North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (Calls May Be Recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6

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

Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

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

Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 6TH NOVEMBER 2012 AT 5.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

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

You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 2nd October 2012 (attached)

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

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

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

Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee – Appendix A Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number A1 Southwater DC/12/0579 Martindale Farm Worthing Road Horsham

A2 Holbrook West DC/12/0465 Graylands Estate Langhurst Wood Road Horsham DC/12/1846 Kitchen Garden Cottages Graylands Estate Langhurst Wood Road Horsham DC/12/1847 Kitchen Garden Cottages Graylands Estate Langhurst Wood Road Horsham

A3 Southwater DC/12/1399 27 Little Bridges Close Southwater DC/12/1405 27 Little Bridges Close Southwater

A4 Nuthurst DC/12/1447 Furzefield Broadwater Lane Copsale Horsham

A5 Itchingfield, DC/12/1899 Rapkyns Cottage Guildford Road Broadbridge Slinfold and Heath Warnham

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.

DCN121002

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 2ND OCTOBER 2012

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

Apologies: Councillors: Christine Costin, Christian Mitchell

DCN/52 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4th September 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/53 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Malcolm DC/12/0814 Personal – member of Broadbridge Curnock Heath Parish Council Councillor Godfrey DC/12/1259 Personal – he was buying a property Newman in the first phase of the development Councillor Roy DC/11/2136 Personal and prejudicial – he was a Cornell trustee and director of a local sports club which was a customer of the land owners Councillor Stuart DC/11/2136 Personal – he knew the applicant Ritchie Councillor Stuart DC/12/1277 Personal – he knew the applicant Ritchie

DCN/54 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCN/55 APPEALS

Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/12/0701 56 Keats Close, Horsham Mr M Wingate Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/56 DECISIONS ON LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

DC/12/0916 Maple Apartment, Maple Farm, Marches Granted Road, Warnham – use of old Groom’s flat as independent unit of residential accommodation DC/12/0972 2 Bensons Farm Cottages, Wimlands Road, Granted Faygate – development of accessway and track DC/12/0677 Kingsfold Nursery, Dorking Road, Kingsfold – Refused use of mobile home as independent unit of residential accommodation

DCN/57 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0814 - PART A - RESERVED MATTERS APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 135 HOUSES (CONSISTING OF 37 X 2-BED, 36 X- 3-BED AND 62 X 4-BED) AND LANDSCAPING AND: PART B - TEMPORARY APPROVAL FOR SALES AND MARKETING SUITE COMPRISING PLOTS 1, 2 AND 3 SITE: LAND SOUTH OF BROADBRIDGE HEATH OLD WICKHURST LANE BROADBRIDGE HEATH APPLICANT: MR SIMON KIRK (Councillor Malcolm Curnock declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of Broadbridge Heath Parish Council)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reminded Members that in October 2011 outline planning permission had been granted for the development of 57 hectares of land to the South of Broadbridge Heath which formed part of the West of Horsham strategic land allocation. The outline permission had been subject to a legal agreement which secured a range of benefits associated with the development.

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that Part A of this application sought Reserved Matters approval for the second residential phase of this wider development and comprised 135 dwellings, including 27 affordable units (14 affordable rent and 13 shared ownership), landscaping and associated works. The proposal included 329 parking spaces comprising 315 allocated spaces and 14 visitor spaces. The application also provided 21 disabled car parking spaces.

Part B of the application sought full planning permission for a sales and marketing suite within this phase for a temporary period.

The application site was located west of the A24 bounded by the A264 to the northwest, the River Arun to the south west and High Wood Hill to the south east. The first phase residential development had already been granted Reserved Matters under DC/11/2074 (DCN/137 (03.04.12) refers) and was located to the west of the application site. 2 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/57 Planning Application DC/12/0814 (cont.)

The South East Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England; the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP7, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40; Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document; and Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/08/2446 Mixed use development comprising up to Withdrawn 1,013 residential units (Class C3), a primary school (Class D1); a neighbourhood centre including doctors surgery (Class D1), 6 No.flexible business/retail units (Class B1/A2/A1), a parish office (Class B1), a public house/restaurant (Class A4/A3) and associated car parking; open space including sports pitches and changing facilities (Class D2); allotments; and associated landscaping and infrastructure works.(Outline) DC/08/2447 Highway infrastructure work incorporating Withdrawn new grade separated junction on A24 south of Farthings Hill; new east-west link road between Five Oaks Road and the A24; and realignment and downgrading of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass (Outline) DC/09/2101 Erection of 963 residential units, community Granted facility including land for a primary school, neighbourhood centre, youth and recreational facilities, other formal and informal open space, landscaping and environmental works, transport and access arrangements, new east-west link road, improvements to Five- Oaks roundabout, realignment and partial closure of existing A264 Broadbridge Heath by-pass and other ancillary works (Outline) DC/11/0079 Application to construct 3 No. ponds for Granted Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site in connection with application DC/09/2101

3 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/57 Planning Application DC/12/0814 (cont.)

DC/11/2059 Details of the first phase infrastructure works Granted pursuant to outline DC/09/2101, comprising details of new roundabout on Five Oaks Road, western part of the 40mph dual carriageway from Five Oaks Road to the new A24 junction, on site development roads to serve the first residential phases, Pegasus crossing and pedestrian/cycle crossings, new access to Newbridge Nurseries, access to Heath Barn Farm site, bus stops, foul pumping station and surface water drainage (Approval of Reserved Matters) DC/11/2074 Development of 105 residential units, Granted including 21 affordable housing units, open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works pursuant to outline permission DC/09/2101 (Approval of Reserved Matters) DC/11/2561 Removal of Condition 7 (European Protected Granted Species Licence) of DC/11/0079 (Construction of 3 No. ponds for Great Crested Newt habitat, a bat house and a reptile site) DC/12/1255 Approval of reserved matters pursuant to Pending approval of application Ref. DC/09/2101 Consider- ation DC/12/1651 Development of 101 residential units, Pending including 20 affordable housing units (20%), Consider- the creation of public and private amenity ation space, incidental public open space, internal circulation routes, landscaping and associated works (Approval of Reserved Matters)

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected on several aspects of the application. One letter of objection had been received. The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

The proposed development for this second phase of residential development adhered to the key principles that had been established in the outline planning application. As a Reserved Matters application, the infrastructure and other contributions were linked to the ‘parent’ legal agreement secured in connection with the outline planning application DC/09/2101.

4 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/57 Planning Application DC/12/0814 (cont.)

The proposed dwellings had been designed to meet Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

It was noted that the proposed development accorded with the policies within the Development Plan, the principles as set out within the approved outline parameter plans together with the provisions within the planning agreement (planning reference DC/11/2059 (Minute No. DCN/139 (03.04.12) refers).

Members raised a number of concerns regarding the application: parking provision; the design of the buildings, particularly their proposed height, provision of storage space and quality of finishing; and the need for boundary treatments and appropriate landscaping to be agreed. It was agreed that a visit to a comparable development would be arranged for members.

Members therefore considered that Part A of the proposal was acceptable in principle but due to the number of concerns regarding the design it was agreed that the proposal should be deferred so that consideration could be given to the townhouses, Flats Above Garages and parking, together with consideration of appropriate conditions.

A decision on Part B of the application was also deferred as it was dependent on the resolution of Part A.

RESOLVED

That consideration of planning application DC/12/0814 be deferred to allow further consideration of details of the building design, car parking allocation, landscaping and boundary treatments in consultation with the Local Member and the Parish Council.

DCN/58 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1259 - APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOR 46 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (PHASE 2) PURSUANT TO PLANNING PERMISSION DC/11/2004 AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED UNDER DC/09/2138 SITE: LAND EAST OF A24 WORTHING ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: BERKELEY HOMES (SOUTHERN) LTD (Councillor Godfrey Newman declared a personal interest in this application as he was buying a property in the first phase of the development)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reminded members that in August 2010 outline planning permission had been granted for the development of 48.2 hectares of land to the East of the A24. The Outline Permission had been subject to a legal agreement which secured a range of benefits associated with the development.

5 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/58 Planning Application DC/12/1259 (cont.)

The Reserved Matters for the first phase of the development had been approved by the Committee (DC/11/2243 Minute No. DCN/26 (03.07.12) refers).

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for 46 dwellings comprising 17 x two-bedroom houses, 27x three-bedroom houses and 2 x four-bedroom houses. The proposal included 103 car parking spaces comprising 89 allocated spaces and 14 visitor spaces. In accordance with the legal agreement for the outline planning permission no affordable housing would be delivered in this phase.

The application site was located approximately 1.5km from Horsham Town Centre west of the existing built up boundary and was within the northern section of the wider development site, between the approved Phase 1 Reserved Matters and the A24. The application site occupied an area of 1.37 hectares including the bunded area.

The South East Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England; the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP7; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC9 and DC40; Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document; and Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/09/2138 Development primarily of up to 1044 dwellings Granted including provision of employment floor space, fire station, community centre and expanded school facilities. Construction of a principal vehicular access from A24 (southbound) together with secondary bus/cycle/pedestrian accesses from Hills Farm Lane, internal highway network, diversion of existing public footpaths and a replacement footbridge over A24. Formation of associated landscape works including playing fields, allotments, recreation facilities and construction of acoustic bund/fence alongside A24 (Outline)

6 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/58 Planning Application DC/12/1259 (cont.)

DC/10/0006 Erection of 196 dwellings, comprising phase 1 Granted of the comprehensive development of Land East of A24, West Horsham, for primarily residential purposes. Creation of a new vehicular/pedestrian/cycle access from Hills Farm Lane, together with the internal highway network, footpaths and drainage works. Formation of the related landscaping, open space and recreation facilities, including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School DC/11/2004 Variation of Condition 32 of DC/09/2138 Granted (Outline permission for development of up to 1044 dwellings) to be revised as follows: "The provision of a northbound bus stop adjacent to the Hills Farm Lane (north) access, raised kerbing and shelter; provision of a south bound bus stop and raised kerbing together with a scheme for the provision of an additional bus stop and/or shelter to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority" DC/11/2304 Permission to create 2 No. tennis courts with Granted permeable tarmacadam surface treatment and 1 No. grassed junior football pitch (Approval of Reserved Matters from approved application DC/10/0006 (including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School)) DC/11/2243 Erection of 35 dwellings (27 x 3-bed and 8 x 4- Pending bed) Phase 1A of outline permission Consider- DC/09/2138 (1044 dwellings) on land West of ation Windrum Close, Horsham (Approval of Reserved Matters)

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. West Sussex County Council confirmed that it had no highway objections to this application.

The Neighbourhood Council raised no objection to the application and their comments were noted. One letter of objection had been received. The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

7 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/58 Planning Application DC/12/1259 (cont.)

The applicant had submitted a number of amendments to the proposed scheme to address concerns which had been raised. The revised application conformed with design guidance for Character Area 1. The design of some rear access pathways had been amended in response to concerns regarding potential loitering and anti-social behaviour. The application proposed a green corridor from the A24 boundary through Phase 1 and into the river corridor. This would be provided through the retention of trees, hedgerow where possible and additional planting. The proposed structure of the bunding along the western boundary with the A24 was considered to be satisfactory.

It was noted that outstanding issues regarding a drainage strategy had been addressed by the applicant who had submitted information in addition to their drainage Design and Access Statement.

It was noted that the proposed development accorded with the policies within the Development Plan, the principles as set out within the approved outline planning permission (DC/11/2004) together with the key principles within the planning agreement dated 13 August 2010 and its supplementary agreements.

Members therefore considered that the proposal should be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, with a preliminary view that it was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/1259 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services in consultation with local Members, subject to the satisfactorily resolution of drainage condition/s. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCN/59 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0298 - PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT MOBILE HOME AND ONE ADDITIONAL TOURING CARAVAN TO EXISTING SITE SITE: GREENFIELD FARM, VALEWOOD LANE, BARNES GREEN APPLICANT: MRS ANITA RAY

It was noted that this application and the following two applications DC/10/1921 and DC/10/1974 all sought permission for additional Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. The three applications were reported together to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the relevant policies.

8 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/59 Planning Application DC/12/0298 (cont.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission to extend the site at Greenfield Farm to accommodate a further mobile home and to station an additional touring caravan at the eastern end of the site where four others were currently kept.

The application site was located on the north side of Valewood Lane and the existing four mobile homes and four touring caravans were occupied by members of a single Gypsy family.

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2012 Policy H; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC32; the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites Preferred Option Consultation Document; and the West Sussex Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment 2007 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Members discussed the implications of national policy and Horsham District Council targets for additional sites generally and in the context of the application and applications DC/10/1921 and DC/10/1974.

Relevant planning history included:

I/26/03 Retention of three mobile homes and siting of Granted for further mobile home and four touring temporary caravans and continued use of land for period residential purposes DC/08/0416 Removal of condition 1 of planning Granted for application I/26/03 for retention of four mobile temporary homes and four touring caravans and period continued use of the land for residential purposes DC/10/0721 removal of condition 1 of planning application Granted DC/08/0416 to retain four mobile homes and four touring caravans with associated works for occupation by a Sussex Gypsy family

Other relevant planning history:

DC/10/1041 Use of the land for the stationing of caravans Granted on for residential purposes for 11 no. Gypsy appeal pitches together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/dayrooms ancillary to that use at Kingfisher Farm, which is approximately 135 metres to the north. This application was not made by, nor is of any benefit to, the applicant subject of this current application or her family.

9 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/59 Planning Application DC/12/0298 (cont.)

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

The Preferred Options Consultation Document had identified the application site as suitable for an additional Gypsy and Traveller pitch. It was noted that the proposals met the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC32 criteria. It was noted that alternative County Council and District Council Gypsy and Traveller sites were full and had waiting lists.

Greenfield Farm was a relatively small Gypsy settlement, occupied by a single extended family. It was noted that the proposed extension by a single plot would have a relatively limited impact on the landscape and infrastructure and would provide stability for the family who were settled in the area.

Members noted that concerns in respect of landscaping and limiting the use of the site to members of one family were addressed in the conditions recommended in the report, and therefore agreed that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0298 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012).

02 No more than 10 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (or any Act revoking or re-enacting these Acts), of which no more than 5 shall be a static caravan or mobile home, shall be stationed on the site at any time.

03 The caravans hereby approved shall be sited in accordance with the submitted site plan, drawing AR 212/1.

04 The touring caravans hereby approved shall not be occupied by any person at any time whilst on the application site.

10 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/59 Planning Application DC/12/0298 (cont.)

05 The residential use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mrs Anita Ray and her immediate family, defined as the husband of Mrs. Ray, or any person whom Mrs Ray is living with as man and wife; the parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece of Mrs. Ray, or the spouse thereof, and by no other person or persons.

06 When the land ceases to be occupied by the persons named in condition 5, the use hereby permitted shall cease and any caravans, vehicles, trailers, structures, materials and equipment (including all areas of hardstanding and sanitary equipment) brought onto the land in connection with the use, save as otherwise permitted, shall be permanently removed. Within two months of that time, the land shall be restored to pasture land.

07 No industrial, commercial or business activity of any description shall be carried on from the site, including the storage of materials.

