prosperous rural economy. Officers have given consideration to the full comments of the consultee which can be viewed on www.horsham.gov.uk

3.3 Public Health & Licensing has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 Natural England has no objection.

3.5 Highway Authority has no objection subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement to secure the TAD contribution requested.

Officers have given consideration to the full comments of the consultee which can be viewed on www.horsham.gov.uk

3.6 Environment Agency has no comments to make.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.7 10 letters of objection have been received on the grounds of:

 Broomers Hill lane is very narrow beyond the railway line;  The transport statement focuses on vehicle numbers and movements at the junction of Broomershill Lane and the A29, disregarding the size and speed of vehicles that would be approaching the site from the south via Broomershill Lane from the A283.  An increase in units and 100 more parking spaces would certainly mean more traffic on the lane, and many more large lorries delivering to these units;  The buildings are very high at 9m;  Out of keeping with its countryside location;  Loss of trees / hedgerows  Overdevelopment of the site;  The site will generate too much traffic for the area;  Traffic calming needs to be installed;  Loss of habitat;  There needs to be a comprehensive landscaping scheme;  Increase noise and disturbance;  The units will be closer to residential properties;

3.8 1 letter of support has been received on the grounds of:

 The location has worked well for the past 20 years; APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4

 The site has merged unobtrusively into the landscape;  The site provides employment for local people.

3.9 Pulborough Parish Council has no objection subject to conditions.

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

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be:

1) the principle of the development, 2) the effect of the development on the amenities of nearby occupiers and the character of the area, 3) access, traffic levels & highway safety;

6.2 The application is a hybrid application which has to be assessed in two parts, the outline proposal which is purely assessing the principle of a B1/B8 building with all other matters reserved and a full proposal for 10 B1/B8 units plus parking.

6.3 The first section of this report addresses the principle of the development after which the full and outline elements of the application are assessed in Section (i) and (ii).

Principle

6.4 The thrust from National Government is to support economic growth in the countryside through the expansion of existing rural enterprises. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

 Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.”

Therefore, the principle of development is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework and policies at a more local level.

6.5 The site is located in a countryside location and therefore has to be assessed against Policy DC1 which states that “Outside built-up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria: APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5

a) supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; b) enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; c) provides for quiet informal recreational use; or d) ensures the sustainable development of rural areas.”

The aims of this policy are to ensure the development is essential to its location and is considered to be sustainable. The policy does restrict development unless it is essential to its location. However, Policy CP15 supports economic development in the countryside and whilst supporting in principle industrial development outside the built up area boundary recognises that:

(a) it should contribute to the wider rural economy; (b) be contained within the existing boundaries of the estate or (c) result in substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside where new or replacement buildings are involved.

It is considered that the proposal is appropriate to its countryside location given that it would involve the expansion of an existing business park and would be contained within the existing boundaries.

6.6 The Employment Land Review which was carried out in 2010 states that “Broomers Hill Park (1.7ha) is a larger estate (than Station Approach, the other main estate in Pulborough) comprising predominantly B1c/b” units constructed in the 1980’s. Key businesses include Spellman HV Electronics Ltd, Sowga Ltd, Econotect Ltd and South East Labels. It is a well occupied and active estate, accessible from the A29. We consider that there is also a need for additional employment provision within the south of Horsham District to support the local economy. The availability of land in this part of the District is tighter and there is a need to improve the quality of available land and premises.” The document recommends that Horsham District Council should “establish a policy supporting the intensification of the use of existing higher quality employment sites in the south of the District, through additional employment development. This should seek to focus investment at the following locations: Star Trading Estate, Partridge Green, Mackley Industrial Estate, Upper Beeding, Broomers Hill Park, Pulborough and Gilmans Industrial Estate, Billingshurst.” Therefore as the application site is named as being one of the sites where additional employment development should be located, it is considered that the development is acceptable in principle.

Market Demands

6.7 WT Lamb Holdings Ltd own the site and they have stated that since the business park was constructed (mid 1980’s), it has remained virtually fully occupied and that there has been continuous demand from local business for these units with limited alternatives in the surrounding area. The applicant appointed Marshall Clark (Chartered Surveyors) to carry out an analysis of current market demands and availability of business premises of less than 5000 sq ft within a 5 mile radius of the application site. The report found that there are specific design criteria that any new units need to meet to attract new tenants and that there is high demand for new purpose built business spaces.

(i) Full Application - Layout

6.8 The full element of this application seeks 10 No. B1/B8 units with 55 parking spaces, 2 disabled spaces & 10 LGV parking spaces. As previously advised at Paragraph 1.2 the units would be split into two buildings with five units in each and would be sited along the southern and eastern boundaries with a central parking area. The application has been APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6

amended by reducing the amount of parking spaces on site and by moving the buildings further into the site thus creating more space around the periphery of the site.

Scale

6.9 Units 1 – 5 would measure 41m by 12m with a ridge height of 9m. Units 6 – 10 would measure 32m by 12m and would have a ridge height of 9m. Whilst it is acknowledged that the buildings would be 9m in height nevertheless they have been designed so they can be adapted to provide a mezzanine floor which offers flexibility to potential occupants. A high eaves height enables better access into the building for lorries and allows a greater volume for storage.

Appearance / Impact of nearby occupiers

6.10 The units would all have roller shutter doors to the front to give vehicular access into the units along with a pedestrian door to the front and rear of the unit. There would be windows to the rear first floor level and roof lights within the roof space. The buildings would have red Rudgwick Multistock Brickwork to the ground floor level with pre finished steel cladding panels to the upper levels with profiled steel cladding to the roofs. The appearance of the buildings would complement the character of the existing buildings on site which are brick built, with profiled steel cladding to the roofs and have green roller shutter doors.

6.11 The nearest occupier is located to the east of the site at Killybegs’ Cottage. There is approximately 30 metres between the dwelling and the western side of the railway line which separates the cottage from the application site. It is considered that the development would not materially affect surrounding occupiers amenities due to the separation distances, the existence of the railway line and existing and proposed soft landscaping.

Access / Parking / Traffic Levels

6.12 The vehicular access to the application site would be obtained via the existing entrance onto Broomers Hill Lane. The applicant has reduced the number of car parking spaces from 104 (92 + 12), plus 4 disabled spaces and 10 LGV spaces to 65 car parking spaces, 2 disabled spaces and 10 LGV spaces. That is a reduction of 41 car parking spaces proposed on site. It is appreciated that a mixed B1/B8 (office/storage) use is proposed, however B1 uses are recognised as potentially being more intensive compared with B8. The proposed parking provision does accord with the WSCC maximum parking standards.

6.13 The County Surveyor has advised that visibility for vehicles exiting the site is good, hence a vehicle could clearly observe oncoming traffic prior to exiting. It is not considered that this proposal would result in any detriment to highway safety. A routing plan has been provided. This does indicate that vehicles would arrive and depart to the north onto the A29. No travel plan has been provided and the scheme does meet the threshold as set out within the DFT Travel Plan Good Practice guidance for a travel plan statement. Therefore a travel plan statement would be secured via condition.

Landscaping

6.14 The Landscape Architect considered that a greater distance to the boundaries needed to be retained in order to establish a soft landscape buffer around the proposed built form in order to soften the visual impact on the surrounding area. The applicant has increased the gap along the southern boundary from 0.9m – 3.6m to 6m – 8.7m. The gap to the eastern boundary has been increased from 3.7m – 5m to 6m – 8.7m. These distances now enable APPENDIX A/ 6 - 7

a robust landscaping scheme to be implemented around the periphery of the site which will help to screen views of the buildings from surrounding countryside. The soft landscaping buffer allows medium sized trees to be planted which will mitigate against the height of the buildings. A finished floor level condition would also be attached to ensure the buildings are not too elevated within the landscape. Therefore, it is considered that the applicant has addressed the concerns raised by officers regarding the visual impacts of the proposal.