08 No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site.

09 No external lighting fixtures shall be erected or placed on the land, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

10 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 additional gates, fences, walls, or other means of enclosure shall be erected or constructed on the site unless prior written permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

11 The additional caravan hereby approved shall not be brought onto site until details of foul drainage to serve the increased number of caravans have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, and the sewage system shall be implemented prior to occupation of the additional caravan and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

11 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/59 Planning Application DC/12/0298 (cont.)

12 No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works, including fences or any other means of enclosure, 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.

13 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. No deliveries shall be received outside the above hours.

14 No burning of materials shall take place on the site

REASON

IDP3 The proposal is consistent with national policy in “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites” (2012) and policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007) with regards applications for Gypsy development.

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

12 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/60 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1974 - THE USE OF LAND FOR THE STATIONING OF CARAVANS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES FOR 1 NO. GYPSY PITCH TOGETHER WITH THE FORMATION OF A DAYROOM/UTILITY BLOCK AND ADDITIONAL HARD STANDING ANCILLARY TO THAT USE SITE: DEER PARK FARM, HAMPERS LANE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR GEORGE HUNT (Councillor Godfrey Newman said that he had previously objected to this application before he was elected as a Councillor, but now he is an elected member he is in possession of more information and has kept an open mind, and that he would give full and fresh consideration to the information contained within the report and the arguments put forward during the debate thereon before reaching a decision.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a utility/day room building and for a mobile home that was located near the lane to replace an existing mobile home on the northern boundary of the site. The accommodation was for the applicant and his family of five who had occupied the site for two years. The applicant’s agent had confirmed that the applicant met the government’s definition of GypsyTraveller status.

The application site was located on the north side of Hampers Lane, about 350 metres east of the built up area of Horsham and included a collection of small barns and stables on the western boundary and a paddock to the east. The site was within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Relevant planning history included:

DC/05/0223 Stationing of caravan (Lawful Development Refused Certificate - Existing) DC/05/2235 Stationing of caravan (Lawful Development Granted Certificate - Existing)

13 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/60 Planning Application DC/10/1974 (cont.)

DC/10/1564 Use of the land for stationing of caravans for Withdrawn residential purposes for 1 no. gypsy pitches together with the formation of additional hard standing ancillary to that use and erection of a stable block

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Neighbourhood Council objected to the application. Over 200 representations of objection had been received, and two letters of support had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and one member of the public spoke in support of the application.

It was noted that no evidence had been produced to indicate lack of capacity with regards to local infrastructure and service. Local concerns had been raised about the impact the development might have on the wider public enjoyment of the area for informal recreation, particularly by walkers. The applicant had carried out some native hedge and tree planting to minimise any adverse impact of the existing buildings.

The application site had not been identified in the Preferred Options Consultation Document and therefore did not form part of the Council’s emerging strategy to meet its obligations in respect of need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches that was identified in 2007. It was noted that the proposals met the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC32 criteria. It was noted that alternative County Council and District Council Gypsy and Traveller sites were full and had waiting lists.

Members were concerned that granting permission for a permanent building on a site within the High Weald Area of Natural Beauty could set a precedent and adversely affect the local character, natural beauty and distinctiveness of the landscape. Because the proposed dayroom/utility room would be a permanent building it would not be possible to grant permission for a temporary period.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/10/1974 be refused for the following reasons:

14 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/60 Planning Application DC/10/1974 (cont.)

The proposal would increase built form activity within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would therefore be harmful to the character, quality, distinctiveness and views of the landscape. As such the proposal conflicts with policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC4 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DCN/61 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1921 - STATIONING OF 2 CARAVANS FOR OCCUPATION BY SINGLE GYPSY FAMILY WITH ASSOCIATED HARD-STANDING (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR FULL PERMISSION) SITE: NORTHSIDE FARM, RUSPER ROAD, IFIELD, CRAWLEY APPLICANT: MR AND MRS M SANSOM

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for a mobile home and a touring caravan to be kept on the site in addition to the existing mobile home and touring caravan. The proposal would enable to applicant’s family to continue to live on the site. The application was made claiming Gypsy status, supported by the Gypsy Council.

The application site was located approximately 50 metres from the junction of Rusper Road and Langhurst Lane and comprised approximately three hectares. A collection of farm buildings and sheds stood nearby.

Relevant planning history included:

RS/6/92 Retention of access, erection of two horse Granted open field shelters & one hay & feed store RS/1/94 Erection of 2 stables with tack room/toilet Refused RS/20/98 Erection of one house Refused RS/64/01 Erection of one dwelling Refused DC/05/0122 Erection of one dwelling Refused

15 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/61 Planning Application DC/10/1921 (cont.)

DC/06/2906 Retention of caravan as dwelling in Refused connection with agricultural business DC/09/0424 Siting of a temporary mobile home during the Refused 2009 lambing season (Certificate of Lawful Use - Proposed)

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council commented on the application. One letter of comment had been received.

The application site had been occupied for seven years by a single Gypsy family of five who appeared to be settled in the area. The applicant’s agent had requested that the Committee considered granting permanent planning permission. The application site had not been identified in the Preferred Options Consultation Document and therefore did not form part of the Council’s emerging strategy to meet its obligations in respect of need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches that was identified in 2007.

Members therefore agreed that the proposal was acceptable for a limited period of two years, to allow for progress on identifying sites to meet current and future Gypsy and Traveller needs.

RESOLVED

That application DC/10/1921 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

01 The caravan/mobile home hereby permitted shall be removed and the land shall be restored on or before the 2 October 2014 to a condition which has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority on or before the 2 April 2014.

02 This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012).

03 No more than 2 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (or any Act revoking or re-enacting these Acts), of which no more than 1 shall be a static caravan or mobile home, shall be stationed on the site at any time.

16 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/61 Planning Application DC/10/1921 (cont.)

04 The caravans hereby approved shall be sited in accordance with the submitted site plan, drawing Plan 3.

05 The residential use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr Melvyn Sansom and Mrs Kim Sansom and their immediate family, defined as their children Amy, Bill and Charlotte.

07 No external lighting fixtures shall be erected or placed on the land, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

08 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 additional gates, fences, walls, or other means of enclosure shall be erected or constructed on the site unless prior written permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON

The proposal is not consistent with national policy in “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites” (2012) and policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007) with regards applications for Gypsy development because of its impact on visual amenity. However, a limited period permission is granted to allow consideration of future need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches through emerging policy, as it would be premature to terminate the residential use if more appropriate alternative sites have not been identified to meet future need.

17 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/62 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1345 - OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF A SINGLE DWELLING WITH ACCESS SITE: DIAL POST FARMHOUSE, HORSHAM ROAD, RUSPER APPLICANT: MR AND MRS A AND J TURNER

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to Dial Post Farmhouse. The proposed dwelling would provide accessible and inclusive accommodation to meet the long term needs of the applicants’ severely disabled son. The application also sought agreement for the means of access to the site.

The application site was located outside the built-up area of Rusper and formed the north-eastern end of a paddock located to the east of Dial Post Farmhouse and on the north side of and adjacent to the Horsham Road. The site was screened by hedgerow along all boundaries. Other nearby properties included the Gardeners Green development to the east, and a number of commercial units at Dial Post Park.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP13, CP16 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC9, DC13 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC4 and CC6 were relevant to the determination of this application. There were no previous applications in respect of the application site. Planning history in respect of the adjoining Dial Post Farmhouse included:

DC/07/2679 Change of use of a former agricultural Granted building into home office and additional guest accommodation as an annexe to Dial Post Farmhouse

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council supported the application. Two letters of objection and 60 letters of support had been received. Both applicants addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

Members noted that the application site was outside the built-up area and that the application was subject primarily to compliance with countryside policies. It was considered the proposal would contravene the requirements of Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC1.

18 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/62 Planning Application DC/12/1345 (cont.)

It was considered that a dwelling on this site would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining neighbours given the level of separation between dwellings and the mature screening along the eastern boundary of the application site. The proximity of the application site to other properties was also noted.

It was noted that a substantial amount of local support had been received, much of which referred to the local community support network which had been established to aid and assist the applicants in their daily lives. Members noted that the proposal would enable the applicants to remain in the area as there was no suitable local alternative available.

Members therefore agreed that the proposal was acceptable in principle, subject to the completion of a planning agreement.

RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure the provision of appropriate infrastructure contributions.

(ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above and the framing of appropriate conditions, application DC/12/1345 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with local Members. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

19 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/63 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/2136 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SITE WITH THE RETENTION AND INCORPORATION INTO THE PROPOSAL OF THE FAÇADE OF 68 QUEEN STREET. ERECTION OF 12 NO. FLATS WITH GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SPACE, ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND EXTERNAL WORKS SITE: 60A QUEEN STREET, HORSHAM APPLICANT: TRUE BLUE (QUEEN STREET) DEVELOPMENTS LTD (Councillor Roy Cornell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as he was a trustee and director of a local sports club which was a customer of the land owners. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the application.) (Councilor Stuart Ritchie declared a personal interest in this application as he knew the applicant)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and replacement with a ground floor retail unit and 12 flats. It was proposed that the façade of 68 Queen Street would be retained and incorporated into the scheme.

The proposal comprised two buildings; Block A would house the proposed retail store (327sqm) with two flats above; and Block B would contain ten flats. The principal vehicular access would be the existing access road which led from Queen Street to the south. There were six proposed parking spaces for the flats to the front of Block B with six undercroft spaces proposed to the rear. Access to this undercroft car parking would be via the lane between the site and Hillreed House.

This application differed from previous applications for the site: there was a retail store proposed instead of commercial offices; the proposal had been redesigned and split into two buildings; and the number of flats reduced from fourteen to twelve.

The application site was located on Queen Street and consisted of an undeveloped area of land, a row of commercial properties which were vacant, and two single storey buildings which were vacant. There was a mixture of residential and commercial properties in the vicinity. The access road to the application site also served several neighbouring properties. The site was located within the defined built-up area of Horsham Town, a Category 1 settlement.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP12, CP13, CP17 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC8, DC9, DC18, DC20, DC34, DC35 and DC40; and South East Plan policies SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC7, BE1, GAT1 and GAT2 were relevant to the determination of this application.

20 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/63 Planning Application DC/11/2136 (cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

DC/07/1903 Demolition of existing light industrial units Withdrawn and erection of a mixed use building comprising 1,110m2 of commercial office space, 1 x 1-bed apartment and 9 x 2-bed apartments with basement car-parking and cycle storage facilities DC/08/1853 Demolition of existing buildings and erection Withdrawn of a mixed use building comprising 1,437m2 of commercial office space, 7 x 1-bed and 7 x 2-bed apartments with basement car-parking and cycle storage facilities DC/09/0790 Demolition of existing buildings and erection Refused of a mixed use building comprising 1,355m2 of commercial offices and 14 apartments (7 x 1-bed and 7 x 2-bed) with basement parking and cycle storage

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

The Neighbourhood Council had objected to the amended application as it did not consider objections raised to the original application had been addressed. Objections to the original application had been received from 43 properties. A petition with 120 signatures had been received and an objection from Brighton Road Residents association had been received. A further twelve letters of objection had been received on the amended application plans. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

It was noted that the scheme was considered to be compliant with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework for ensuring the vitality of town centres. The proposed retail unit was in compliance with the overall aims of the Local Development Framework for retail and the town centre.

This current scheme was considered to address concerns regarding the Queen Street frontage. The proposal had been further revised during the course of the consideration of the application with regards to sympathetically relating to the scale and style of buildings in the area.

The scheme proposed a widened point of access onto Queen Street and West Sussex County Council had confirmed that access arrangements were satisfactory. The applicant confirmed that the proposed flats would be constructed to Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

21 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/63 Planning Application DC/11/2136 (cont.)

The incorporation of a retail unit was considered to be satisfactory, although Members raised concerns in relation to the potential impact on existing retail businesses in the locality. Concerns were also raised in respect of parking provision and servicing arrangements for the retail unit.

Members noted the location of Block A and concerns were raised that the current design would have an overbearing impact on the private amenity area of the neighbouring property.

Members therefore considered that further work was needed to ensure that the proposed development was acceptable with regards to its impact on the adjoining property.

RESOLVED

That consideration of application DC/11/2136 be deferred pending negotiation with the applicant regarding the nature of the use, to examine a completely residential use, access and highway matters including deliveries and its impact on the neighbouring property’s amenity, prior to reconsideration by the Committee.

DCN/64 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0578 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF 2-STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING CLASSROOMS, OFFICES, AREAS AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION SITE: COLLYERS SCHOOL, 82 HURST ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: COLLYERS

Deleted from the agenda.

DCN/65 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0906 - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR RE-DECORATION OF FRONTAGE OF EXISTING BUILDING (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) SITE: 26 CARFAX HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR GUY BATEMAN

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this retrospective application sought permission for the re-decoration of the frontage of the existing building (Listed Building Consent).

The application site was located within the Horsham Conservation Area, and was a Grade II Listed Building which had been painted a burgundy/maroon colour. Each individual unit had a different shop front, entrance and upper window design. Immediately prior to the burgundy painting of the application site, this unit had been dark cream. The façade of the adjoining properties was white. 22 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/65 Planning Application DC/12/0906 (cont.)

The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9, DC12 and DC13; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC4, CC6 and BE6 were relevant to the consideration of this matter.

Relevant planning history included compliance reference EN/11/0592 – alleged unauthorised painting of Listed Building – which had been considered by this Committee on 7 August 2012.

The comments of the Design and Conservation Officer, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Neighbourhood Council raised no objection to the application. Three letters of objection had been received including one from the Horsham Society. A representative of the Horsham Society spoke in objection to proposal.

In November 2011, a complaint had been received regarding the painting of the application site a burgundy/maroon colour. Although the change of colour affected the character of the building and therefore required listed building consent it had not been considered expedient to pursue the matter and the case had been closed. This decision had been challenged through the Council’s complaints procedure and therefore a listed building consent application to regularise the works had been invited and subsequently submitted.

Members considered that the colour of the paint used on the application site did affect the character of the Listed Building and granting retrospective permission would set a precedent that could affect the special architectural and historic character and appearance of Horsham Conservation Area.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That the application DC/12/0906 be refused for the following reasons:

The re-decoration of the listed building is considered to be an unsympathetic alteration, adversely affecting the character of this grade two listed building which lies within the Horsham Conservation Area. The application is therefore contrary to policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC9, DC12 and DC13 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

23 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/66 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1301 - RETENTION OF PARKING OF 4 SKIP VEHICLES AND STORAGE OF EMPTY SKIPS SITE: CURTIS FARM, GREEN LAND, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR DAVID TURNER

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the retention of the use of land for parking four skip vehicles and the storage of empty skips. The proposal was for the storage of 80 skips on the site, with none stored above three metres in height.

The application site was located within Curtis Farm which was to the north of Green Lane, to the west of Horsham Road and to the south-west of Rusper village. There were two entrances to the farm, one at the intersection of Green Lane and Old Holbrook, with the other access from Rusper Road. The application site was approximately 1000 square metres situated in the northern corner of the farm yard, adjacent to a large cattle shed.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP15; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC9, DC23 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC4 and CC6 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

RS/44/00 Parking of cars within farm buildings from Refused April to October RS/56/02 Temporary use of livestock buildings from Granted 1st April to 30th September for parking of cars/vans DC/04/2667 Retention of farm track Granted DC/09/1818 Retention of parking of 4 skip lorries and Granted storage of empty skips to be stored at no more than 3m

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to the application.

The proposal sought permission for the permanent retention of the use of land, following the expiry of the two year temporary period that had been granted under application DC/09/1818 in May 2010. During that period the application site had not been the subject of any recorded complaints.

24 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/66 Planning Application DC/12/1301 (cont.)

The application site was located a considerable distance from adjoining properties. It was noted that conditions would be imposed to limit the number of permitted vehicle movements and to ensure Green Lane would not be used by lorries associated with the site. It was therefore considered the retained use of the land would not have any adverse impacts on adjoining properties.

Members considered that the proposal would not have any adverse impacts on highway safety or adjoining properties and therefore considered that the application was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/1301 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

01 The skips to be stored on the site as shown edged in red on the submitted plan (Plan Ref/ 49-1 received 11/7/12), shall at no time be stored at a height exceeding 3 metres and the number of skips stored on site shown edged in red on the submitted plan (Plan Ref/ 49-1 received 11/7/12) shall at no time exceed 80 at any given time.

02 Access to the site shall be solely from Horsham Road across the private access shown edged in red on the submitted plan (Plan Ref/ 49-1 received 11/7/12) and shall at no time be taken from Green Lane.

03 Within 3 months of the date of this decision the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority details relating to the private access from Rusper Road, to include a two-way passing bay for two lorries along the said access. Within 3 months of receipt of written approval the applicant shall undertake all works as necessary to provide the agreed passing bay, and this shall be retained for the approved use thereafter.

25 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/66 Planning Application DC/12/1301 (cont.)

04 The development, hereby approved, shall not involve the movement of any more than two skip heavy goods vehicles under control of the applicant at any one time within a 24hr period. A planning application shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority should the applicant at any time in the future wish any increase in the above number of movements.

REASON

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

DCN/67 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1277 - CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS A1 (RETAIL) TO CLASS A2 (FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) SITE: 27 EAST STREET, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MAPP AND COMPANY AND WESTON LETTINGS (Councillor Stuart Ritchie declared a personal interest in this application as he knew the applicant)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for a change of use of the application site from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Financial & Professional Services). The premises had a floor space of 48 square metres and had been vacant for approximately one year.

The application site was located to the north side of East Street within the Horsham Conservation Area and the town centre boundary and located within the secondary Retail Frontages. There were a number of listed buildings to the east of the property.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP3 and CP17; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9, DC12, DC34 and DC36; and the Horsham Town Plan Supplementary Planning Document 2012 were relevant to the determination of this application.

There was no specific planning history relevant to the proposal but a new shop front had been approved under HU/155/95.

26 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/67 Planning Application DC/12/1277 (cont.)

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Neighbourhood Council objected to the application. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicants’ agent and both applicants addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

The applicants’ business employed five people and had been active for 20 years. The business had been required to leave its premises at 6 Middle Street to allow the fashion retailer Whitestuff to expand. As a result 6 Middle Street would revert back to Class A1 use.

Members noted that the proposal to change the premises to A2 use did not satisfy policy contained within the Horsham Town Plan Supplementary Planning Document. A detailed breakdown of the use classes of the relevant units on East Street demonstrated that the proposed change of use did not comply with policy DC36 in terms of the proportion of non retail uses in the frontage which should be no more than four in every ten units. It was noted that it was marginally out by one unit and that the mixed use of units in other sections of the street had not been taken into account.

Members noted that the proposal would benefit the town centre by bringing a vacant unit back into use. Members therefore considered, after careful assessment, that due to its particular circumstances, this application would not set a precedent for other retail shops to be changed contrary to policy objectives. Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/12/1277 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 development hereby approved shall not be used other than for purposes within Use Class A2 (b) and as outlined in the application details and for no other purposes within Use Class A2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended)).

27 Development Control (North) Committee 2nd October 2012

DCN/67 Planning Application DC/12/1277 (cont.)

REASON

The individual circumstances of the proposal would make a contribution to the local economy and local job opportunities.

The meeting closed at 10.06pm having commenced at 5.30pm.

CHAIRMAN

28 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 6TH NOVEMBER 2012 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS LODGED

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

Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/11/2586 Retention of change of use of buildings 1, 2, 3 (A and B) and 4 for B1 (Business) and B8 ( 1) (Storage and Distribution) uses for a 2 year period and including a roller shutter door on Building 4. Millfields Farm, Horsham Road, Rusper, West Sussex For: Mansard Construction Ltd

DC/12/0784 Redevelopment of existing builders yard and erection of one detached 4-bed dwelling. Builders Yard, Mead Farm, Stane Street, Slinfold, Horsham, RH13 0RE. For: Slinfold LLP

APPEAL DECISIONS

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

DC/11/2482 Erection of a detached dwelling Grey Walls, North Heath Lane, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 5PQ. For: Duaris Developments Ltd Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/0950 Cessation of commercial use and erection of a (4-bed) dwelling on land at Kingscote. Coach Park Adjacent To Kingscote, Dorking Road, Warnham, West Sussex. For: Mr and Mrs R S Knight Appeal: DISMISSED (Committee)

DC/12/0299 Proposed two storey extension to rear of building to provide 10 No. additional bedrooms with en-suite facilities, together with communal dayroom and internal alterations. Ashton Grange Nursing Home, 3 Richmond Road, Horsham, RH12 2EG. For: Mr and Mrs G Ragunathan Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/12/0501 Proposed alterations including rear and side extension with provision of first floor accommodation. Ashwins, Sedgwick Lane, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 6QE. For: Mr and Mrs D Assassi Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/2105 Retrospective permission for the conversion of existing brick and timber built agricultural barn into residential dwelling. Waterland Chalet, Guildford Road, Slinfold, Horsham, RH13.0QZ. For: Mr Mark De La Pole Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/1846 Erection of 3 dwellings (1 x Detached and 2 x Semi-Detached) with vehicular access from Millthorpe Road. 30 Rusper Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 4BD. For: Rookwood Homes Ltd Appeal: ALLOWED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 6th November 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Erection of 44 dwellings comprising 3 x one-bed, 18 x two-bed, 7 x three-bed, 8 x four-bed and 8 x five bed units, with associated garaging and parking, new access road onto Blakes Farm Road and internal service road following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings (full planning)

SITE: Martindale Farm, Worthing Road, Southwater

WARD: Southwater

APPLICATION: DC/12/0579

APPLICANT: Barratt Southern Counties

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement relating to affordable housing, contributions and works to the footpath, that planning permission be granted.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application follows on from the grant of outline planning permission DC/10/2554 for 44 dwellings. The site has since been sold to a developer, the current applicant, who has submitted this full application.

1.2 The outline application established the principle of replacing the existing dwelling and outbuildings on the site with a residential development of 44 dwellings and approved the access and layout arrangements. The appearance of the buildings and landscaping of the site were to be dealt with as subsequent reserved matters. As the current proposal, whilst relating to 44 dwellings and utilising the approved

Contact: Val Cheesman Extension: 5163 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.

access points, proposes a different layout, a new full application has been submitted.

1.3 The details of the scheme show, as before, three detached houses fronting onto Worthing Road utilising the existing access, with the remainder of the development gaining access from Blakes Farm Road. The internal access road follows a route through the centre of the site focused upon a mature oak tree around which the built development has been arranged. It is this internal arrangement of the units which differs from the layout shown for the outline scheme. The detail of this application has been revised during the course of the consideration of the scheme and amended plans have been submitted in response to consultees’ concerns.

1.4 Two detached dwellings and a pair of semi-detached dwellings are proposed to the north of the access and a pair of semi-detached dwellings to the south, all facing towards the access point. Previously the layout had a terrace of 4 dwellings to the north of the access road and a block of four maisonettes to the south.

1.5 The road then runs to the north of the central tree and leads across to the west to a cluster of five dwellings off a short-length access drive and three detached dwellings in a central position. The outline layout had the road running to the south of the central tree with 4 detached dwellings to the north and a terrace of 6 dwellings to the west.

1.6 Further to the west and backing onto the proposed dwellings fronting onto Worthing Road, are three detached dwellings. This was previously a pair of semi detached dwellings and 2 detached houses.

1.7 Along the southern section of the site there would be a terrace of four dwellings facing west, three pairs of semi-detached dwellings facing north and a terrace of five dwellings facing west. Finally, in the south eastern part of the site, there would be a block of nine flats. Previously the scheme showed that along the southern boundary there would be a terrace of three dwellings and a terrace of four dwellings facing north and a block of 12 flats.

1.8 The majority of the dwellings would be two storey, with the exception of eight of the detached dwellings being 2 ½ storey, and which are scattered throughout the site, and the block of flats which would be three storey.

1.9 Parking provision is a mixture of on-curtilage (both surface spaces and within garages) and also within specific parking areas. There would be a total of 103 spaces, comprising 87 allocated, 7 unallocated and 9 visitor spaces for the 44 units. The layout also shows the provision of amenity space both to the individual dwellings and the communal area for the flats and incorporates a mixture of retained vegetation and trees on the site including preserved trees.

1.10 With regard to the tenure of the units, there are 16 affordable dwellings and 28 private units. The 16 affordable units are located in the south-east of the site and comprise units 24 and 25 ( a pair of semi-detached houses), units 26-30 ( a terrace of five dwellings), and units 31-39 ( a block of nine flats). The houses are 3 x two- bed houses and 4 x three-bed houses. The flats comprise 3 x one-bed units and 6 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.

x two-bed units. The scheme thus includes both flats and houses in the affordable element of the proposal and a variety of sizes from one and two bed flats to two and three bed houses.

1.11 The previous scheme comprised 16 affordable units, namely 12 flats (9 x two-bed and 3 x three-bed units) and four houses (2 x two-bed and 2 x three-bed units).

1.12 Of the 28 private units, these are four terraced units, 8 semi-detached units and 16 detached units. These range from 9 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed, 8 x 4 bed and 8 x 5 bed houses.

1.13 The previous scheme included 28 private units, being 4 x 2 bed maisonettes, 6 x 2 bed houses, 12 x 3 bed houses and 6 x 4 bed houses.

1.14 The application has been submitted with a planning statement, design and access statement, reptile survey, flood risk assessment, sustainability statement, energy statement, supporting landscape information, tree schedule, transport statement and a noise assessment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.15 The site is located in the northern part of Southwater on the eastern side of Worthing Road and comprises an area of 1.45 ha. It was formerly occupied by an chalet bungalow (Martindale Farm) together with a range of outbuildings to the rear including stables and sheds. The remainder of the site comprised land associated with Martindale Farm including a tennis court, sand school and paddocks. The application site also includes an undeveloped piece of land to the rear of the existing properties known as Robin Hood and Carrick which themselves are outside of the application site.

1.16 There are a number of preserved trees affecting the site, both on it and adjacent to it. They are positioned on and along the northern boundary, eastern boundary and internal to the site (TPO1280) comprising both individual trees and a shelter belt consisting predominantly, but not exclusively of, deciduous woodland including hazel coppice. To the north west of the application site lies Newlane Wood, an area of Ancient Woodland. Adjacent to the southern boundary of Martindale Farm and within the application site is public footpath 1669 which leads from Worthing Road to the lower roundabout on Blakes Farm Road (which gives access to Oakhurst Business Park). This footpath runs through the wooded area, which separates Martindale Farm from Oakhurst Business Park.

1.17 There is a triangular shaped piece of land to the north east, set between the application site, Newlane Wood and Blakes Farm Road, and a similarly shaped piece of land between the eastern boundary and Blakes Farm Road. These comprise landscaping areas associated with Oakhurst Business Park.

1.18 To the north of Martindale Farm are Carrick and Robin Hood which are detached properties on comparatively large plots. Opposite the site on the western side of Worthing Road are a number of detached properties in linear form. To the east beyond Blakes Farm Road lies the A24 dual carriageway. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4.

1.19 The site lies within the built-up area of Southwater as defined in the Local Development Framework. Oakhurst Business Park is a designated Employment Protection Zone. Newlane Wood and land to the north is within the countryside and is within the Horsham-Southwater Strategic Gap.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.20 DC/04/2751 Erection of 71 dwellings (outline) - This application was refused as at that time the site lay outside of the defined built-up area of Southwater and was within the Horsham/Southwater Strategic Gap; it was not considered there was an overriding need for further housing; the mix of dwellings was not appropriate; and there was concern about the form siting and scale of the development and relationship with the character and visual amenities of the area; the resultant loss of trees of high amenity value; impact on adjacent residential properties; also there was no transport assessment; no contributions had been secured. There was the loss of industrial land and no flood risk assessment study had been submitted.

1.21 DC/10/0766 Erection of 46 units - Refused due to its layout and density representing an over-development of the site and no contributions had been secured.

1.22 DC/10/2544 Erection of 44 dwellings (outline) - Approved following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement ( s106/1862) relating to affordable housing, contributions and works to the footpath.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 & CP19.

2.4 Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy 2007: DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18, DC40.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The comments below include the full responses of key consultees to demonstrate the evolution of the scheme as the amended plans have been submitted and highlight which issues remain. These outstanding concerns are then addressed in the ‘Planning Assessment’ section of this report.

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Design and Conservation Officer

Initial comments

The approved outline application included a layout which officers were not entirely at ease with, so it is encouraging to see that this has been altered to a more legible and sensible layout, with buildings fronting public spaces and the highway, plus defined public and private garden and the illumination of the un-overlooked parking courtyard. The creation of a focal central space is a positive of the scheme, plus simple but positive design techniques, such as gateway buildings to the Blakes Farm Road entrance and prominent buildings creating “vista stops” to views within the development.

The general architectural details of the scheme are derived from local character; there are some minor concerns and suggested changes below. Layout concerns and suggested changes are also address below:

 The gated courtyard separates part of the site from the rest. This is not best practise in urban design terms and would be contrary to design policy DC9 which seeks to remove elements of separation.

 The parking arrangement to the front of dwellings 20-30, plus the spaces around the central open space are largely unbroken by landscaping and are likely to be dominant in the street scene. A better balance between these two elements is required.

 The design and form of the buildings from 26 to 30, the parking arrangements plus the block of flats together marks this area out as being the affordable housing element of the scheme. Better landscaping, building design, plus front gardens may help to blend the transition between affordable and market housing.

 Although the principle of three storeys was set out at outline stage, the design details of the block of flats is considered to be poor and requires revising. The combination of windows and doors and their ratio to wall, plus oriel window, ground floor projection bays, small front door, lack of eaves and ridge detail does not work particular well together. The building appears awkward, large and bulk for its plot.

 The DAS provides a material schedule; greater variety is required over the site for successful detailing; for example for all the buildings to be faced with one APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6.

type of brick would be over dominant; further instances of render can help add variety to the street. It is suggested that exact materials are conditioned on a notwithstanding basis.

 Consideration should be given to front garden to plots 20-30 to create defensible space consistent with the character of similar houses and plots in Southwater. This can help soften the impact of parking and the street.

 Consideration should be given to a further connection to the footpath by plot 15.

In conclusion, although this application is supported in principle, the above amendments should be sought before approval is given

2nd comments

 I am pleased to see the remove of the gates  The parking court in front of dwellings 20-30 still appears to be poor in design resulting in a hard appearance to the area. Further landscaping to the end of the court, adjacent to the footpath could be considered.  The design of the block of flats has improved considerably and is now acceptable.  A variety of materials is welcomed; please ensure details and samples are secured by condition.  I am disappointed not to see a further footpath by plot 15.