(ii) Outline Consent

6.15 The unit is shown to have a floor area of 650 square metres and the elevation plan submitted shows a building of 39m by 15m and would have a ridge height of 6.3m. The plans do not show how the building would be serviced by lorries / delivery vans as the footprint shown does not leave sufficient space for lorry parking. However, this outline application purely seeks the principle of a B1/B8 unit in this location and the key issues to be addressed in respect of any reserved matters application are:

 The siting, dimensions and the height of the building;  The access and parking arrangements to the site;  The landscaping to the site;

It is considered that the principle of a B1 / B8 unit would be acceptable in this location given that the proposal is an expansion of an existing site, however the building does need to be serviced adequately, the ridge height should be kept as low as possible given that this site is fairly elevated and close to the road and the building should be set back from the front boundary so that adequate soft landscaping can establish along the northern boundary.

Legal Agreement

6.16 West Sussex County Council has requested that a Transport Access Demand of £54,797 be paid by the developer pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal in terms of demand on Highways and Sustainable Transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development. All TAD (Total Access Demand) contributions have been calculated in accordance with the stipulated local threshold and the methodology adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in November 2003. The calculations have been done on the basis of an increase in 1650 sqm of Class B1(c) floor area and an additional 65 parking spaces.

Summary

6.17 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007 which sets out that sustainable rural economic development will be encouraged where development maintains the quality and character of the area whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity. As with the NPPF, the emphasis is on sustainable rural economic development. This site is considered to be appropriate to its countryside location, it is easily accessible from Stane Street and is within a relatively short distance (3km) from the village centre of Pulborough (a Category 1 Settlement with a good range of shops and services).

6.18 Broomers Hill Park is identified as being well occupied and accessible in the Employment Land Review and the proposed new units are considered to address the objectives of policies CP15 & DC25. Furthermore, the proposal is in line with the one of the key planning principles of the NPPF which is to support a prosperous rural economy. It is therefore considered that the development is acceptable.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 8

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that full and outline planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and the completion of a legal agreement securing the TAD contribution by 23rd September 2013.

Outline Permission (A on the Plan) (1 No. B1/B8 unit and 10 car parking spaces)

1) A1 Outline Permission 2) M1 Approval of Materials 3) The building shall be used for B1 & B8 use only and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987). Reason – To enable the LPA to control the use of the site because other uses would be contrary to policy DC9 of the GDCP 2007.

4) The reserved matters application shall include the following information:

 A detailed long term landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscaped areas  A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice  Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details  A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Existing and proposed levels for all external soft and hard landscape areas  Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels  Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials  Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 5) L11 Works under canopies of retained trees 6) D10 Floodlighting 7) V2 Hours of working 8) Deliveries, loading and unloading shall be restricted to 0730 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and no deliveries, loading or unloading shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – V2 reason 9) O1 Hours of Working 10) S4 Surface Water Details – Option A 11) The reserved matters application shall include a Travel Plan Statement (TPS). APPENDIX A/ 6 - 9

Reason: To secure access by alternative means other than the car to the site. 12) No produce, crates, packing materials or waste shall be stacked or stored on the site except within the buildings, without the prior approval in writing of the LPA. Reason – V2 reason 13) H10 Cycling & Motorbike Provision 14) There shall be no burning of materials or waste on the site. Reason – In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. 15) A Construction Phasing Plan setting out the details of the phased delivery of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (such details to include service delivery). The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Construction Phasing Plan thereafter. Reason: To ensure the delivery of the development and in accordance with Policies DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. 16) D6 Finished Floor Levels 17) No part of the development indicatively shown as site A on the approved plan shall be first occupied until the car parking spaces have been constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use. 18) M9 Sustainable Construction (Commercial Development)

Full Permission (B on the Plan) (10 No. B1/B8 units with 65 parking spaces. 2 disabled spaces & 10 LGV parking spaces)

19) A2 Full Permission 20) M1 Approval of Materials 21) The buildings shall be used for B1 & B8 uses only and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987). Reason – To enable the LPA to control the use of the site because other uses would be contrary to policy DC9 of the GDCP 2007. 22) Prior to the commencement of the development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and 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 and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers  Tree pit and staking/underground guying details  A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)  Existing and proposed levels for all external soft and hard landscape areas  Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels APPENDIX A/ 6 - 10

 Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials  Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

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)

23) Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

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/organisations who will be maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for

24) Prior to the commencement of the development full details of all underground services, including the position/layout, sizes and depths of service ducts, pipes, soakaways, manhole covers, and any above ground boxes/units shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. These details shall demonstrate effective coordination with the landscape scheme submitted pursuant to conditions 4 and 5, and with existing trees on the site by submission of a plan overlaying these details on the landscape scheme. All such underground services shall be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development APPENDIX A/ 6 - 11

Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and in the interests of visual amenity.

25) L11 Works under canopies of retained trees 26) D10 Floodlighting 27) V2 Hours of working 28) Deliveries, loading and unloading shall be restricted to 0730 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and no deliveries, loading or unloading shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – V2 reason 29) O1 Hours of Working 30) S4 Surface Water Details – Option A 31) Before development commences on site a Travel Plan Statement (TPS) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To secure access by alternative means other than the car to the site. 32) No produce, crates, packing materials or waste shall be stacked or stored on the site except within the buildings, without the prior approval in writing of the LPA. Reason – V2 reason 33) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, the buildings shall not be extended or altered in any way, unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority on application in that behalf. Reason – To maintain control over the development in the interests of amenity. 34) H6 Wheel Washing 35) None of the units shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason – To ensure the development is properly drained. 36) H10 Cycling Provision 37) There shall be no burning of materials or waste on the site. Reason – In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. 38) A Construction Phasing Plan setting out the details of the phased delivery of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (such details to include service delivery). The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Construction Phasing Plan thereafter. Reason: To ensure the delivery of the development and in accordance with Policies DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. 39) D6 Finished Floor Levels 40) No part of the development indicatively shown as site B on the approved plan shall be first occupied until the parking spaces (car, light goods vehicle, motorcycle, and cycle) have been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide car-parking spaces for the use and in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 12

41) No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as a Travel Plan Statement 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: To encourage and promote sustainable transport and in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. 42) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters:

 the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction,  the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction,  the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors,  the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste,  the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development,  the erection and maintenance of security hoarding,  the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders),  details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. 43) M9 Sustainable Construction (Commercial Development)

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

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

Background Papers: DC/13/1048

Contact officer: Kathryn Sadler DC/13/1048

Broomers Hill Park

Scale : 1:2500

SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th September 2013 DEVELOPMENT: Proposed roof alterations to include the insertion of side dormers SITE: Francis Lodge Hyde Street Upper Beeding Steyning WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/13/0831 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Wright

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: 5 or more objections contrary to the recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 It is proposed to establish a first floor to the dwelling to accommodate two bedrooms and a bathroom by making alterations to the roof form and inserting dormers to both side elevations. The roof alterations would involve turning the current hipped roof into a gable design at the front and rear. The height to the ridge of the dwelling would not be increased.

1.2 On the front elevation the existing gable element on the south side would be reduced in size and the wall of a new larger gable element above would be setback by 1m with overhanging eaves and a window facing the street. The space below the eaves on the north side of the smaller gable element would be covered by a flat roof porch. At the rear elevation the proposed gable would be a single element and include a full height window with a juliet balcony. It is also proposed to alter the ground floor doors and windows at the rear into a single bi-folding door.