3.2 Landscape Officer

Initial comments

Wider Landscape

The existing site is not widely visible being enclosed on all sides by the existing houses on Worthing Road and substantial vegetated boundaries, including a number of protected trees, to the north, east and south.

This current enclosure will be maintained by the proposed development with the retention of the boundary trees and hedgerows, the current access point from Worthing Road and additional tree planting along the Worthing Road frontage.

The existing Martindale Farm, along with the two adjoining houses, are well set back from the road and contribute little to the sense of entrance to the village from the north. The proposed development replaces the Martindale Farm frontage with three houses, slightly further forward, and would not represent a substantial change on the existing character of the approach into the village.

There is an additional proposed access point off Blakes Farm Road, however, this is contained and not widely visible. Blakes Farm Road is also considered a less sensitive edge due to its role as an access to the business park. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7.

The proposed development would, therefore, appear to have little impact on the wider landscape or village character along Worthing Road and minimal landscape intrusion along Blakes Farm Road.

Internal Site Layout

The principle of development has, in any event, been established by the consent of outline planning permission ref: DC/10/2554 although the detailed arrangement of the internal site layout has been changed.

Most noticeably there has been a loosening in the arrangement of the houses and flats which provides a more sympathetic and interesting layout than the previous application. In particular:

 An improved sense of entrance on Blakes Farm Road. The row of houses in the outline application has been replaced with an entrance wall and a re- arrangement of detached houses that contain the initial views into the development.

 Improved setting for the retained mature oak tree. The oak now has a larger green space around it, some of it laid out as a communal garden.

Detailed Landscape

I have not commented on specific existing trees as I understand the arboricultural officer will be doing this. The applicants have submitted a detailed planting plan and specification which shows the retained trees and some native tree and hedge planting and ornamental shrubs and low hedges across the house frontages. The planted areas shown are considered broadly acceptable but before a final planting scheme can be approved I would recommend the following is addressed by the applicant:

Soft landscape:

‐ Blakes Farm Road entrance: Whilst I appreciate the 4 no. Gleditsia is aimed at creating a gateway I feel there is room here to incorporate more substantial indigenous trees and a hedgerow, such as oak and holly, within the sightlines. This will compensate for the loss of vegetation here and minimise intrusion whilst still achieving a sense of entrance.

‐ Community Garden: I am not convinced by the cartwheel layout and accompanying planting of the communal space. I question whether this will really attract residents and enable them to use it for typical gatherings such as bbq’s. I think there is an opportunity to re-visit the form and function of this space and to consider alternative planting such as small orchard trees, edible plants and herbs.

‐ Grass: the planting plan does not show areas to be laid as grass. The specification suggests that all grass areas will be seeded with the same mix. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8.

This is generally acceptable but there is an opportunity for an improved mix around the large central oak and at the end of gardens abutting the natural vegetated boundaries to create a richer buffer.

‐ Additional planting. There needs to be some additional planting in the following locations to screen, visually define edges or to reinforce boundaries:

o Frontage of house and roadside of car park space on Plot 1 o Car parking spaces for Plots 40 and 41 o Climbers on side boundaries of Plots 4, 9, 11 and 19. o Some scattered indigenous feathered whips at the rear of gardens to reinforce natural boundaries along the north, east and south boundaries.

‐ Plant choice and sizes. The reliance on Potentilla as a defining hedge of much of the public space should be re-considered and an alternative proposed, as in the medium term it can become leggy and unsightly. The majority of shrubs, including the Potentilla , are small 2L stock which will have very little impact initially

‐ Tree sizes. Again ‘selected standard’ type sizes which will have little impact. Some larger, semi-mature size replacement trees will be expected, at least at the entrances, to partially compensate for trees lost on the site and to provide age variety. There is an argument that smaller trees may grow faster but, as long as best good practice planting techniques are followed, some larger trees will provide more immediate impact.

‐ Planting specification. The following should be considered:

o Anomaly in shrub topsoil depths between paras 3.11.2 and 3.12.2. Generally I would advise 350mm as sufficient. o Anomaly in soil levels and mulching depths between 3.11.3 and 3.19.1. An excess of mulch above kerb levels will result in mess across adjoining areas. o The establishment rate and ease of maintenance for the potentilla and hornbeam hedges would be improved with use of a weed fabric, properly rolled in and buried along its edges with a light covering of mulch for aesthetic purposes.

Groundworks and Services

There is no information regarding earthworks and levels. Any cut and filling required on the site will need to be provided in order to satisfactorily judge the relationships with boundaries and existing trees. The plans suggest level thresholds throughout, and with relatively narrow private frontages any stepped or ramped arrangements may become unsightly.

There is also no information regarding underground services and the interrelationship with the hard and soft landscape. The lack of coordination of services, and particularly manhole covers, causes unsightly clashes with front paths and intended planting beds.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9.

Hard Landscape

There is no information regarding surface materials, paths, walls and boundaries. With the information available I would make the following observations:

‐ Entrance wall on Blakes Farm Road. There is no key for this but the architect’s ‘Proposed Planning Layout’ (Drwg 051015-BAR-SC-01) suggests a brick wall and piers. I am concerned that this may appear very suburban and wonder whether a simpler treatment, such as estate rail or split rail fencing with hedging, may be more appropriate. Further details will be required.

‐ Southern boundary with existing footpath. In principle this looks OK on the plans but the edge conditions between rear garden fencing and public footpaths can be notoriously difficult to treat, often ending up as a dark alleyway. Detailed cross-sections should be supplied in order to satisfy that the boundaries do not need to slightly set back, or that hedges are not more appropriate than fencing.

‐ Links to footpath. There is a link shown adjacent to Plot 25 but not between Plots 15 and 16. This would seem advantageous for increased permeability if achievable.

‐ Driveways and parking areas. The architect’s ‘Proposed Planning Layout’ suggests a material surface change, such as a gravel surface dressing on the non-adoptable driveways and car parking spaces. This provides a welcome contrast with the tarmacadam road and would need to be confirmed.

‐ Frontages to Plots 16-30. These are very hard edged narrow frontages, so the quality of detailing and materials will be paramount in ensuring an appropriate treatment.

‐ Remaining frontages. It is not clear whether the remaining front garden spaces are defined with any additional boundary treatment other than the planting. Further details will be required.

‐ Rear and side garden fences. The architect’s ‘Proposed Planning Layout’ suggests that side boundaries facing the road are brick walls, which would be welcomed, although there does not seem to be a key confirming this. The remaining garden fences are assumed to be close board fencing. This is generally also acceptable but consideration should be given to the fenceline adjoining the public footpath and whether there is an opportunity to replace some fences with hedges. This would increase the opportunity for wildlife and particularly small foraging mammals, such as hedgehogs, that are probably present in the area.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10.

Summary and Recommendations From a landscape point of view, the principle of development is fine. There is no wider impact on landscape and village character and the proposed layout has improved from the previous application. The arboricultural officer has commented on specific trees. Full planting plans and specifications have been provided. Generally these are acceptable but I have identified a number of details that need to be addressed. I recommend that the applicant is asked to resubmit the plans and specification for approval . The Landscape Maintenance Schedule is adequate. There is no information regarding groundworks, services and hard landscaping. These all have a substantial effect on the final quality of schemes such as these and I recommend suitable worded conditions to cover this and underground services.

2nd Comments

I continue to have concerns about the landscape and open space proposals for this development.

1. I maintain an objection re the extent to which car park bays cut into the proposed open space. This results in poor quality design

2. The proposal for a conventional road with two pavements either side , combined with the visitor car parking spaces restricts the ability to achieve adequate planting in a number of areas. This would have been less of a problem if the whole road had been a shared surface ie two pavements would not have been necessary. I would query whether this might not have been possible ?

3. A more informal design to the open space is supported, as discussed at the last meeting with the applicants, but the precise layout including play features will need to be the subject of further discussion. I am not happy with the arrangement of paths, planting and play features at present

4. The proposed hedge along the access will be compromised by too narrow a planting width ( only 300mm ) between pavement and two of the car park spaces

5. The 4 car park bays up against the two houses and garden boundaries on the east side of the access without adequate space for visually softening planting will be visually poor

6. There is a need in a number in areas for more hedge planting rather than shrub planting to give greater unity and structure to the landscape scheme.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11.

7. I have some reservations about the indicative planting species list and would reserve the right to seek further changes when a detailed scheme is submitted

8. The tarmac roads and tarmac footpath need to be softened. I would strongly recommend the use of rolled in/embedded gravel chippings or a resin bound surface for the road. In this regard it is also recommended the applicant discusses their proposals for surfacing the road with HDC before any section 278/38 approval for highway materials is obtained from the highway authority.

9. The boundary between the development garden boundaries and the footpath is not clear on the drawing. There are no proposals in terms of fencing or planting as to how this edge will be treated sensitively

10. Will Jones and I have previously expressed concerns about the adverse impact of any proposals for surfacing of the footpath and lighting ( if there was an underground cable route) adversely impacting on the existing woodland tree roots. The submitted scheme does not include any such proposals but it needs to be made clear now that it would be inappropriate to include any such proposals in a legal agreement.

11. I note the actual access is outside of the red line of the site. I presume it has already been established how this will be overcome ? but I would expect to see additional native structure planting in this area

He recommends conditions relating to hard and soft landscaping, a landscape management and maintenance plan and routes of trenches.

3rd comments

1. The removal of pavements and provision of shared surface access throughout has allowed more space for a softer landscape treatment and will also have a traffic calming effect

2. I continue to be concerned about the parking spaces indented in the open space, although the softer boundary planting treatment proposed in place of extensive knee rail is an improvement. If knee rail is still felt to be desirable close to the oak tree then this can be dealt with through the conditions

3. I am happy to discuss with yourself and Will as part of the preparation of S106 appropriate resurfacing of the footpath ( eg in hoggin, self binding gravel) adjoining the site, having regard to existing woodland trees. I would emphasize a fully lit route would not be appropriate to the character of the woodland and a cable route would likely to be damaging to tree routes but it might be possible to consider some low- key bollard lighting at the junction with the two paths from the development I would want to see localised setbacks of the garden fences running parallel with the footpath to create a feeling of greater spaciousness and for the fence to be softened by climbers agreed through the conditions.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12.

3.3 Arboricultural Officer

Initial comments

I have examined the submitted plans including, principally, the Tree Schedule as compiled by Aspect Arboriculture, the Tree Protection Plan (drawing number: AA TPP 02) and the proposed planning layout drawing (amended), drawing number 051015-BAR-SC-01 revision B, dated 15 Jun ’12. As you are aware, I have a good knowledge of the site and the trees thereon, having dealt at length with the previous application ref: DC/10/0766.

 As you are aware, a number of trees on the site are subject to TPO. One of these is absent (T6), and another stone dead (T9). Of these, 6 individual specimens are due to be removed, and a seventh within the woodland area in the south-eastern corner of the site (T52 in submitted tree schedule). Save for T10 (T40 in schedule), all of these trees have been rated as either category ‘C’ or ‘R’ under the categorisation set out in the British Standard in force at the time of the survey (BS 5837 – 2005). I take no issue with the categorisation made, which appears accurate. The low grading of many of the trees subject to TPO indicates the open field nature of the trees in question, and the absence of any recent management. The loss of T10 is slightly regrettable, but despite its reasonable condition it is not a tree of exceptional merit, and its loss as part of an overall development in the area will not result in any great amenity loss. Accordingly I register no objection to the removal of these trees.

 In terms of the RPA’s of those trees retained, I see little to comment on. In general, the dwellings have been kept outside the RPA’s in accordance with BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' [2012], and this is satisfactory.

However, despite the above, I have a number of concerns regarding the proposals:

 My key concern is that the layout of the development is likely to lead to a number of areas where post development pressures on trees are almost inevitable. You will be aware of the recommendations set out in BS 5837 – 2012 which advise that designs “should avoid unreasonable obstruction of light” (para. 5.2.2). Particular attention is paid to the effect that trees will have on the availability of light, the recommendations stating that “proposed buildings should be designed to take account of existing trees” and that “open spaces such as gardens and sitting areas should be designed to meet the normal requirement for direct sunlight for at least a part of the day” (para. 5.3.4). This is supported by the guidance at paragraph 5.11(ii) of the publication Tree Preservation Orders - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000), which stresses the need to avoid layouts where trees cause unreasonable inconvenience, leading inevitably to requests to fell, anticipates that conflict with trees may arise, and aims to prevent it. The fact that a number of the ‘offending’ trees are subject to TPO is not a material factor in this matter.

 The previous development scheme took account of areas subject to tree shading, for example by the positioning of car parking areas close to the APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13.

woodland belt in the south-east corner of the site. This scheme has been designed conversely, with all of the following plots being likely to suffer from inappropriate tree shading leading to future residential pressure on trees, viz:

o Plot 1 – overly dominated by trees T33 (TPO) and T34; o Plots 40 & 41 – overly dominated by tree T25 (TPO) and the woodland immediately to the south (also TPO); o Communal garden to block 31 to 39 – heavily dominated by trees in TPO woodland block; o Plots 26 to 30 inclusive – serious overshading and dominance of small residential gardens by TPO trees in woodland; o Plots 24 & 25 – very small gardens, badly shaded by large trees and woodland to south including T59, 18m tall oak; o Plots 20 to 23 inclusive – slightly larger gardens, but still badly dominated by trees and woodland to south including T61, 18m tall oak; o Plots 44, 15, 16 & 17 – although three large trees are due to be removed to the south on safety grounds (T64, T67 & T71), the remaining trees to the south include 7 specimens just beyond the boundary in excess of 15m in height, one specimen (T68) being 20m tall. These trees will cast a significant and oppressive shade for much of the day over these plots. Moreover, as off-site trees, they will be out of the control of the residents.  The above concerns illustrate that the site layout has been designed with improper attention to this important detail and fails the test at policy DC9(g) of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007).

 Two other issues remain of concern

o The retention of tree T18 (TPO T21) as a feature tree in the centre of the site is an excellent concept which I support. However, given the car parking spaces to its immediate south, clarification is required as to exactly how vehicles are to be kept off the tree’s root protection area, as for now this area appears open. Some kind of stout restrictive barrier should be used to secure this. o I have no objection to the retention of footpath 1699 running beyond the southern site boundary. However, previous schemes have resulted in proposals to widen this path, re-surface it; and light it. All three of these proposals could well be harmful to the trees to the immediate south, and in particular lighting is an issue given that a service trench for electricity cables would likely be required. This could result in damaging root severance, and should NOT be permitted. Details should be requested of any proposed alterations to this pathway.

In summary, though I record no objection to the selected tree loss on the site, and find the proposals generally satisfactory in regard to the proximity of dwellings to protected trees, I consider the potential for post development pressures on trees – both protected and unprotected, and on-site as well as off-site – so serious as call into question the whole proposed site layout. The scheme is thereby in my judgement in conflict with BS 5837 – 2012, the publication Tree Preservation Orders - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000), and policy APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14.

DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007).

I therefore must raise an objection to the scheme.