1.3 The proposed dormers would take the form of a ‘shed’ dormer that have a flat sloping roof, which results in an eaves height that is lower than the point it intersects with the main roof. The proposed dormer to the north side would be 4.7m in width and 1.65m high to the eaves. It contains a velux window to the hallway. The proposed dormer to the south side would be 8.3m in width and also 1.65m high to the eaves. It contains two obscure glazed windows to both bedrooms and a velux window to the bathroom.

Contact Officer: Ben Dohrmann Tel: 01403 215382 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2

1.4 It is proposed to retain the smooth white painted render finish to the ground floor walls and the clay tiles to the roof. The applicant has verbally indicated this would be completed using as many recycled tiles from the existing roof as possible. The proposed dormers would be tile hung.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The site is located within the built-up area of Upper Beeding to the west side of Hyde Street opposite a small park that is elevated on the east side of the street. The site contains a single storey bungalow with a front gable to hipped roof, constructed of white render with tiled roof. The dwelling is built against the north boundary with a surfaced driveway along the southern side of the site. There is an outbuilding to the rear of the site in the south-west corner and other small garden structures.

1.6 To the north at Brambles is a single storey bungalow with side dormer extensions and gable roof to the front and rear of the dwelling. The dwelling at Brambles is positioned slightly behind Francis Lodge. There is a garage to the south-west side of the dwelling, which is slightly detached from the dwelling and from the side boundary. A driveway runs along the south side of the dwelling. To the south at Shirley House is a two storey dwelling on a slightly bigger property, which is set forward of Francis Lodge. There is also a flat roof single storey side extension that abuts the southern boundary of Francis Lodge to the front garden area. The properties to the rear (west) are distanced by approximately 50m from the rear of the dwelling at Francis Lodge.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraph 17 and section 7.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP1, CP3 & CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.4 Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document is also relevant to the determination of the application.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/05/0491 Erection of detached garage PERMITTED

DC/05/3035 Single-storey rear extension and car port to side PERMITTED

DC/13/0008 Proposed roof alterations raising the height by 1500 mm to WITHDRAWN provide additional accommodation and extensions

DC/13/0248 Proposed roof alterations with side dormers and alterations REFUSED

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Upper Beeding Parish Council sees no reason to recommend refusal of the application. However, it is suggested that further consideration be given to the design of the north- facing gable window, which may be out-of-keeping with its surroundings.

3.2 13 letters of objection to the original plans submitted were received (note: the owner/ occupier of Brambles provided 6 separate letters), which can be summarised on the following grounds:

 Scale and design of the proposed extension, including the side dormers, would be out of keeping with the surrounds.  Overdevelopment of a small 1930’s bungalow.  Overbearing impact of the side dormer to the north elevation.  Reduction in light (i.e. right to light) to the ground floor habitable room window of the property to the north as a result of the proposed gable form at the rear.  Overlooking from north and south facing dormer windows, including the velux to the north facing dormer.  Building over the property boundary to the north side at the front gable overhang (not a planning consideration).  Inappropriate use of weatherboard and slate that would be out of keeping with the surrounds.  Lack of clarity of the materials being proposed.  Suggestion to organise an open discussion between parties.

The applicant was requested to prepare amended plans following an initial assessment of the application and to also address the concerns outlined by objectors. The amended plans were re-consulted for a period of 14 days. One objection was received in relation to the amended plans from the owner/occupier of Brambles directly to the north. It was acknowledged the amended plans show some improvement but that their original objection in relation to overlooking, loss of privacy, overbearing impact, building over the property line and a reduction in light is still valid.

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application are i) the principle of the proposed development ii) the character of the dwelling and the visual APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4

amenities of the street scene iii) the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties in relation to overlooking, visual impact and reduction in light to windows.

Principle of the proposed development

6.2 Policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy clearly envisages the use of built-up areas and previously developed land for development proposals such as the alterations to existing dwellings.

6.3 It is also important to note that paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, where development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Character of the dwelling and visual amenities of the street scene

6.4 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure that the townscape character of settlements will be maintained and enhanced. Policy DC9 also seeks to ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of development is of a high standard of design and layout and relates sympathetically with the built surroundings. It should also be locally distinctive in character and respect the character of the surrounding area, using high standards of building materials and finishes.

6.5 Following an initial assessment, the applicant was requested to submit amended plans to address the concerns regarding the design of the single gable element at the front and the proposed use of weatherboard and slate tiles as indicated on the application form. It was considered that the proposed single gable design with the flat roof to the ground floor element on the front elevation did not suitably reflect the adjacent bungalows to the north on Hyde Street. Those dwellings have a smaller gable with hipped roof, or in the case of Brambles a ‘double gable’ with a smaller and larger component. There is also a distinct lack of weatherboard and slate used as materials within the surrounding area.

6.6 The applicant submitted an amended plan that has changed the design at the front to a double gable, which is similar to but not precisely the same as Brambles. It is considered this design relates sympathetically with the built surroundings and is a significant improvement on the application DC/13/0248 previously refused, which also included a balcony to the front elevation. The amended plans have also clearly labelled external walls as smooth white painted render, with tiled roof and tile hung dormers. It is therefore considered the proposed materials will generally match the existing dwelling and be locally distinctive in character.

6.7 In relation to the proposed side dormers, it is considered that they would not unreasonably impact on the character of the dwelling. The site is not within a Conservation Area and side dormers would normally be allowed under permitted development rights (up to 50m³ in area relating to the increase in roof space) so long as the materials used in any exterior work are of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwelling. The applicant has submitted further details that confirm the proposed dormers would be tile hung and therefore are considered to be of a similar appearance to those of the existing dwelling. The design of the proposed dormers incorporating the sloping flat roof is also considered to reduce their size in proportion to the dwelling so they would not dominate the roof structure.

6.8 Lastly, the proposed alteration to the roof at the rear from a hipped to gable roof is also considered to be acceptable from a character perspective, as it would not be highly visible from the street and there are similar forms approved for dwellings nearby, including at Brambles directly to the north.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5

6.9 Therefore, it is considered the proposed development would not unreasonably harm the character of the dwelling and the visual amenities of the street scene.

Overlooking to neighbours

6.10 Policy DC9 seeks to ensure that new development does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking or noise, whilst having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development.

6.11 The applicant submitted amended plans that have responded to the Planning Officer’s concerns in respect of overlooking from the proposed side dormers.

6.12 In relation to the northern dormer, the side window has been removed and the velux window has been retained. The proposed velux would be positioned 300mm above the eaves (using a vertical distance) and would have a lower edge that sits 1.8m above the floor level internally. The owner of Brambles is concerned that the proposed velux would overlook their velux window to the side of their roof. However, it is considered that the proposed velux does not need to be obscure glazed or non-openable as it would sit more than 1.7m above floor level, which is generally accepted as the maximum point above floor level where direct overlooking would be possible.

6.13 In relation to the southern dormer, the amended plans have included a notation that both side windows are to be obscure glazed. However, no information has been provided of any opening details. It is considered that a condition of permission be included that requires details of any opening to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The proposed velux would replicate that on the northern dormer and hence the justification for no obscure glazing to the high level velux is the same as stated above.

6.14 Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land through overlooking.

Visual impact to neighbours

6.15 In relation to the proposed side dormers, the objection from Brambles made reference to the previous refusal DC/13/0248, whereby it was determined the dormer would have an overbearing impact on their property. This was based on the knowledge at the time that the proposed dormer would be directly opposite the existing dormer on the south elevation of Brambles. However, it has since been clarified that the Location and Site Plan submitted with the previous application contained outdated survey data that did not show the rear extension to Brambles. Consequently, the existing dormer at Brambles is positioned further to the rear than previously thought.