2nd comments

You will recall that my key objection was that the density of the site development led to a number of areas where existing trees worthy of retention were retained inappropriately in too close a proximity to residential dwellings, a situation likely to cause pressure for lopping, topping or removal post development contrary to best practice, and resulting in the scheme falling foul of policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). I note the following:

1. Improvements to scheme.  The movement of plots 40 & 41 to the north away from tree T25 is successful on two fronts: it allows a better garden area to the two plots, less dominated by the tree, and it also increases the available area for the communal garden attendant to the block of flats 31 - 39.

 The movement of plots 24 & 25 further north is also an improvement. 2. Remaining concerns  The movement of the dwelling on plot 1 further east represents a minor improvement, but I remain of the view that this plot will still be badly dominated not only by the tree in the garden (T34, a 14m oak), but also by the larger tree to the immediate west (T33, an 18m oak). I appreciate the efforts the developers have made to improve this situation, but regrettably feel that post development pressure to fell at least T34 is inevitable. Therefore this remains in conflict with best practice.

 The effect of the woods to the south on plots 44, 15, 16, and 20 - 25 remains an issue, though as these trees are off-site I do not feel that this is a strong enough concern to warrant a formal objection.

 My previously noted concerns in regard to the rear gardens to the block of houses on plots 26 - 30 inclusive have got worse. The distance between the closest point of the dwelling at plot 27 and the large TPO'd oak tree to the east (T55, an 18m tree with a north-westerly radial crown spread over the site of 8.5m) has decreased by half a metre, making a bad situation slightly worse. The large trees along this eastern boundary, the foliage behind it, AND the fact that the houses face west (thereby having rear gardens facing east, missing out on the afternoon sun), will result in these gardens being very badly shade dominated. The developers at our meeting tried to convince me that the gardens were of good size, but to take plot 27 as an example, the garden measures 12m by 5m maximum, and will be shaded by the easterly trees from daybreak until at least noon, beyond which the sun will disappear behind the buildings themselves and the off-site woodland to the south. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15.

 I note the representation of a barrier around the western side of the feature oak tree in the centre of the site (T18), which is appreciated as this subject was raised at our meeting. However, the barrier needs to border the car parking spaces wholly, to ensure that no cars can bypass it and park under the tree. In summary, though I find that the scheme has a number of minor improvements, I remain of the view that the layout is far from best suited to accommodate the existing trees, a number of which will cause intolerable shading contrary to best practice and guidance.

The scheme accordingly remains in conflict with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). Despite the improvements, I must therefore once again raise an objection to it.

3rd Comments

 The movement of the house to the east within Plot 1 is a great improvement. The separation distance between the western flank wall of the house and tree T34 has been increased from 6.5m to 11.5m. This I feel is now satisfactory.

 Despite the alleged movement of the block 26-30 to the west by a metre, the submitted plans do not appear to substantiate this; indeed, the block appears to be in almost exactly the same position. I agree with Mr Keeley's comment that it is not "within the Arboricultural Officer's remit to comment on whether garden sizes are satisfactory or not", as clearly this is a planning matter per se. But Inspectors in many cases have held that where gardens (in particular) are dominated and overborne by trees to the extent that post development pressure to lop or fell is likely to be irresistible, this represents poor practice. I maintain my objections to the proximity of these dwellings to the tree line for exactly this reason, and am convinced that post development pressure on the trees is inevitable.

 The landscaping drawing (number 5067/ASP1, revision E, dated 20 Sep 12) shows a proposed timber knee rail right around the critical oak tree T18, which is an excellent addition to the plans. Hence my sole objection remains the proximity of block 26-30 to the trees along the eastern site boundary. Otherwise, the plans represent a considerable improvement on those previously submitted.

3.4 Housing Strategy and Development Manager

Housing officers commented on the previous application for this site (DC/10/2554). The essential affordable housing provision remains the same - 16 units representing 36.36% of the overall development.

Due to layout considerations and viability issues, the percentage of affordable housing on site is acceptable, and the addition of a commuted sum to bring the overall affordable housing offer up to 40% meets the Council’s requirements. The £96k proposed will fund around one and a half affordable homes off-site. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16.

The proposed mix has changed and includes a larger number of houses:

3 x 1 bed flats, 6 x 2 bed apartments, 3 x 2 bed houses,4 x 3 bed houses

Housing officers are satisfied with the proposed mix. Seventy five percent of the homes will be 1 and 2 bed, which reflects both the results of the Southwater Housing Needs Survey carried out by Action in Rural Sussex, and the type of households on the Council’s register.

Should planning permission be granted, the Section 106 agreement should state that the tenure mix of rented and shared ownership homes is to be agreed by the Council’s Housing Strategy and Development Manager prior to commencement of development.

The applicant should ensure that the location and specification of the homes meets the requirements of the partner affordable housing provider.

3.5 Head of Public Health and Licensing

Initial comments

There are concerns that layout of the proposed development will introduce residential receptors into parts of the site that are significantly impacted by noise from road traffic on the A24.

It is considered that the design of the scheme as approved under permission DC/10/2554 deals more effectively with the noise constraints at the site and is the preferred site layout.

2nd comments

I have reviewed the additional information supplied and I would offer the following comments:

The acoustic consultant has modelled a number of options in respect of noise barriers to protect the rear garden areas to the proposed social housing. However in all the modelled outcomes the noise levels in the garden areas remain at or above the World Health Organisation criteria for serious annoyance in outdoor living areas. This is the criterion that has been adopted for other developments close to the A24. The high levels of ambient noise associated with the proximity of this part of the site to the A24 mean that the measures available to control noise levels have limited performance. Accordingly concerns remain that these amenity spaces will be of poor quality due to the level of noise and that occupiers of the proposed social housing will need to keep first floor windows closed to enjoy recommended noise levels in first floor bedrooms facing towards the A24.

For this part of the site it is considered that the currently approved scheme offers a better response to the issue of noise.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 17.

3.6 Community Safety Manager

The Community Safety Partnership have expressed a slight concern about the increase in traffic flow around the proposed new development and specific consideration should be given to road safety issues as Southwater has been selected as one of a handful of areas from across West Sussex as a Safer Roads Community. This means that signage and road markings will need to be planned into the development.

The other issue raised was that the end of the village in question is mostly made up of larger style detached properties, many of which are family homes with children. An additional 44 new properties and the increase of population that goes with them, could cause some anti-social behaviour / noise issues and therefore layout and maximising natural surveillance within the layout is crucial as well as ensuring there are things for younger people to do in the area.

3.7 Parks Community Liaison Officer advises that more details are needed about the treatment of amenity green space, and that the open space contributions could be used towards the replacement/refurbishment of the existing play areas in the locality (Warren Drive, Thistle Way and Larkspur Way), or improving the adventure play area at Southwater Country Park or the facilities at Southwater Leisure Centre.

3.8 Engineering Section of Corporate Support Services have no objection subject to clarification of who will adopt and maintain the SUDS features.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.9 Environment Agency recommends a condition for surface water drainage to correspond to the details shown in the Flood Risk Assessment so that it complies with the principles set down in the NPPF. It also comments that the developer should confirm with Southern Water that there is sufficient capacity in the receiving foul sewer network to receive foul flows from this development and also with CampbellReith that the private sewers on the Oakhurst Business Park can accommodate the proposed flows.

3.10 Crime Prevention Design Adviser of Sussex Police:

'I have commented upon previous outline applications for this development and I was very pleased to note that my previous concerns from a crime prevention viewpoint have been addressed with this new application. The Design and Access Statement submitted in support of this application makes very good reference to the crime prevention measures to be considered in the design and layout.

There are brick piers or pillars shown at the Blakes Farm Road entrance to the development. I recommend that this is duplicated at the Worthing Road entrance clearly indicating one is entering a private area.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 18.

The repositioning of the dwellings to provide outward facing frontages combined with in curtilage parking within the dwelling's boundary has created good defensible space which will in the main leave the road layout free and unobstructed.

The introduction of the outward facing dwellings and the back to back layout for the gardens has in the main eliminated the need for vulnerable alleys that allow access to the rear gardens. Where they still exist I recommend that the garden fencing that overlooks the alley be of 1.5m high close board fencing topped with 30mm of trellis. This arrangement will provide privacy yet will allow surveillance of an otherwise unobserved area.

The Safer Places document from the ODPM (2004) offers a good practice guide for the creation of well designed and safe places through the planning system. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 heightens the importance of taking crime prevention into account when planning decisions are made. Section 17 of the Act places a clear duty on both police and local authorities to exercise their various functions with due regard to the likely effect on the prevention of crime and disorder. You are asked to accord due weight to the advice offered in this letter which would demonstrate your authority's commitment to work in partnership and comply with the spirit of The Crime & Disorder Act.

As a percentage of the development will be affordable housing I direct the applicant's attention to our website at www.securedbydesign.com for further information on the SBD award.

I recommend that railings to the height of 900mm be placed around the rear of the block housing plots 31-39. This will provide a demarcation line between public green area and the private space of the residents. Vulnerable windows should be protected by defensible planting.'

3.11 West Sussex County Council:

Highways

The site does have outline approval for 44 units, granted under DC/10/2554 and to which no highway objection was raised. The current application seeks full permission and retains the permitted access points onto Blakes Farm Road and Worthing Road, hence there would be no in principle highway concerns.

The previous application was supported by way of a Stage One Safety Audit, which reviewed the access arrangements. In light of the fact that the access points have been retained as per the approved scheme, the Audit would remain applicable to the current application. Similarly, the highway capacity consequences of the development were accepted by way of the outline approval and this proposal would not give rise to any material impact to the highway network.

With regards to the access, the Transport Statement submitted in support of the current application does reconsider the visibility splay requirements onto Blakes Farm Road. Whilst the reduction of the X distance to 2.4metres is supported, slightly longer Y element dimensions were calculated through the previous APPENDIX A/ 1 - 19.

application compared with those presently indicated. In any case, the longer splays are achievable and it is recommended that these are sought instead of those detailed within the latest TS.

The application form does indicate that the internal roads are to remain private and won’t be adopted as part of the public highway. The following advice would be offered in these regards. The internal roads are shown as shared surfaces, which considering the lightly trafficked and low speed nature of the development would be appropriate. Carriageway widths of 4.8metres are indicated (although widths of 5.5m are referred to within the DAS), which is sufficient to enable two opposing vehicles to pass. Whilst there is the possibility that parking may occur in the northern arm of the turning head, although parking as a whole for the site does meet the requirements of the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator, there are no significant issues with the proposed layout. The only other comment would be that the access road leading to the three dwellings fronting Worthing Road is narrow and could make access/egress to the parking spaces shown difficult. Details could be secured via condition to provide a widened access road.

Improvements were secured as part of the outline approval to the existing footpath (no. 1669) that runs along the southern boundary of the site. The following improvements were detailed as part of the previous application,

 that the existing public right of way is up graded to provide a 3metre width from Worthing Road to the south-eastern boundary of the site  And thereafter a width of 1.5metres from the site boundary eastwards to Blakes Farm Road.  That the surfacing is improved in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the WSCC Public Rights of Way team.

These improvements would continue to be sought as part of the current application as his will form an important route for pedestrians leaving the development to access Worthing Road and the services located in the village to the south. These should form an obligation within the s106 requiring details of the improvements to be agreed with the WSCC Rights of Way team and thereafter implemented by the Developer within an agreed timescale.

There would be no highway objection.

Conditions relating to the accesses, visibility splays, car parking and turning spaces, construction plant and material storage, wheel washing and cycle parking are recommended.

WSCC Infrastructure contributions: £95,985 primary education, £103,308 secondary education, £9,996 libraries, £4,023 fire and rescue and TAD £78, 953.

Archaeology: No objection on archaeological grounds subject to a condition.

3.12 Southern Water recommends a condition relating to surface water and foul sewerage disposal.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 20.

3.13 Southwater Parish Council

Initial comments

object on the following grounds:

 That the mix of houses should be nearer 64% of one- and two-bed dwellings, as this need has been identified in the Housing Survey. It should be at least 56% as agreed in the outline application.  Four bedroom affordable dwellings should be included, again as per the Housing Survey  Nine of the affordable dwellings, already below the 40% target, are flats, and the Housing Survey identified that houses were preferable  The affordable housing should be pepper-potted throughout the site, and not be sited all in one area.  The gated area to the north-west is considered to be exclusive, and not conducive to social integration within the development.  Whilst the improvement to the footpath to the south is welcomed, it was originally intended that this path have low level lighting to encourage use.  Previous discussions with Planning Officer Val Cheesman seemed to imply that the footpath is not in the curtilage of the site, whilst this site plan clearly shows it to be within the curtilage. What provision has been made for future maintenance and upkeep?  The Parish Council should be consulted on the Section 106 agreement, and consideration must be given to provision for library contributions, given the current project with Southwater Library.  The Parish Council is disappointed that it was not consulted by Barrett Homes during the pre-consultation process, as many of the above concerns could perhaps have been addressed prior to the application being lodged.

2nd comments

Object on the same grounds as previous. In addition, the Parish Council support the objections of Will Jones, arboricultural officer, in relation to the layout not being best suited to the ongoing welfare of the existing trees.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.14 One letter of objection from a local resident has been received on the grounds that the land was allocated for business purposes to create local employment.

3.15 Three letters of comment from local residents have been received requesting the retention of trees and vegetation along the footpath to the south of the site, and trees to the rear and that residents’ amenities are protected from noise and contamination during ground clearance and construction.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 21.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are the principle of the development and its affect on the character and amenities of the area, the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers, road noise from the A24 and Blakes Farm Road, highway safety, access and parking, existing trees and vegetation, flooding and drainage issues and contributions. The outline permission granted under DC/10/2554 is a material consideration.

Principle of the Development

6.2 The site lies within the defined built up area of Southwater, which is a Category 1 settlement and comprises the curtilage of the bungalow, associated paddock and a field. The application needs to be assessed against Development Plan policies of the Local Development Framework and the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.3 The site is in a sustainable location in the built up area of Southwater, which is a Category 1 settlement as identified in the Local Development Framework.

6.4 It should be noted that since the refusal of application DC/04/2751 in 2004 the policy position has changed as the site now lies within the defined built up area as shown in the Local Development Framework, therefore it is no longer in the countryside nor is it within the strategic gap. It is also outside of the business park employment protection zone boundaries. This revised status was recognised in the granting of the outline permission DC/10/2554.

6.5 The grant of outline permission for the demolition of the existing house and outbuildings and the erection of 44 dwellings established the redevelopment of the site for this purpose and for this number of dwellings. Therefore the main issue for this scheme is whether the detail of the development as now proposed is appropriate with regard to the character of the area and other development control criteria.

6.6 In respect of density, the site has an area of 1.53ha. With 44 dwellings the proposed development would result in a density of 28.76 dwellings per hectare APPENDIX A/ 1 - 22.

(dph). As with the outline application the development of this site to this density is not unacceptable in principle. This is subject to the form and layout of the development being satisfactory and having due regard to the on-site constraints. As policy DC18 comments, development must respect the character into which it is placed. In this respect it is important to note that, due to the area taken up by trees both within the site and around the boundaries, this results in a reduced area of the site that is capable of receiving built development.

6.7 In terms of the housing mix of development, Policy CP12 states that development should provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of the district communities. Provision should particularly be made for smaller homes to meet the needs of all existing households. This is amplified in Policy DC18 which relates to smaller homes and housing mix. This states that for the development of five homes or more planning permission would be granted in appropriate locations provided that housing mix and types meets the identified need for smaller homes (one and two bed properties).

6.8 The proposal comprises building 44 units of which 16 are affordable and 28 would be for private occupation. This is the same ratio as in the agreed outline scheme. The 40% requirement set out in Policy CP12 would require 17.6 units to be affordable, a shortfall of 1.6 units. In respect of the approved outline scheme that shortfall was made up with a commuted payment of £96,000. The same figure would be required in respect of this current application.

6.9 With regard to the mix of the affordable units, previously this was12 flats and 4 houses ( 9 x two-bed flats and 3 x three-bed flats plus 2 x two-bed and 2 x three- bed houses.) That proportional mix was considered to be satisfactory and addressed the previous concerns of the Committee by providing some houses as well as flats and was considered to be acceptable by the Housing Strategy and Development Manager.

6.10 For this application, the mix of the 16 affordable units comprises nine flats and 7 houses (3 x one-bed flats and 6 x two-bed flats; plus 3 x two-bed houses and 4 x three-bed houses). The reduction in the number of flats and the corresponding increase in the number of houses is considered to be acceptable and provides for a mix of one, two and three bed units.

6.11 Moat Housing Association would be the Registered Provider and the tenure split would be rent – 3 x 1 bed flats, 3 x 2 bed houses and 4 x 3bed houses, and shared ownership - 6 x 2 bed flats. This complies with the 60:40 requirement set out in the Planning Obligations SPD.

6.12 With regard to the mix of the private units, these range from 9 x two-bed houses, 3 x three-bed houses, 8 x four-bed houses and 8 x five-bed houses. Whilst this is different from the mix shown on the outline scheme in that the maisonettes are not part of this scheme and there are less 3 bed units, being replaced with a greater number of 4 and 5 bed units, the scheme provides for units across the range of house sizes. . It is considered that the mix of dwelling sizes and types for the development as a whole is appropriate.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 23.

Character and Appearance

6.13 The site is positioned at the northern part of Southwater set between Worthing Road and Blakes Farm Road. Worthing Road is one of the principal entrances into the village and is characterised at this point by Newlane Wood at its northern extremity, together with detached properties on relatively large plots fronting directly onto Worthing Road and areas of landscaping along Blakes Farm Road.

6.14 When viewed from Worthing Road, the site frontage at this point forms part of the group of 3 residential properties ( Martindale Farm, Carrick and Robin Hood) which lie on the eastern side of the highway, with Robin Hood being the northernmost dwelling and abutting the built up area boundary and Newlane Wood. The site widens out to the rear to include the remainder of the curtilage of Martindale Farm and also the land to the rear of Carrick and Robin Hood and at this point accords with the northern boundary of the built-up area and one of the landscaped areas of the Business Park. The site then touches at its north eastern corner, Blakes Farm Road and this is where the new access point would enter the site. The remainder of the eastern boundary of the site is separated from Blakes Farm Road by an area of landscaping set within the Oakhurst Business Park. The southern boundary abuts a wooded area which adjoins Oakhurst Business Park.

6.15 As the site has attractive and substantial wooded boundaries and vegetated frontages to the north east, east and south, which contain a number of significant preserved trees, it is important that the character of this part of the village is retained and not eroded by unsympathetic built form. In this respect the trees in Newlane Wood are not affected by the proposal and important trees along the northern boundary and set within the application site are shown to be retained. Furthermore the trees along the eastern boundary adjacent to the area of landscaping within the Oakhurst Business Park land are to be retained and form areas of landscaping as well as amenity areas for the occupiers of the flats in the development. To the south, the layout is shown set within the boundary, to the north of the existing footpath and so the residential properties do not protrude into the woodland area.

6.16 With regard to the impact on Worthing Road, Martindale Farm is the third property in from the northern boundary of the built-up area along this section of Worthing Road. The scheme would not therefore change the initial approach into the village. The redevelopment proposes three new detached houses within the existing frontage of Martindale Farm. This is considered to reflect the character of this part of Worthing Road. The access would serve these three dwellings alone off Worthing Road and is considered to be an appropriate solution for this part of the site.

6.17 The remainder of the site is accessed via a new access point proposed off Blakes Farm Road, and the layout of this part of the site would be internal to the site boundaries and contained within the treed boundaries to the north, east and south.

6.18 Such a strategy was adopted at outline stage and so by following the same broad principles for this application, it is considered that any concerns about the impact on the character of the countryside and the approach into Southwater have been APPENDIX A/ 1 - 24.

addressed by virtue of that previous decision as to how the site should be developed in general terms.

6.19 Looking in more detail at the layout further into the site, access would be taken off Blakes Farm Road, and the estate road now leads round to the north of the central oak tree forming a focus or central feature to the site. The previous scheme had the access leading to the south of the oak tree. The dwellings are then arranged around this road, either in short closes or as a courtyard. Parking is internal to the site and provided either on curtilage or in a parking court layout.

6.20 This overall approach to the general layout of the site was agreed before and is considered to be appropriate given the treed nature of the site and relationship to the existing built and natural environment of the locality.

6.21 However the detail of the layout has changed from the outline scheme. As the Design and Conservation Officer states ‘it is encouraging to see that this has been altered (from the outline scheme) to a more legible and sensible layout, with buildings fronting public spaces and the highway, plus defined public and private garden and the illumination of the un-overlooked parking courtyard. The creation of a focal central space is a positive of the scheme, plus simple but positive design techniques, such as gateway buildings to the Blakes Farm Road entrance and prominent buildings creating “vista stops” to views within the development. The general architectural details of the scheme are derived from local character.’

6.22 This is echoed by the Landscape Officer who comments that ‘most noticeably there has been a loosening in the arrangement of the houses and flats which provides a more sympathetic and interesting layout than the previous application. In particular:

o An improved sense of entrance on Blakes Farm Road. The row of houses in the outline application has been replaced with an entrance wall and a re- arrangement of detached houses that contain the initial views into the development.

o Improved setting for the retained mature oak tree. The oak now has a larger green space around it, some of it laid out as a communal garden.’

6.23 The amended plans have included features to address the detailed design concerns including the deletion of the gate across the road leading to plots 5 – 9, introduction of more planting to break up the parking spaces, provision of front garden areas, improvements to the design of the block of flats and an additional link to the footpath.

6.24 In terms of scale, a mix of 2 storey, 2 ½ storey and 3 storey buildings are proposed, the latter being the block of affordable flats to the eastern side of the site. In other respects, the site is a blend of 2 and 2 ½ storeys, the former predominating. Given the containment of the site and the existing screening, it is not considered these 2 ½ and 3 storey elements of the scheme would be unsympathetic or unduly prominent in the wider setting of the site and its surroundings. It should be noted that 3 storey flats and some 2 ½ storey houses were proposed with the last application. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 25.

6.25 The fine detail of the design and appearance of the units is considered to be acceptable and comprises a traditional approach utilising a mix of materials including multi-stock bricks with feature brickwork or render and a mix of roof tiles. In addition, the design of the flats has been amended following the concerns of the Design and Conservation Officer and changes to the appearance of the terraced houses at plots 26 – 30 have been submitted.

Highways, Access and Parking

6.26 West Sussex County Council Highways have no objection to the application relating to the use of the existing access point off Worthing Road and the new access point of Blakes Farm Road, which are the same as those approved at outline stage. The plans now include the visibility splays within the red line.

6.27 With regard to the level of car parking there would be 103 spaces for the 44 units, comprising 87 allocated spaces, 7 unallocated and 9 visitor spaces. WSCC have advised that parking as a whole for the site meets the requirements of the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator.

6.28 In respect of the enhancement of the footpath along the southern boundary of the site, this was proposed in the outline application and covered in the legal agreement. The current scheme proposes an additional link to the footpath which has been achieved during negotiations so that the site can be accessed in two locations directly from the footpath. These links are to the front of unit 15 and to the side of unit 25, and connect directly to the footpath from the internal access.

6.29 With regard to the details of the works to the footpath, these include appropriate resurfacing and widening of the path, having regard to the retention of trees. Full details would need to be subsequently submitted for approval

Residential Amenities

6.30 The relevant properties in this regard would be Carrick and Robin Hood, which front onto Worthing Road. The proposed layout has the side boundaries of the gardens for plots 7, 8 and 12 alongside the rear boundary of these two properties with separation distances of between 40 and 47m between the rear walls of these properties and the side elevations of those proposed. Furthermore, the rear boundary of these two existing properties has significant landscaping and in these circumstances it is not considered there is any loss of mutual privacy in this respect.

6.31 The side elevations of plots 13 and 42 would lay alongside the southern boundary of Carrick. The side elevation of plot 13 would be situated 1m from the boundary and that of plot 42 would be 5m from the boundary, with the side elevation of Carrick itself being set a further 11m into its curtilage. This is a satisfactory relationship between the properties and given appropriate boundary treatment and the existing landscaping, together with the presence of the detached garage in the rear garden of Carrick and its front garden and driveway area, the amenities of this APPENDIX A/ 1 - 26.

occupier would not be adversely affected by these 2 units. A similar arrangement was proposed at outline stage.

6.32 It should be noticed that in the previous scheme, DC/04/2751, there was concern with regard to the impact on Carrick but in that respect the proposed dwellings had their rear elevations facing the side boundary of Carrick and the distances involved would have given rise to over-bearing and over-looking effects.

6.33 The internal layout of the scheme with regard to the relationship between the proposed properties is acceptable and shows appropriate separation distances.

Noise from the A24 and Blakes Farm Road.

6.34 The site lies in close proximity to the A24 and Blakes Farm Road and the noise environment for future occupiers is an important consideration. It is the eastern part of the site which will be most affected.

6.35 The previous scheme had maisonettes and flats in this part of the site and an acoustic fence was proposed. The use of these types of units with their orientation, communal grounds and internal layout were such that the noise levels within the building and within the garden areas would be appropriate.

6.36 The new layout has resulted in a different arrangement of units with the introduction of houses with individual gardens in positions on the site where previously these were shown to be flats and maisonettes with communal gardens and this has resulted in a different noise environment from that previously envisaged.

6.37 The scheme does incorporate a smaller block of flats in this part of the site, but a pair of semi detached dwellings now replace the maisonettes and a terrace of 5 houses is proposed alongside the flats. The Public Health and Licensing Officer is concerned that noise levels in the individual gardens of these properties would not be an acceptable environment for future occupiers.

6.38 This issue has been discussed in depth during the consideration of this application. Further noise data and modelling has been supplied which illustrates that noise levels within the dwellings would be at acceptable levels, acoustic fencing would be proposed and the internal layout of the units could be controlled to achieve the best possible arrangement. Whilst it is acknowledged by your officers that the garden environment would not be ideal, the overall arrangement of properties and the amelioration that is proposed as detailed above is considered as a whole to be acceptable.

Landscaping and Trees

6.39 The scheme has an appropriate setting for the central oak tree with limited parking spaces set in its vicinity. The principle of parking around the tree was accepted with the previous outline application. The details of the layout for this area of the site have been revised during the course of this application to address the comments from the Landscape Officer. The precise details of the surfacing around APPENDIX A/ 1 - 27.

and underneath the tree and the delineation of such spaces can be covered by a condition. In addition, the area to the east of the tree is shown as an open space area and is to be landscaped and laid out accordingly. Precise details of this can be controlled by condition.

6.40 The proposed scheme also shows the retention of the important trees around the boundaries and also within the site, in particular the extensive wooded area along the eastern boundary. This serves as a screen and part is an amenity area for the flats.

6.41 The Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the selected tree removal and he confirms that the proposal is satisfactory in relation to the proximity of the dwellings to the protected trees. Your officers recognise the concerns of the Arboricultural Officer with regard to the potential future resident pressure arising from the new layout, and amended plans were submitted to address these issues. A number of the units have been repositioned so that there is a better relationship with the trees. It is acknowledged that while some concerns have been resolved, it has not been possible to fully accommodate every item. The remaining issue is post development pressures from shading and possible future requests from occupiers for surgery or felling of the trees in the south east corner of the site.

6.42 This application differs from the outline scheme in that a terrace of five dwellings has been introduced into this south eastern part of the site. It was previously shown to be laid out as communal gardens and parking spaces for the flats. The houses would be part of the affordable housing provision on the site and would have individual gardens.

6.43 It should be noted that whilst the trees are within the application site, they would be outside the individual garden areas identified for these particular units (plots 26 to 30). They would therefore be within part of the overall landscaped grounds of the development and the overall maintenance and future care of these particular trees would be under the control of a management company, and not individual occupiers. In addition the siting of the units complies with the standards laid out in ‘BS 5837 – 2012’ and do not foul the RPA’s of the trees concerned. Thus the trees will not be harmed by the actual construction of the units. The garden lengths would be between 13 and 15m and the gardens themselves would be defined with close boarded fencing. Given these circumstances it is considered that the scheme has an acceptable relationship with the trees.

Flooding and Drainage

6.44 In respect of flood risk and the previous refusal on the 2004 scheme, it should be noted that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 (site set at low risk of flooding). As with the 2010 outline permission, details have been submitted in the form of flood risk assessment and drainage strategy as required by NPPF.

6.45 The underlying ground conditions of Horsham Stone underlain with Weald clay do not support the use of conventional infiltration systems ( soakaways) for surface water, therefore a system of attenuation is proposed including belowground storage in 3 tanks across the site, which would direct flow to the 2 discharge points. A APPENDIX A/ 1 - 28.

management company would maintain and control the surface water control system.

6.46 With regard to foul drainage, this will connect into the private system at Oakhurst Business Park, as agreed at outline stage. Following the comments of the Environment Agency, the applicant has been asked to confirm that there is sufficient capacity in that system to accept the proposed flows.

Legal Agreement

6.47 Whilst an agreement was signed in respect of the previous outline application, as this is the new full application with a different mix of units, a new agreement is required.

6.48 The new agreement needs to secure the provision and tenure of the affordable housing on the site, the commuted sum of £96,000 in lieu of the shortfall in the number of affordable housing units and the contributions towards infrastructure. The work to upgrade and resurfacing of the footpath will also need to be included in the agreement

6.49 The contribution amounts are:

 Education – primary £95,985 and secondary £103,308  Libraries - £9,996  Fire and Rescue - £4,023  Highways and Public Transport infrastructure - £78,953  Open Space - £66,981  Community Facilities - £14,859  Local Refuse and Recycling -£7,430

Sustainable Construction

6.50 The application is supported by a Sustainability Statement and Energy Statement. This indicates that sustainability measures and initiatives in energy, water, waste, ecology, landscaping, noise and air pollution, construction and transportation would be incorporated. The salient points being all affordable dwellings will achieve a minimum of Level 3 for the Code for Sustainable Homes and the site-wide sustainability measures to support the Code for Sustainable Homes application will also benefit the private units. The CO² emissions will meet the Building Regulations, the policy requirement for 10% reduction in CO² emissions will be achieved through the provision of solar renewable technology. In addition , the scheme proposes dedicated cycle storage facilities, reduction in internal water consumption, provision of water butts, a sustainable drainage system, retention and protection of assets of ecological value, creation of new habitats of ecological value, preparation of a site waste management plan, building materials will be sourced locally, the site will be registered with the Considerate Construction Scheme, sound insulation will be provided and the buildings are to comply with the Secured by Design scheme.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 29.