6.16 This error has been resolved on the amended Location and Site Plan submitted with this application. As a result of this further information, it is considered that the proposed dormer, whilst it would be visible on an angle, would not have an overbearing impact on the south facing dormer of Brambles. The proposed dormer would be positioned further towards the front of the respective dwellings and would not have a direct visual impact. Furthermore, the small increase in width to the proposed dormer (compared to the previous application DC/13/0248) would be contained to the east side further away from the dormer at Brambles. As a result it is considered, in this case, that the resulting level of harm caused by the proposed dormer to the north does not provide sufficient justification to override the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

6.17 The neighbour to the south (Shirley House) has raised some concern regarding the bulkiness and design of the south facing dormer. However, it is considered that the APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6

proposed dormer would not cause unacceptable visual impact as it would be separated by approximately 10m between both dwellings. Furthermore, the proposed ‘shed’ dormer design with the sloping roof helps reduce its bulkiness, as opposed to a flat roof design. The dormer would also be tile hung, which would blend in appropriately with the tiled roof.

6.18 Therefore, it is considered the proposed development would not unreasonably harm the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties by way of visual impact.

Reduction in light to windows of neighbours

6.19 The objection(s) from Brambles also raise an issue with their ‘right to light’ being impacted by the proposed raising of the hipped roof to a gable roof at the rear. The window in question is on the south-west corner of Brambles and provides light to a dining room at the rear of the dwelling that also has a glazed door and smaller window on the western elevation facing the rear garden. There is a garage that partially encloses the space between the window and the side boundary to Francis Lodge.

6.20 Firstly, the right to light is not a planning consideration and can be resolved as a civil matter between both parties, should there be justification for doing so.

6.21 Secondly, with regard to the impact of the proposed development on the light available to the adjacent window, whilst the gable roof would raise the height of the eaves on the north elevation by approximately 400mm and to a maximum of 2.9m, the highest part would be to the ridge of the dwelling which is distanced by approximately 8m from the window. It is acknowledged there may be some change to the amount of light; however this would be within acceptable limits. Furthermore, the dining room has two other openings to the western elevation that provide additional light into the room.

6.22 Therefore, it is considered that the minor reduction of light to the window does not provide sufficient justification to override the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

6.23 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable as it would not unreasonably harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and the visual amenities of the street scene and would not unreasonably harm the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties. Furthermore, the material considerations in this case do not provide sufficient justification to override the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 To grant planning permission with the following conditions

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. This permission relates to the amended plan(s) submitted on 07/08/2013 and not to the plan(s) originally submitted.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and because the scheme as originally submitted was unacceptable to the Local Planning Authority as it was contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. The lower window(s) in the south elevation of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be APPENDIX A/ 7 - 7

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).

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).

5. The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall strictly accord with those indicated on the approved details associated with the application.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7. No burning of materials in connection with the development shall take place on the site.

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

Background Papers: DC/13/0831 DC/13/0831 Francis Lodge

Scale : 1:1250

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17 September 2013 DEVELOPMENT: Construction of 4-bed detached dwelling and attached garage SITE: Land South of Springwood Sandgate Lane Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/13/1342 APPLICANT: Mrs H Amand

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Called in to committee by Cllr Dawe and Cllr Sanson

RECOMMENDATION: To Grant Planning Permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a four bed dwelling and an attached single garage. The proposed dwelling would have a maximum ridge height of approximately 7.6 metres, reducing to 7.1 metres in height over the proposed garage and 5.3 metres over the single storey dining room. The proposed dwelling would have a maximum width of 21 metres including both the garage and single storey element and a maximum depth of 10.5 metres. There would be a glazed gable on the front elevation and three dormer windows. On the rear there would be a rear gable and dormer window. The proposed dwelling would be constructed in traditional materials and would sit relatively centrally on the plot.

1.2 The proposed accommodation would consist of kitchen/ sitting room and dining room with fourth bedroom and en-suite on the ground floor. At the first floor level there would be three bedrooms (one en-suite), bathroom and study.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1. 3 The application site is located within the built up area boundary and the Heath Common Character Area. The site is located to the southern side of Sandgate Lane with the

Contact Officer: Emma Greening Tel: 01403 215122 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2

entrance to the site being located on the southern side of the loop which links round Sandgate Lane.

1.4 The proposed dwelling would be located on the southern part of the plot which was originally part of the garden for ‘Springwood’. At the time of the site visit, the plot had been clearly divided with post and rail fencing. The application site is relatively steeply sloping with the land rising upwards from the road level to the northern boundary by approximately 4 metres in total.

1.5 To the north of the plot is ‘Springwood’ a two storey dwelling house, which sits at a higher level to the application site. The northern boundary is marked by post and rail fencing; the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 5 metres from the northern boundary and 16metres from Springwood.

1.6 To the east of the application site is ‘Hurst Lodge’ which is a single storey property with a dormer on the southern elevation. Presently there are three trees on the boundary and a low post and mesh fence. The proposed dwelling would be located approximately 4metres from the boundary and 10metres from ‘Hurst Lodge’.

1.7 To the south of the site, there is currently an existing garage building with pitched roof which would be removed as part of the proposal, the access track which is an unmade road runs along this boundary and on the opposite side of the access is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance.

1.8 To the west of the application site is ‘Little Stoke’ which is located approximately 22metres from the proposed dwelling house, and the existing boundary is marked by hedging and planting. This property is relatively well screened from the application site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant Government Policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012. The National Planning Policy Framework has a presumption in favour of Sustainable Development

2.3 Relevant sections include Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) which seeks to ensure that “good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007): CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality), CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP5 (Built Up Areas and Previously Developed Land), CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements) and CP19 (Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport) are considered relevant to this application.

2.5 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007): DC2 (Landscape Character), DC6 (Woodland and Trees), DC9 (Development APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3

Principles), DC15 (Heath Common and West Chiltington Character Areas) and DC40 (Transport and Access) are considered relevant to this application.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/12/1022 Erection of detached 3-bed dwelling with detached garage PERMITTED (Outline)

DC/13/0380 `Approval of Reserved Matters following outline permission WITHDRAWN DC/12/1022 (Erection of detached 3-bed dwelling with detached garage)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Arboricultural Officer: Raised no objections (Verbal Response)

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Highways Authority: No Objection subject to conditions relating to access, parking, visibility splays and construction material storage

3.3 Southern Water: Applicant is advised to consult the Environment Agency directly regarding the use of a package treatment plant which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner of the premises will need to maintain the works to ensure its long term effectiveness. The Council’s Building Control Officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council: Strong Objection. Members considered the proposals to be overdevelopment and too large for the site, the property is far too high and would be detrimental to the surrounding area and neighbours

3.5 Ten letters of objection received from four addresses within Sandgate Lane raising the following points:  Proposed property is far too large for the plot, all other varied bungalows and houses are set back from this narrow lane  The hedge bordering the lane would have to be severely cut in order to allow any parking in the garden leaving very little actual garden  HDC have previously been strict on applications requiring set back and landscaping  Proposal does not retain the unique character of the area, not is it in keeping with the general specification of existing dwellings on spacious plots  Height and footprint are substantially greater than the more modest dwelling for which outline planning permission was originally granted  The design makes heavy use of glazing as a feature, with a dominant two storey glass façade  Design and Access statement is not correct as it is not a bungalow, the proposal is for a 4 bedroom house

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

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

Background

6.1 Outline planning permission was granted in September 2012 under DC/12/1022 for a three bedroom detached dwelling with detached garage with all matters reserved. Whilst it is noted that this application contained some indicative plans, the application simply sought to test the principle of the development on the site.

6.2 A subsequent reserved matters application was submitted; however this was withdrawn as it contained a four bedroom dwelling with integral dwelling which was not consistent with the description on the outline permission. As a result a full application has now been submitted and is the subject of this report.

Principle of Development

6.3 The National Planning Policy Framework has a golden thread running through it which seeks to ensure a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the planning system performs an economic, social and environmental role. The Framework requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan. It is considered that the policies contained within the Horsham District Local Development Framework are still relevant in this case.

6.4 Planning policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007) allows for new dwellings in category 1 settlements within the built up area boundary. Given that outline permission has already been granted for a dwelling on the site, the principle of development has been established. Therefore this application needs to assess the design, layout, access of the proposal and the impact on neighbour amenity and the street scene.

Design

6.5 Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies seeks to ensure that the “scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings”. The proposed dwelling would be located relatively centrally on the plot close to the eastern boundary. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling is relatively large in size in terms of footprint, it would sit at a lower level to the surrounding neighbouring properties. In addition the overall impact of the proposed dwelling has been reduced in part by the lower ridge line of the garage and single storey dining room element and the gables to the front and rear elevations.

6.6 Within the wider area, there is a mix of properties of different styles and design. In this respect the design of the proposed dwelling house is considered relatively traditional with dormer windows set into the roof, whilst there is a more modern glazed element on the southern elevation. The proposed dwelling is considered to be in keeping with properties in close proximity to the application site. APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5

Impact on Neighbouring Occupiers

6.7 The impact of the development on neighbour amenity is a key consideration and the three properties most likely to be affected by the proposal are ‘Little Stoke’, ‘Springwood’ and ‘Hurst Lodge’. Taking each of those properties in turn, the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 16 metres from Springwood and 5 metres from the rear garden of Springwood to the north. Given the difference in levels of approximately 4 metres, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would have a significant impact on this property in terms of overshadowing. There is one dormer window and two roof lights proposed on the rear elevation which would serve a bathroom, en-suite and would be a secondary bedroom window. It is therefore considered appropriate to attach a condition requiring these windows to be obscured glazed and non-opening below a certain level to protect the privacy of the neighbouring property.

6.8 ‘Hurst Lodge’ is located to the north east of the application site and the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 10metres from this property and 4metres from the boundary. There are no windows which would directly face this property and so the proposal is not likely to result in any overlooking, a condition would be applied to restrict any windows in the future being added to this elevation. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be clearly visible from ‘Hurst Lodge’, given the orientation of the site of this property in relation to the application site it is not considered to give rise to significant levels of overshadowing.

6.9 The final area of consideration in terms of neighbour amenity is the impact of the proposal on ‘Little Stoke’ which lies to the west of the application site. ‘Little Stoke’ sits at a lower level to the other neighbouring properties and the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 14.5metres from the boundary with ‘Little Stoke’. There are windows proposed on the ground floor which would serve the dining room and kitchen. There is existing screening on the common boundary and given the separation distance of approximately 15 metres to the boundary, it is therefore considered that the impact on ‘Little Stoke’ is limited.

Impact on Street Scene

6.10 In terms of the impact on the street scene the proposed dwelling is located on the southern part of the loop within Sandgate Lane, and would be the only dwelling accessed from this point. It is noted that the private track sits at a lower level to the application site and therefore the house would be clearly visible from the road. However the proposed dwelling would be set back from the road and there is screening along the front which would minimise the impact.

6.11 Sandgate Lane is generally made up of a variety of different dwellings built over a period of time and set in plots of irregular sizes. There is no common building line and there is mature screening between the majority of the plots which help to minimise the impact of built form. It is considered that whilst the proposed dwelling would be visible from the street scene, with appropriate landscaping the impact would be limited and on balance this is considered acceptable.

Other Issues

6.12 The application site is located within the Heath Common Character Area, which is defined by Policy DC15 of the General Development Control Policies as low density development which is set in woodlands and commons. The dwelling would be located opposite a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and located within an area close to other development. Given that the proposed dwelling would be located close to other dwelling houses and APPENDIX A/ 8 - 6

would be set relatively centrally in the plot, the impact on the wider area is considered limited.

6.13 The other key issues for consideration are the means of access and the impact of the proposal on the existing trees. The Highways Authority have suggested that visibility splays of 2x17 metres be provided as well as additional plans showing parking and the location of construction materials within the site to be secured by condition.

6.14 In addition to this the Arboricultural Officer has commented specifically on the trees located on the eastern boundary. He is of the view that the trees are not worthy of protection and whilst the building would be partly within the root protection area of these trees, it is on balance considered acceptable.

Conclusion

6.15 Overall, it is considered that the proposed dwelling house would be in keeping with the surrounding properties and subject to conditions would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the wider street scene. As a result it is considered that the proposal meets the aims of planning policy and it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That planning permission is granted

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. The dormer window and roof lights in the north elevation of the building 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).

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be formed in the first floor north, east and west elevations 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).

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 7

5. The access and visibility splays to the proposed development from the highway shall be designed, laid out and constructed in all respects in accordance with drawing 90/13/05A (date stamped 22 July 2013). No other work shall be carried out on the site until the above- mentioned sight lines and splay area have been provided and thereafter the said sight lines and splay areas shall be kept free from any obstruction to visibility in excess of 0.6 metres 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 (2007)

6. No development shall be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan showing the layout of the proposed development and the provision of car parking spaces for vehicles. The areas of land so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of all highways in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7. Before development commences, details of the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles and shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

8. No work shall be carried out on site unless there is available within the site provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and the storage of materials and equipment associated with the building works; all in accordance with precise details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The approved facilities shall be retained and available for use throughout the period of work required to implement the development hereby permitted unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and/or in the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

9. Before development commences precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

10. No development shall take place until details of screen walls, gates and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls, gates and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11. No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or APPENDIX A/ 8 - 8

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).

12. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

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

14. Full details of means of surface water drainage to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on the 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.

15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, D, E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

16. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

17. Deliveries, loading and unloading shall be restricted to 0800 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and no deliveries, loading or unloading shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

18. No burning of materials in connection with the development shall take place on the site. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). APPENDIX A/ 8 - 9

Note to applicant: The applicant is advised to contact the proprietor of Sandgate Lane to obtain formal approval to carry out the site access works on the highway.

Background Papers: DC/12/1022, DC/13/0380 DC/13/1342 Land South of Springwood

Scale : 1:1250

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th September 2013 Proposed 2-storey side, rear and front extensions and other associated DEVELOPMENT: works (resubmission of DC/12/2288) SITE: Whitefoots Dial Post Horsham West Sussex WARD: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/13/1464 APPLICANT: Mr Tim Wonnacott

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: 34x letters of representation in support of this application have been received.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of a two-storey side, rear and front extension, a new front entrance and log store, and various other alterations and additions (including dormer windows and balconies) to this 2-storey dwelling located in the countryside.

1.2 The front elevation of the property would be enlarged by the erection of a 2-story front entrance/stairwell which would replace the existing lean-to porch. This element would measure 5.8m to ridge height (with a partially-hipped roof), 3.4m wide and 1.5m deep. It would be constructed with timber, white render and tile hanging detail to match existing. A door would face the north elevation, and windows would be installed at first floor level. The front elevation would also be enlarged by a ‘cat-slide’ roof element forming the front elevation of the side extension. This would measure 6.3m in height and 5.5m in width. Timber, white render and tile hanging detail would feature on this element, and it would include 2 ground floor windows (serving the kitchen) and a first floor window (serving bedroom 1).

1.3 The main extension would span the length of the side (south) elevation increasing its length from 10.8m to 13.7m, and measuring 6.3m in height. It would include a large dormer

Contact Officer: Angela Gray Tel: 01403 215173 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2

window (measuring 4.4m in length) serving bedroom 1 which would also feature a south- facing balcony and three large windows. To its right, a smaller dormer window (measuring 0.9m x 1.9m) would serve an en-suite bathroom, and further right, another dormer window (measuring 2.2m in length x 2.9m in height) would serve bedroom 2. Double doors and patio-style windows measuring 2m in height would serve the dining area on the ground floor.