6.51 A condition can be imposed relating to the detail of these proposals.

Other Matters

6.52 The 2004 application, DC/04/2751, was also refused on the grounds of loss of employment/industrial land. However, since that time, the then local plan has been superseded by the Local Development Framework. Under the LDF the site is not within the Employment Protection Zone of Oakhurst Business Park and so such issues do not now arise.

Conclusions

6.53 The site lies within the built up area of Southwater and is in a sustainable location. The development of the site for 44 residential units has been approved under the outline application.

6.54 In regard to this full application, which comprises the same number of dwellings but in a different layout and mix of units, there are improvements from that outline proposal, notably a more legible layout, with buildings fronting public spaces and the highway; defined public and private gardens; including the creation of a central space focussed on the oak tree; and the removal of a rear parking court. In addition there are ‘gateway buildings’ to the entrance off Blakes Farm Road and prominent buildings which create ‘vista stops’ to views within the scheme. There are more pairs of semi detached houses and detached houses, with a corresponding reduction in the number of terraced blocks. More affordable houses are proposed, which means that there is a reduction in the number of affordable flats. Whilst the block of flats would remain at 3 storeys, it would have a smaller footprint and consequent smaller scale and mass.

6.55 2 particular changes - the replacement of some of the flats with a terrace of houses and the block of 4 maisonettes with a pair of houses – have given rise to issues with their relationship with the trees on the eastern boundary and the noise environment for these occupiers. This is due to the change from the communal grounds that would have accompanied the flats and maisonettes to the provision of individual gardens for the houses.

6.56 The concerns of the Arboricultural Officer and the Public Health and Licensing Officer are acknowledged, but it is considered that when viewing the scheme as a whole and in terms of the positive improvements that have been achieved when compared to the outline layout and during the course of this application, that on balance the overall proposal is acceptable and satisfactory.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services with a view to approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement in respect of contributions, affordable housing provision and works to the footpath and thereafter that permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 30.

01 A2 Full permission 02 M1 Materials 03 E3 Fencing, to include details of acoustic fencing 04 H10 Cycle parking 05 H4 On site parking 06 O1 Hours of working 07 O3 Site clearance 08 H6 Wheel washing 09 D6 Finished floor levels

10 No development shall take place within the site until the applicant, or the applicant’s agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation and timetable which has been submitted and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: The site is of archaeological significance and it is important that it is recorded by excavation before it is destroyed by development in accordance with policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11 G6 Recycling

12 Notwithstanding the proposals shown on the submitted landscape masterplan drawing no ……, 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  Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, play equipment, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

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. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 31.

Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason : To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

13 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/orgainisations 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, unless any variation is approved in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and nature conservation in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

14 L2a Protection of Trees 15 Prior to the commencement of development details of all underground trenching requirements for services, including the positions of soakaways, manhole covers, service ducts, foul, grey and storm water systems and all other underground service facilities, and required ground excavations there for, 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 12, and with existing trees on the site. 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 Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and in the interests of amenity.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 32.

16 L6 Burning of Materials 17 L8 No Felling 18 M8 Sustainable Construction - residential development

19 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the following mitigation measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment number 131544-R1(1) dated March 2012 submitted with the application:

o Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 In 100 year plus climate change critical storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

The scheme shall include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion and details of flood flow routes, should the system be exceeded. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these. This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the principles of the NPPF

20 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: The proposed scheme involves three properties connecting directly to the public sewerage system and the remaining properties connecting via a private system to the public sewerage system. The applicant must confirm with the sewerage undertaker before construction begins, that there is sufficient capacity within the public sewerage network to accept foul flows from the proposed development. This planning condition is necessary to ensure the development complies with the NPPF

21 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a Method Statement which details how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The Method Statement shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be fully implemented before occupation of any dwellings on the site.

Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). APPENDIX A/ 1 - 33.

22 No ground excavations, landscaping works or infrastructure works pursuant to the planning permission will commence on the site until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work which shall be in accordance with a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation which has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing.

Reason: To ensure investigation and recording of archaeological Heritage Assets on the site during the course of development in accordance with policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies ( 2007).

23 No demolition of any building shall be undertaken until Schweglar 1FD woodcrete bat boxes have been placed on suitable trees around the site boundary and until bat monitoring has been undertaken prior to demolition with demolition being carried out under the supervision of an experienced bat worker as appropriate. The submission of the detailed applications must demonstrate how the development will be sensitive to bats with regard to timing, monitoring, roost provision and lighting.

Reason: To safeguard bats in accordance with recommendations made within the submitted bat reports, Natural England standing advice, PPS9 and the Habitats Regulations 1994.

24 Prior to the commencement of works on-site, to be submitted with the detailed applications and in accordance with the reptile mitigation strategy outlined in the reptile report S5 a suitable receptor site will be found and the reptiles will be trapped, translocated and excluded from the development site under the supervision of the Ecological Clerk of Works and mitigation shall be undertaken to compensate for lost habitat.

Reason: To protect reptiles from any harm that might arise during the development work and to ensure that sufficient quality, quantity and connectivity of habitat is provided to accommodate the reptile population, either on-site or at an alternative site, with no net loss of local reptile conservation status in accordance with PPS9 and recommendations made in the submitted reptile report.

25 No dwelling to be served by way of the proposed vehicular access onto Blakes Farm Road shall be occupied until such time as the vehicular access onto Blakes Farm Road has been laid out and constructed in accordance with plans, details and a construction specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). APPENDIX A/ 1 - 34.

26 No dwelling to be served by way of the proposed vehicular access onto Worthing Road shall be occupied until such time as the existing vehicular access onto Worthing Road has been altered in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

27 The dwellings, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until the car parking and turning spaces have been constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.

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).

28 The dwellings, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until provision has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to prevent surface water draining onto the public highway.

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).

29 No development shall commence until such time as a temporary construction access has been constructed onto Blakes Farm Road in accordance with plans, details and a construction specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

30 No dwelling to be served by way of the proposed vehicular access onto Blakes Farm Road shall be occupied until such time as visibility splays of 2.4metres by 110metres to the north and 101metres to the south have been provided in accordance with the approved planning drawing.

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).

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 35.

Note to Applicant:

If it is proposed to fill, divert, obstruct or culvert a watercourse, the applicant would require the prior consent of the Lead Local Flood Authority (WSCC), under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 as amended by the Floods and Water Management Act 2010.

Note to Applicant:

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, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1RH (Tel no. 01243 642105).

8. REASONS

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

ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.

Background Papers: DC/12/0579 Contact Officer: Val Cheesman

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 6th November 2012

DEVELOPMENT: DC/12/0465 Change of use of existing buildings (The Smithy and Courtyard Offices) to residential use DC/12/1846 Change of use of the former laboratories (Kitchen Garden Cottages) to residential use with retention of existing flat roof DC/12/1847 Change of use of the former laboratories (Kitchen Garden Cottages) to residential use with proposed pitched roof

SITE: Graylands Estate, Langhurst Wood Road, Horsham.

WARD: Holbrook West

APPLICATION: DC/12/0465, DC/12/1846 & DC/12/1847

APPLICANT: Verve Properties Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: DC/12/0465 to grant planning permission; DC/12/1846 and DC/12/1847 to refuse planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The current applications seek (a) DC/12/0465 conversion of two existing brick-built buildings (The Smithy and Courtyard Offices at ground floor level) to residential use, providing two independent units, whilst (b) DC/12/1846 and (c) DC/12/1847 comprise alternative proposals for the conversion of an existing structure, described as former laboratories, to residential use, also providing two independent units. In terms of alternative designs, one would retain the existing appearance of the building, whilst the other would involve the construction of a pitched roof.

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

1.2 With regard to the works required to convert these buildings, The Smithy and Courtyard Offices would require only minor cosmetic alterations (windows and doors, etc) to facilitate the proposed use, whilst the former laboratories (also described as the ‘Kitchen Garden Cottages’) require more substantial works.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is located outside of any built-up area within a countryside location.

1.4 The Graylands Estate, as a whole, incorporates a variety of open land, an access and exit road from/to Langhurst Wood Road to the west, and buildings of varying character and size. A number of these buildings have a distinct industrial character in terms of their design and size and it is clear that the established character of the site is that of an industrial nature, given the size of the buildings of up to a height of approximately 5 metres, their access arrangements and the surrounding hardstanding areas that have been utilised for a variety of parking and storage purposes.

1.5 The lands subject of the current applications are in the east of the site, towards the rear of the property. This area of the site comprises mostly built-form, with a variety of building sizes and design, of uniform red-brick construction. The former laboratories building, constructed of timber panels, is to the rear these buildings, set within a manicured lawn area.

1.6 There are two residential units currently on the site, The Cottage and Courtyard Offices at first floor level, although the length of their residential use is unclear.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are: CC1, CC4, CC6, C4.

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

2.5 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) are: DC1, DC2, DC8, DC9, DC24, DC40. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 There is a relatively extensive, planning history relating mainly to minor works within Graylands Estate, which contributes to the site’s established industrial use. None are of particular relevance to the current applications.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 West Sussex Highways – No concerns. Infrastructure contributions not provided at the time of writing and will be reported verbally at the Committee meeting.

3.2 Building Control – No objection

3.3 North Horsham Parish Council – No objection. Query the need for a traffic survey.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 Southern Water – No objection

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 1 letter of objection has been received from Langhurst Wood Road Residents Group, on the basis the proposal would set a precedent for further residential development.

3.6 Cllr Burgess - DC/12/1846 – No objection.

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

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the proposed uses in this rural location and the effect of the development on: the established character of the APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

surrounding rural area; the existing highway conditions in the area; the amenities of surrounding land occupiers; and, wider sustainability considerations.

Principle

6.2 The application site is situated within the countryside. Countryside policies, in particular policy DC1, do not support development in countryside locations unless there is an essential need and in addition, the development meets one of the following criteria; (a) supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; (b) enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; (c) provides for quiet informal recreational use; or, (d) ensures the sustainable development of rural areas.

6.3 Policy DC24 does allow for conversion of suitably located agricultural and rural buildings for business, commercial or residential use, subject to compliance with categories a – e outlined thereunder. However, the policy does stipulate a clear preference for business or commercial uses over residential, in the first instance. Indeed, the policy states that the loss of existing agricultural or business uses to residential is dependent on an examination of the suitability of the location and whether the building would be best preserved through conversion to residential.

DC/12/0465 - Change of use of existing buildings (The Smithy and Courtyard Offices) to residential use (2 two-bed units)

6.4 With regard to the change of use of the two existing brick-built buildings, The Smithy and the Courtyard Offices at ground floor level, it should be noted that the existing situation in terms of permitted uses is unclear. Whilst the planning history of the site is relatively extensive, the exact uses of a number of individual buildings is somewhat muddy. However the general theme of previous applications clearly indicates the overall site has been in use for industrial purposes for a significant amount of time, dating back to its use by Redland Bricks.

6.5 The Smithy is a single storey building, of traditional design and construction and forms part of a complex of buildings in the heart of the site, which typically comprise brick wall and tiled roofs. The Courtyard Offices is a two-storey building, part of the same buildings complex, and is already in residential use at first floor level.

6.6 The applicant has submitted a significant amount of information relating to the marketing of the site since the time of purchase (2010) and in preceding years, as evidence of the measures undertaken in order to lease each of the existing buildings. In this respect, the submission clearly outlines marketing campaigns have been conducted on the basis of attracting business to the site first and foremost, with premises of different size and layout available to meet any desired need. In this respect The Smithy, in particular, has not attracted a tenant at any time.

6.7 In the circumstances, it is considered the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated their attempts to lease the subject buildings, without success.

6.8 Having regard to the location, layout and use of the Graylands site, together with the minor nature of works required to make the buildings habitable, it is considered APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5

the proposal complies with the overarching aims of policies DC1 and DC24 and is acceptable.

DC/12/1846 & DC/12/1847 - Change of use of the former laboratories (Kitchen Garden Cottages) to residential use (2 two-bed units)

6.9 There is substantial concern with changes to the former laboratories structure’s appearance and construction since the time the application was originally submitted, in March of this year. As can be seen on the site photographs taken at the initial inspection of 29th March 2012, the former laboratories structure appeared in its ‘prefabricated’ state, a structure in a poor state of repair and, as the applicant stated, in need of ‘replacement with a building that will sit comfortably next to the more traditional, vernacular forms of the adjacent buildings’. The applications repeatedly identify the building’s poor state of repair, for example, the site plans submitted on all three applications refer to the structure as being ‘derelict’, whilst the applicant’s construction consultants, in the Conversion / Refurbishment Initial Report, described its condition at the time of their inspection on 21st September 2012 as ‘dilapidated’. Indeed, the Design and Access Statement states “it is a 1960’s flat roof utilitarian building of no value or significance”.

6.10 However having conveyed concerns to the applicant on a number of occasions about the suitability, or indeed capability, of the structure to be converted for residential use, it was noted on a further inspection of the property on 11th October 2012 that the bulk of the prefabricated exterior had been removed, replaced with timber studwork together with stained timber cladding, presenting a building more capable of conversion. The submitted plans indicate this timber cladding as forming part of the ‘existing structure’.

6.11 These works, it is considered, require planning permission in their own right.

6.12 In terms of the application proposals, it is considered that a prefabricated type structure, by reason of its inherently temporary nature, would not be a suitable building for conversion for any purpose supported under policy DC24. Indeed, it appeared at the time of inspection on 29th March 2012 that the building would not have been capable of conversion without substantial reconstruction, owing to its poor state of repair. In carrying out what appear to be substantial reconstruction works, it is considered the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated this. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on the basis of the information available, it is considered the building now falls outside of the rural conversion policy (DC24) and there is a policy objection to the conversion / reconstruction of this building for residential purposes.

Amenities

6.13 Located within an existing buildings complex, it is considered the conversion of The Smithy and The Courtyard Offices (DC/12/0465) would not have any adverse impacts on the amenities of the surrounding area. Indeed, the associated provisions which come with residential use (i.e. parking, bins storage, etc) would be in keeping with the established industrial use and appearance of the site.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

6.14 With regard to the former laboratories (DC/12/1846, DC/12/1847) the structure is visible from an adjoining Public Footpath which passes to the north of the site. The structure’s form and appearance, subsequent to the reconstruction works, are more prominent. Its appearance, which is more consistent with that of a temporary office cabin, is at odds with the other buildings in the vicinity, which are of traditional construction, design and appearance.

6.15 In terms of the alternative aspects of the design proposals relating to the former laboratories, which would (a) retain the shallow-pitched roof, or, (b) reconstruct the roof in a traditional A-roof style, it is considered neither proposal would be unduly prominent in the views as there are significantly larger buildings in the vicinity and the existing buildings are not of uniform design.

6.16 In terms of impacts for future occupiers of The Smithy and Courtyard Offices, the submitted plans and Design and Access Statement outline general landscaping and design considerations, including landscaping and screen fences, which will ensure there is no overlooking or loss of privacy, arising from the close relationship between the proposed residential units and adjoining commercial units. As specific details have not been provided at this stage, it is considered appropriate to control these through condition.