1.4 Folding glazed doors (also measuring 2m in height) would serve the dining room facing the rear of the property. A pitched roof (with partial hip) at the rear of the property would form the rear of the main extension. Glass doors leading to a first floor balcony would serve bedroom 2, and would be located above the folding dining room doors. The existing cat- slide extension at the rear would remain, with the addition of a back door in place of a ground floor window. A new pitched roof extension would be constructed with a gable end facing the north elevation. A small dormer window would replace the two existing roof lights. To the right of the small dormer window and new pitched roof extension, a 2-storey dormer would be constructed measuring 5m in height and 2.7m in width. The dormer would create a light feature for the property by incorporating full length glazing.

1.5 The north elevation would be extended by the development of a log store with sloping roof measuring 3.5m in height (sloping to 2m) and 4.2m in length. A new back door to the cloak room/utility room, and WC window would face the north elevation.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The site is located outside the built up area boundary, and is therefore located within the countryside. The site is located to the south of Horsham, to the east of the A24 and accessed via a single track lane which leads to a gated gravel driveway. The site consists of a large area of land, and sits within a large curtilage overlooking open farmland and countryside. The site is relatively isolated, with no views of other dwellings or developments in the vicinity.

1.7 The property is a simple dwelling of local vernacular character possibly of 18th century origin. Although not a designated heritage asset, the building exhibits local historic merit in that the north/south range has a traditional linear plan form, tile hanging at first floor, over a painted brick ground floor. The pitched roof is tiled with plain clay tile, and includes a traditional catslide to the rear (constructed in the 1970s). The building has been modestly extended over the years, in a pattern consistent with similar aged buildings, including a 20th century wing to right angles and a porch. The dwelling is considered to be a good example of locally distinctive architecture, typical to the district and sitting appropriately within its countryside context.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as the ‘golden thread’ running through both plan-making and decision taking. The NPPF notes core planning principles which underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. The first of these core-principles states that planning should be genuinely plan-led to provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency. Other APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3

core principles include the need to seek high quality design, the recognition of the character of different areas, and the conservation and preservation of the natural environment and heritage assets. The most relevant section of the NPPF which is considered to relate to this proposal is Section 7 (Requiring Good Design). This section of the NPPF notes that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. The Government therefore gives great weight to the importance of planning positively for the achievement of high quality design for all development.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) – Policies CP1 and CP3

Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) – Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC28

PLANNING HISTORY

There are a number of applications relating to extensions and developments at this property, but the most relevant are:

DC/13/0809 Two single storey side extensions, two single storey rear PER extensions and two rear roof dormers (Lawful Development Certificate - Proposed)

DC/12/2288 Proposed ground and first floor extensions REF

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 34x letters of representation have been received in support of this application (all received between 9th August – 6th September 2013). Representations were received from a variety of addresses, both local and further afield. The following points were raised in the 34 letters of representation:

 The design fits well and is in keeping with the local environment;  It will enhance the existing property without detracting from its original design;  The height is the same as the main building;  The proposal will update the property sympathetically;  The property is not overlooked and is of no architectural merit;  It is preferable to update original dwellings than build new ones;  An example of carefully thought out sustainable design;  It makes a positive contribution to the local vernacular;  It will provide useful family accommodation;  The building recalls the fine timber structures elsewhere in Sussex;  Good use of green oaks;  Imaginative and discreet design;  Will upgrade the existing house to meet modern requirements;  Shows green initiative by using oak framed structure;  It will not adversely affect neighbouring owners;  The plans are proportionate to size of the existing dwelling; APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4

 Sympathetic use of materials;  It would provide much needed light.

3.2 West Grinstead Parish Council responded to the consultation for this application on 5th September 2013. The Parish Council noted their strong support for this proposal and stated the following:

‘The current dwelling is very basic and the proposal would be a major improvement to the property. As the property is very isolated, the development will affect no-one apart from the owners of the site’

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The issues for consideration in the determination of this planning application are:

(1) The principle of the development (2) The impact of the development on the character of the existing dwelling (3) The impact of the development on the character of the countryside location (4) Representations received in support of the development

The Principle of the Development

6.2 The application site is located outside the defined built-up area and therefore is in a countryside location. The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a two- storey side, rear and front extension, and new porch and log store to this 2-storey dwelling located to the east of Dial Post, near Horsham. It is accepted by the Council that although new development in the countryside is not encouraged, in some cases it is appropriate to allow for the extension and improvement of existing dwellings. In allowing these types of development however, it is recognised in local planning policy that all development in the countryside must protect and reflect the rural and landscape character of the area. Policy DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) is the main policy by which extensions and alterations for dwellings in the countryside are assesses against. DC28 states that development in these areas must be accommodated appropriately within the curtilage of the existing dwelling, must not be disproportionate to the existing dwelling, and must be in sympathy with and subservient to the scale and character of the existing dwelling. Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) describes the development principles that all development proposals are assessed against whether they are located in the countryside or not. It requires that new development is of a high standard of design and layout having regard to its natural and built surroundings in terms of scale, density, height, massing, siting, orientation, views, character, materials and space APPENDIX A/ 9 - 5

between buildings. Development should relate sympathetically with its surroundings, as well as having regard to the sensitivities of the surrounding area, should be locally distinctive in character and be of a scale which is sympathetic to and does not overpower the original building.

6.3 In terms of national planning policy, the Government assigns great importance to the design of the built environment, and describes good design as a key aspect of sustainable development and that it should contribute positively to making places better for people. Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) describes the importance of the extent to which new development seeks to reinforce and promote local distinctiveness, local characteristics and local identity. Paragraph 60 notes that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes, but notes that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Paragraph 58 specifies that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings, with paragraph 64 going on to state that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character of an area.

6.4 Other than the requirement of policy DC28 (that development in the countryside must be accommodated appropriately within the curtilage of the existing dwelling), it is considered that this proposal would not fully accord with the requirements of local policy as outlined above, nor the advice set out in the NPPF, and would therefore conflict in principle with national and local planning policy.

Impact on the Character of the Existing Dwelling

6.5 The proposed development as presented in this application seeks various extensions and additions to the front, side and rear elevations of Whitefoots. This would include the following:

 Front (west) elevation - new porch/stairwell at the centre of the dwelling, and a cat-slide roof element incorporating timber framing and first/ground floor windows.  South (side) elevation - 2-storey extension incorporating three dormer windows of varying sizes, a first floor balcony to serve a bedroom, and patio-style glazing to the ground floor.  Rear (east) elevation - alterations including a new pitched roof addition with small dormer window, a ‘linking’ pitched roof connecting the existing 1970s extension with the proposed extension, and a further fully glazed dormer window spanning the ground and first floors. A first-floor balcony and glazing to the ground floor dining area would also feature on this elevation.  North (side) elevation - log store

6.6 In terms of the impact the development would have on the character of the existing dwelling, it is considered that by reason of its scale and design the proposed extension and alterations to this property are not considered to compliment the character of the existing dwelling, and are considered to result in dominant features that would be disproportionate to the modest and traditional Sussex countryside dwelling as existing. This is supported by an analysis of the individual elements which form the extensions and alterations to this property as set out below:

6.7 Front (west) elevation Policy DC28 requires extensions to dwellings in the countryside to be proportionate to, in sympathy with and subservient to scale and character of the original building. Given the roof ridge height of the proposed extension to the southern elevation would be higher than the roof ridge height of the existing dwelling (by approximately 0.4m) - coupled with the set- APPENDIX A/ 9 - 6

forward position of the proposed extension and porch - it is considered that this would increase the visual prominence and bulk of the dwelling in an uncharacteristic way that would not relate sympathetically with the original building. By reason of its height, bulk and design the proposed porch/stairwell addition to the front elevation of the dwelling is though to be an overly-dominant feature on the primary elevation which detracts unsympathetically from the original and modest character of the existing dwelling. It is considered that some of the design features presented on the ‘cat-slide’ element on the front elevation would be acceptable – for example the hanging-tiles and fenestration – but its overall height and protrusion from the existing front building line are considered to create an overly-dominant feature on this primary elevation which is not in accordance with DC28.

6.8 South (side) elevation As a result of the proposed development, the south elevation would be entirely transformed. The main extension would span the existing south elevation and will increase the length from 10.8m to 13.7m. It is considered that the three irregularly sized dormer windows and patio-style glazing (which wraps around to the rear elevation) are not characteristic of the existing dwelling, and are considered to be at odds with the original design and fenestration of the dwelling. Paragraph 60 of the NPPF notes that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes, but notes that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. It is considered in this case that the glazing does not complement the style of the existing dwelling or its rural setting, and does not therefore characterize or indeed reinforce the local distinctiveness of this area. Given the existing 1970s extension at the rear, it is agreed that a further extension to the dwelling would be appropriate on this elevation, but it would need to better complement the existing character of the dwelling on this elevation without overshadowing its original external features and character.

6.9 Rear (east) elevation The proposed side extension as it would be viewed from the rear of the property, by reason of its height and design, is considered to appear as a dominant feature and therefore out of keeping with the simplistic character of the existing house. It is considered that the ridge height and width of the extension, coupled with glazing at the ground floor and balcony/large windows serving the first floor bedroom, would dominate the original dwelling, and the design would be at odds with the original window patterns of the dwelling. Similarly, the large glazed dormer at the northern end of the rear elevation – although a feature that would bring good levels of light into the property – is considered to appear dominant and out of keeping with the rural, simplistic character of the existing house. It is considered that the new pitched roof addition and small dormer would be an acceptable addition that would extend the property at the rear in a subservient and sympathetic way.

6.10 North (side) elevation The proposed log store on the north elevation is considered an appropriate form of development for this property in its rural setting, and is considered to be in accordance with local policy, and therefore acceptable. However, the extension to the southern elevation by reason of its height and length is considered to undesirably increase the bulk of the dwelling as viewed from the north elevation, detracting from its existing simple rural appearance. The appearance of the excess bulk from the north elevation is further increased by the porch/stairwell addition proposed on the front elevation. It is considered that this increase in bulk as viewed from the north elevation would not meet the requirements of policies DC9 and DC28 which require development to relate sympathetically and be subservient to the main dwelling, and would not therefore be acceptable.

6.11 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed alterations as a whole would not be subservient or sympathetic to the main dwelling and would not reflect local distinctiveness, and therefore fails to accord with Paragraphs 58, 60 and 64 of the National Planning Policy APPENDIX A/ 9 - 7

Framework (2012), and policies DC9 and DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

Impact on the Character of the Countryside Setting

6.12 In terms of national policy, section 7 (paragraph 58) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) specifies that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings. Paragraph 60 notes that planning decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes, but states the importance of seeking to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Whilst it is recognised that some of the features of this proposal could be seen as examples of innovative and original design, it is not considered that they would reflect or reinforce the local vernacular of this area of Sussex (or indeed the dwelling as existing), and are therefore not considered to accord with the aforementioned paragraphs of Section 7 of the NPPF. Paragraph 64 states that permission should be refused for development that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character or quality of an area and the way it functions.

6.13 Policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) states that activities that may influence the character of the District should only take place where the landscape character is protected conserved or enhanced taking into account key landscape and settlement characteristics. Similarly, policy DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) states that development will be permitted where it protects and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located. It is considered that Whitefoots as existing is an example of a dwelling that is characteristic of this part of the Low Weald of Sussex, and the significant loss of its character would contribute to a loss in the wider landscape and settlement characteristics of this area. The supporting text associated with policy CP1 recognises the importance of being aware of the broader implications of gradual change through cumulative effects to the landscape character. Although the development as proposed at Whitefoots is relatively small-scale in relation to the wider character area, it is considered that it would contribute to an undesirable precedent that could result in the character of this part of the District to suffer.

6.14 Policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) expects development to contribute to a sense of place in the way buildings and spaces integrate with their surroundings and the historic landscape in which they are located. CP3 also states that development will be expected to provide an attractive, functional, accessible, safe and adaptable environment; that complement the varying character and heritage of the District, particularly as defined in Village or Parish Design Statements. The Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement (prepared by the West Grinstead Parish Village Design group and adopted by Horsham District Council in January 2001) seeks to ‘raise awareness of the cumulative impact of smaller changes that can erode the rural character of the area and lead to the suburbanisation of the countryside’. The statement notes that buildings should not only respect their surroundings but also their design, and states that enlarging a traditional design excessively produces a building that does not ring true because it no longer has its traditional scale (p15).

6.15 It is considered that the proposed extensions and alteration to Whitefoots would be of a scale and design which is not considered to compliment the character of its rural surroundings or wider settlement characteristics, and would fail to reinforce local distinctiveness in this rural countryside setting. It is considered therefore that the proposal fails to accord with the requirements of paragraphs 58, 60 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies CP1, CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), policy DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development APPENDIX A/ 9 - 8

Framework General Development Control Policies (2007), or the advice and guidelines set out in The Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement (2001).

Representations in Support

6.16 It is acknowledged that a significant number of representations have been received in support of this application (34 in total, all received by email between 9th August – 6th September 2013), and the Parish Council noted their strong support for the proposal. Representations were received from a variety of addresses, both local and further afield. Whilst some of the representations simply noted their support, others noted specific material planning considerations, which include the following:

6.17 Having had regard to these representations, including the Parish Councils comments, it is considered that on balance, the conflict the proposed extension and alterations has against both national and local planning policy outweighs the comments of support noted in the representations received. As noted in the planning assessment in this report, it is disputed that the proposed extension would be sympathetic with, subservient to, and in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling, and although it can be argued that the extension and alterations would provide an enhanced space for modern family living, it is considered that the harm this development would have on the character of the existing dwelling and its rural setting would outweigh the benefits achieved.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that permission be REFUSED subject to the following reasons:

1. By reason of its scale and design the proposed extensions and alterations to this property are not considered to compliment the character of the existing dwelling, and are considered to result in dominant features that would be disproportionate to the modest and locally distinctive countryside dwelling as existing. It is considered that the proposed alterations as a whole would not be subservient or sympathetic to the main dwelling and would not reflect local characteristics, and therefore fails to accord with Paragraph’s 58, 60 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), and policies DC9 and DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 9

2. It is considered that the proposed extensions would be of a scale and design which is not considered to compliment the character of its rural surroundings or wider settlement characteristics, and would fail to reinforce local distinctiveness in this rural countryside setting. It is considered therefore that the proposal fails to accord with the requirements of paragraphs 58, 60 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies CP1, CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), policy DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007), or the advice and guidelines set out in The Partridge Green and Dial Post Design Statement (2001).

Background Papers: DC/13/1464 DC/13/1464

Whitefoots

Scale : 1:2500

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th September 2013 Construction of two detached dwellings with associated landscaping DEVELOPMENT: works SITE: Land South of Stortford, Coombe Drove Bramber West Sussex WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/13/0701 APPLICANT: Mr Keith Rogers

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters received contrary to Officers recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: to approve the application subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a S106 agreement securing a financial contribution towards transport infrastructure.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of two detached dwellings on land to the south of Stortford with access from Coombe Drove. Dwelling one would be 10.5 metres wide and 12 metres long. The height of the building would be 8.8 metres. The dwelling would have 4 bedrooms at first floor level and an integral garage. The property would be constructed with a plain clay tile roof, plain clay hanging tile at first floor level and render to the ground floor. Dwelling two would be sited to the north of plot one and the building would be 10.4 metres wide, 11.8 metres long and 9.8 metres high. The building would have a similar material finish to dwelling one.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site is located within the built up area boundary of Steyning and is accessed via Coombe Drove. The site at present has a panel fence along each boundary. The site has been cleared although a raised stepped garden area remains to the rear of site. The site is at a higher level than Coombe Drove.

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2

1.3 The site is located at the end of Coombe Drove adjoining the turning circle for the cul de sac. The properties within the immediate vicinity are detached in character, with the properties to the east of Coombe Drove set at a lower level. To the north of the site is the property Stortford which is accessed via Little Drove. Stortford is an imposing property with accommodation within the roofslope, and windows at first and ground floor level looking into the site.

1.4 The properties to the rear of the site are to some extent screened from Coombe Drove by the existing planting on the far side of the panel fence.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.6 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy are CP1, CP3, CP5 & CP13 and CP19.

2.7 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) Document are DC6, DC8, DC9, and DC40

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/10/1925 New house on land adjacent to Stortford with new vehicular PER access (Outline)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Arboricultural Officer - Comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Ecologist has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions.

3.3 County Surveyor has raised no objection to the application from a highway perspective subject to conditions. A financial contribution of £6,713 would be required by the County Council to address the infrastructure needs of the development.

3.4 Southern Water have noted that a formal application would be required for connection to the public sewer. Southern Water note that there are no public sewers in the area to serve the development and that disposal of surface water should not be to the public foul sewer.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 Bramber Parish Council has raised no objection to the application.

3.6 11 letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds;  Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties kitchen, and TV/ playroom  Removal of trees has removed the natural screening  Overdevelopment of the site  Overlooking of neighbouring property  Design out of keeping  Increased noise and disturbance  Potentially dangerous access  Increased traffic  Smaller plot size than adjoining properties  Lack of parking provision  Concern relating to boundary maintenance  Concern relating to chimney height

3.7 6 letters have been received objecting to the latest amended plans on the following grounds;  Amended plans do not overcome concerns raised in original objections  Overdevelopment of site  Inadequate public transport  Congestion and parking issues  Surface water flooding in turning circle will increase due to additional driveways  Open plan element should be retained as part of the development  Properties not in keeping in terms of design, footprint or plot size

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

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

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers, the impact on the streetscene and highway safety.

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the governments planning policy and at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sustainable development is seen within the document as having three roles, namely an economic, social and environmental role which should be a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Paragraph 9 notes that sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):

Principle of Development

6.3 The site is located within the built up area boundary of Steyning which is classified as a Category 1 settlement within policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Category 1 settlements are considered to be towns and villages with a good range of services and facilites as well as some access to public transport, which are capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. Therefore due to the sites location and the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development it is considered that the principle of development on this site is acceptable subject to normal development control criteria.

Impact on Streetscene

6.4 Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies relates to Development Principles and states planning permission will be granted for development which:

recommendations/policies of the relevant Design Statements and Character Assessments; e) use high standards of building materials, finishes and landscaping; f) presume in favour of the retention of existing important landscaping and natural features, for example trees, hedges, banks and watercourses. Development must relate sympathetically to the local landscape and justify and mitigate against any losses that may occur through the development; and, g) ensure buildings and spaces are orientated to gain maximum benefit from sunlight and passive solar energy, unless this conflicts with the character of the surrounding townscape, landscape or topography where it is of good quality

6.5 It is considered that the proposed development of two dwellings on the site would reflect the pattern of development within the locality which is characterised within the southern end of Coombe Drove by two storey detached properties. The proposed dwellings would be set back some 7 metres from Coombe Drove, with parking areas to the front of the properties. The dwellings would be located a minimum of 2.1 metres from the boundaries with neighbouring properties, and this distance as well as the context of the site would retain the spacing which is an important feature of the locality. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would not appear overbearing on the plot, whilst making best use of the land available.

6.6 The proposed dwellings are modern in design with steeply pitched roofs and feature glazing. The proposed properties would have tile hanging to the first floor and render to the ground floor elements. It is accepted that the design does not duplicate the existing properties within Coombe Drove, however each dwelling would be tile hung at first floor level which is a feature of a number of properties within the area. It is considered that the proposed design is innovative, and it is noted within paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework that “planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms of styles.” The properties are simple in form and this simple design is considered to respect the character of the locality.

Amenity of Neighbouring Occupiers

6.7 With regards to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers dwelling one would have no windows at first floor level within the northern elevation. Within the southern elevation there would be two bedroom windows at first floor level. Whilst these windows could be obscure glazed as they are not the primary windows to the bedroom, it is not considered that the windows would cause undue overlooking of the neighbouring property to the south. This is because the neighbouring property is set back from the proposed dwelling and consequently the windows would permit views into the front garden area of the property which is already to some extent open to public view. Dwelling two has rooflights within the roofslope of the northern and southern elevations as the dwelling has a steeply sloping roof which envelops the first floor of the property. Three of the proposed rooflights on the northern elevation of the proposed dwelling would be at a high level and therefore would not allow overlooking of the neighbouring property. However one rooflight to the proposed ensuite would be at a lower level, and it is considered that this rooflight should be obscure glazed so as to maintain privacy.

6.8 Dwelling two would be set a minimum of 2 metres from the boundary of the neighbouring property and would be at a lower level than Stortford. The roof of the proposed dwelling would slope away from the shared boundary which would reduce the bulk of the building APPENDIX A/ 10 - 6

along the northern boundary. The applicant is also proposing to plant a hedge along the boundary to screen the neighbouring property, and the Councils Arboricultural Officer has confirmed that a hedge could be accommodated along the boundary of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposed plot would not have a material adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining property.

Highway Safety

6.9 The County Surveyor has considered the proposal and has noted that the proposed new access widths are satisfactory, and that in terms of vehicular movements the proposed dwellings are unlikely to result in any material increase or any detrimental impact. Therefore it is considered that it would be difficult to substantiate a highways objection to the proposal. A detached garage was proposed to the front of plot two, however this was removed from the application following officers concerns with regards to the garage appearing out of keeping in the streetscene. However each of the proposed dwellings has a driveway to allow off street parking (with property one benefitting from an integral garage). It is therefore considered that the proposal would enable occupiers of the proposed properties to park within the site.

Conclusion

6.10 In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development in a Category 1 settlement in principle is acceptable, and that the proposed dwellings would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties it is therefore your officer’s view that the application should be approved.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to the following conditions and the satisfactory completion of a S106 agreement securing a financial contribution towards transport infrastructure;

1. A2 – Full Permission 2. M1 – Materials 3. L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping 4. H10 – Cycling Provision 5. H6 – Wheel Washing 6. H4a – On Site Parking 7. H1 – Access (General) 8. G6 – Recycling 9. G3 – Parking, Turning and Access 10. E3 – Fencing 11. E2 – No Fences 12. D6 – Finished Floor Levels 13. D5 – No Windows – any elevation 14. M8 – Sustainable Construction 15. O1 – Hours of Working 16. O2 – Burning of Materials “in connection with the development” 17. S4 – Surface Water Details 18. S2 – Restriction of occupation (sewerage) 19. No removal trees or shrubs shall be carried out on site between March to August inclusive in any year, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where vegetation must be cleared during the bird breeding season a check for nesting birds by a suitably qualified ecologist will be required. Any vegetation containing occupied nests will be retained until the young have fledged. The location details of the compensatory nesting provision to be supplied to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to their erection. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 7

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),

INFORMATIVE

The applicant is advised to contact the Rural Team, Community and Economic Development, Communities and Infrastructure Directorate, 1st Floor, The Grange, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1RQ to obtain a license for the site access works.

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester S023 9EH (tel: 01962858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk

Background Papers: DC/10/1925, DC/13/0701 DC/13/0701

Land South of Stortford

Scale : 1:1250

SLA Number 100023865