6.17 In terms of impacts for future occupiers of the Former Laboratories, it is considered the arrangements, which involve provision of private amenity space on both north and south sides of the units, would be unacceptable. A two-storey building with existing residential use at first floor level, the Courtyard Offices building clearly overlooks the area to the south of the existing structure, through two large first floor windows. The applicant cannot address such close overlooking, which would allow the occupiers of the Courtyard Offices, at first floor level, not only an unobstructed view of rear garden areas, but also an oblique view into living room and bedroom areas on the south side of the proposed units. In any case, it is now a well held view by the Appeals Inspectorate that landscaping cannot be relied upon as mitigation for poor design.

Highway issues

6.18 Situated within an existing industrial complex, the proposal would utilise existing parking, turning and access facilities.

6.19 It is noted North Horsham Parish Council has expressed concerns over the suitability of Langhurst Wood Road to accommodate increased traffic levels. Whilst these comments are noted it is considered the traffic associated with the proposal, on an established commercial site, would not require the type and extent of survey suggested. In this regard, West Sussex Highways has provided comments which express no concerns with the proposals.

Sustainability

6.20 Although situated outside of convenient walking distance to nearby settlements offering a range of services and amenities, the site is situated in close proximity to Warnham Station and within a short drive of Horsham town. Langhurst Wood Road APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7

is also well connected, in terms of cycling access, to Horsham, with access onto Pondtail Road providing easy access to the town centre.

Infrastructure Contributions

6.21 With regard to infrastructure requirements, both applications would generate contributions towards infrastructure development as follows; District Council contributions totalling £2,821, comprising £2,119 towards open space, sport and recreation, £468 towards community facilities and £234 towards local recycling, together with County Council contributions, although the individual components of this request have not been specified by West Sussex Highways at the time of writing. At the time of writing a satisfactorily completed legal agreement securing such contributions has not been received.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 DC/12/0465 - Change of use of existing buildings (The Smithy and Courtyard Offices) to residential use

It is recommended that permission be delegated for approval, subject to satisfactory completion of a S106 to secure contributions, with conditions as set out below

1. A2 Full permission

2. M4 Matching materials

3. 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 development within Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G or H of part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be carried out within the site without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain control over future development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. The dwelling(s) / building(s) 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).

5. Before development commences, details of the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8

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).

6. No development shall take place until details of screen walls 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 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).

7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the proposed construction methods incorporating sustainable construction techniques shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of sustainability and in accordance with Policy DC8 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

8. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between 08.00 hours and 18.00 hours 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).

9. 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 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.

10. 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).

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9

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 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 building(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development]. Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Reason for recommendation:

ICAB2B – The proposal does not materially affect the amenities or character of the locality.

7.2 DC/12/1846 - Change of use of the former laboratories (Kitchen Garden Cottages) to residential use

It is recommended that permission be refused, for the reasons set out below;

1. The residential conversion involves substantial reconstruction of a building which is not considered to be of traditional construction or of any architectural merit or interest, and would thus represent an unacceptable residential development in this countryside location for a purpose which has not been shown to require an essential countryside location. The proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP3 and CP15 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC9 and DC24 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

2. The proposed development by reason of its location immediately to the rear of an existing residential unit, would give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking between properties to the detriment of any future occupiers. The proposal would therefore be contrary in particular to policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

2. The proposed development makes no provision for contribution towards improvements to open space, sport and recreation, community facilities or local APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10

recycling and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7.3 DC/12/1847 - DC/12/1846 - Change of use of the former laboratories (Kitchen Garden Cottages) to residential use

It is recommended that permission be refused, for the reasons set out below;

2. The proposed development makes no provision for contribution towards improvements to open space, sport and recreation, community facilities or local recycling and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/12/0465, DC/12/1846, DC/12/1847 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 6th November 2012

DC/12/1399 New 2-storey attached house DEVELOPMENT: DC/12/1405 Proposed single storey rear extension and new porch to replace existing SITE: 27 Little Bridges Close Southwater Horsham West Sussex WARD: Southwater APPLICATIONS: DC/12/1399 and DC/12/1405 APPLICANT: JB Building and Consultancy

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: DC/12/1399 Delegate to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for approval subject to the expiration of the consultation period and completion of a satisfactory S106 legal agreement.

DC/12/1405 That the application be approved

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning applications.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

DC/12/1399 – New Dwelling 1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a 2-storey (1 x 3 bed) attached house. The application involves the demolition of the attached double garage to the southern side of the property and the sub division of the existing plot to facilitate the creation of an additional dwelling with associated amenity and parking areas. The application has been amended during the course of its consideration to more accurately reflect the existing porch designs and the creation of a private access to the rear of 27 Little Bridges Close.

DC/12/1405 – Single Storey Rear Extension and New Porch 1.2 The applicant seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension and new porch to replace existing on the existing dwelling.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

1.3 The application site for the proposed dwelling is associated with and located to the south of the dwelling known as 27 Little Bridges Close (the donor property).

1.4 Numbers 26 and 27 Little Bridges Close form a pair of semi detached dwellings within a cul de sac which is primarily characterised by bungalows. Numbers 26 and 27 Little Bridges Close form the only two storey semi detached properties which are located at the entrance to the cul de sac on the east side of the road.

1.5 Number 27 Little Bridges Close (the donor dwelling) forms the dwelling to the south side of the pair. This dwelling is sited on a corner location with its main frontage towards Little Bridges Close and the side (southern) gable elevation facing Station Road.

1.6 The donor dwelling (number 27) has an attached double garage to the south of the dwelling with an existing access from Little Bridges Close. Number 26 has a large two storey side extension on the northern side of the building with a hipped roof and a single storey extension with mono pitched roof to the rear.

1.7 The donor dwelling is largely derelict and has fallen into an extensive degree of disrepair. The property has been the subject of an enforcement order served in 2009 in relation to an untidy site.

1.8 The application site is located within the Built Up Area Boundary of Southwater.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP19

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC8, DC9, and DC40

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

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 Planning permission was refused under HR/55/65 in May1965 for two detached houses.

2.7 Planning permission was approved under HR/163/65 in December 1965 for a pair of semi detached houses with garages.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

DC/12/1399 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 Southwater Parish Council: Object

Object as contrary to street scene, giving a terraced look, and over intensification of site. Concerns in relation to parking issues, as highlighted by WSCC, especially as there is no parking in the adjacent Station Rd.

3.2 West Sussex County Council: Commented that:

Initial Comments received 17th August 2012 The application appears to be for the demolition of a derelict garage attached to number 27 and the erection of a 3 bedroom attached dwelling.

From inspection of the information provided it would appear that the application seeks to remove an existing off-road parking space, currently used for number 27, to then serve the new property. This would leave 1 parking space per dwelling. Having entered this information into the WSCC car parking calculator, it would appear that the application does not include sufficient space for the expected number of vehicles at the development.

Whilst there are no concerns from a highway safety perspective, it is possible that this proposal could lead to an increase in parking demand in the local area; the LPA may wish to consider this.

Further to the monetary contributions The County Fire Officer advises that the proposed development will not need to include the provision of a fire hydrant connected to adequate supplies of water for fire fighting (Contact: David Boarer – Fire Services 01243 813667). It should also include suitable access for fire brigade vehicles and equipment.

The calculations have been done on the basis of an increase in 1 Net dwellings

And

2 car parking spaces.

S106 contributions required Fire and Rescue £110, Libraries £296, TAD £2,100 total £2,506

Further comments received 22nd October 2012

Further to our telephone conversation today, I have reviewed our comments to this application after the amended plan was submitted (860-01 Rev D) and can confirm that there is now sufficient parking for the proposed development. As it has been shown that 2 cars can be parked off-street on each driveway, there are no concerns in this application from a highways perspective.

3.3 Southern Water

Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public foul and surface water sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.

Informative required:

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

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

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

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 Neighbour Notifications: 18 letters of objection received (3 letters from the same address) on the following grounds:

 Design and Layout – Parish Design Statement  Character of area – Street View  Object to principle of semi detached to terraced dwellings in Southwater  Density  Drainage  Flooding  Loss of Light  Traffic and Parking  Overlooking  Impact of and safety during construction period  Emergency vehicle access

DC/12/1405

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 Southwater Parish Council: No objection to rear extension, but object to new porch, as it does not match the style of attached porch of no 26.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.6 Neighbour Notifications: There are seven letters of objection on file although four of them relate to the main application for a house. It is noted that three of the letters of objection relating to the extension are from the same address. These objections relate to the inaccuracies in the plan with regard to the existing porch details which were shown incorrectly and to the proposed new style porch.

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

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

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

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

Principle of the development

6.2 The site is situated within the built-up area boundary of Southwater. The Local Development Framework policies encourage new development to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas. It is considered that the site is situated within a sustainable location with good access to local facilities and the range of services locally Southwater village centre, specifically Lintott Square as well as good links to public transport into Horsham Town Centre. As such the scheme should be assessed against the usual development control policy criteria contained within the current adopted Local Development Framework and to the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.3 With regard to the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes, the site is located within a sustainable location within the village of Southwater which is identified as a category 1 settlement area. Local Development Framework policies, in particular policies CP3 and CP5 of the Core Strategy encourage new development (including some expansion infilling and redevelopment) to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas. Policy CP5 supports new residential development and re-use of suitable previously developed land (including the re-use or conversion of existing buildings), provided that all other relevant policy criteria can be met.

6.4 Other policies considered relevant to the application include Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP3 Improving the Quality of New Development and DC9 Development Principles. LDF policies CP3 and DC9 require that new residential development should be to a high standard of design and layout, in keeping with the character of the nearby development and the surrounding area.

6.5 In addition to the Local Development Framework Document 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, consideration has been given to The Southwater Parish Design Statement adopted in 2011. This Supplementary Planning Document elaborates upon the policies and proposals in the LDF but does not have the same status.

Details of Proposals

DC/12/1399 – New Dwelling 6.6 The application seeks permission for the erection of 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling with a hipped roof, on the southern side of a pair of semi detached dwellings. Effectively the creation of an additional attached dwelling would create a small terrace consisting of three dwellings.

6.7 Since the application was originally submitted the applicants have amended the plans to more accurately reflect the front elevations of the existing dwellings with their flat roof porches and side access. A rear private pedestrian access to the donor dwelling (no 27) in the centre of the resulting terrace has been shown off Station Road.

6.8 With regards to the details of the proposed dwelling, the footprint of the dwelling measures approximately 5.7 metres wide by 8.8 metres deep and measures 5 metres to eaves level APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

and approximately 7 metres in height. A single storey element is proposed to the rear measuring 5.7m wide by 2 metres deep with a ridge height of 3.2 metres, and has two rooflights.

6.9 The proposed new dwelling respects the existing building line of the semi detached dwellings fronting Little Bridges Close. The proposed single storey element to the rear reflects the design of the single storey extension as similarly proposed in the application currently being considered under DC/12/1399 relating to the donor property itself and also that of the existing single storey extension to the rear of 26 Little Bridges Close. In effect, the building line to the rear would be the same across all three properties should planning permission be granted.

6.10 The sub division of the existing plot at 27 Little Bridges Close would result in a plot that would is irregular in shape, narrowing along the southern boundary. The length of the rear eastern common garden boundary with number 1 Lakeside Drive is approximately 7.5 metres, the garden widens to approximately 8.5 metres in the middle of the site then narrows to 4 metres along the western frontage. The dwelling itself is set back from the frontage by 12.2 metres and separated by a 1.2 metre fence with planting along the north western common boundary with number 27 Little Bridges Close.

6.11 The tapering boundary of the site would create a pinch point at the front of the dwelling (south western corner) with the boundary of the site, however it is proposed to provide a main gated pedestrian access to the side and rear garden from the southern boundary of the site off Station Road. A separate level access would also be available from the parking area through the proposed kitchen which is located facing Little Bridges Close. A private access to serve the rear garden area of number 27 Little Bridges Close is shown on the amended plan, and runs across the end of the rear garden of the proposed dwelling, with access off Station Road.

Visual and Private Amenities 6.12 The design and materials of the proposed dwelling are to match the existing and as such the materials comprises a mix of brick and tile hanging with interlocking roof tiles. White Upvc windows are proposed. The applicant advises that a small number of solar panels are proposed within the rear roof slope.

6.13 Whilst the width of the proposed dwelling is marginally narrower than that of the existing semi detached houses, it is considered that the dwelling would create an acceptable balance in terms of the overall appearance of the three resulting dwellings, given that there is an existing two storey side extension with a hipped roof to the dwelling at 26 Little Bridges Close.

6.14 Visually therefore the proposed dwelling would create a perceived ‘symmetry’ within the street scene and your officers consider that there would be no appreciable harm arising from the design of the proposed dwelling upon the visual amenities of the street scene. Therefore, your officers consider that the creation of a small terrace in this location is acceptable.

6.15 With regards to concerns raised by adjacent residents at 1 Lakeside Close in relation to overlooking, it is considered that the separation distance of approximately 24.5 metres between rear to rear windows of any habitable rooms is acceptable and would not compromise the private residential amenities of surrounding occupiers. In any event, the proposed dwelling does not directly face the neighbouring property at 1 Lakeside Close.

6.16 Suitable screening could be achieved through appropriate landscape mitigating measures to ensure that there is no loss of amenity in respect of private garden amenity. It is however noted that the existing properties all face towards the rear garden of 1 Lakeside Close and APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

the situation would not be appreciably different than as currently exists, or if the proposed dwelling were in fact an extension to the existing dwelling.

DC/12/1405 – Single Storey Rear Extension and New Porch

6.17 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension and new porch to replace existing.

6.18 With regards to the details of the scheme the extension measures approximately 6.3 metres in width, with a depth of 2 metres and height of 3.5 metres. It extends a cross the width of the rear elevation and reflects the style of the adjoining extension at number 26 Little Bridges Close as well as the single storey element of the new dwelling currently being considered under DC/12/1399.

Visual and Private Amenities

6.19 The proposed extension is to the rear of the dwelling and is single storey as such your officers have no concerns regarding visual impact as it would not be visible from either Little Bridges Road or Station Road being largely screened by boundary fences and planting.

6.20 It is noted that the objections raised by both the Parish Council and immediate neighbour related to the inaccuracies originally shown in the existing porch details with their front facing doors as opposed to side facing doors as well as to the design of the proposed new porch.

6.21 Since the submission of the application the applicants have amended their plans to more accurately reflect the details of the front elevation, with the revised porch details. Additionally, they have amended plans to show a flat roof replacement porch to mirror the adjoining neighbouring porch. All materials are to match the existing. Your officers therefore consider that these amendments are acceptable and as such the proposed extension and porch are considered to be acceptable.

Sustainability 6.22 With regard to renewable energy and climate change LDF Policy DC8 seeks to ensure that development should seek to minimise further emissions of greenhouse gases and provide sustainable construction techniques. Any new dwelling should be built to meet the standards required for level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, and that as far as possible renewable and local materials will be used in the construction of the development. No details have been provided with the application in this regard, however, should permission be granted a suitable condition requiring this could be imposed

Highways 6.23 The applicant has adequately demonstrated on the amended plans that there is sufficient room for two cars to be parked in tandem. West Sussex County Council Highways have advised that they are satisfied that there is adequate off street parking provision for two cars on each drive in respect of the donor site at 27 Little Bridges Close and the resulting new dwelling and its associated plot.

Contributions 6.24 The proposal would generate contributions as follows:- £2,387 comprise in (Open space, Sport and Recreation £1,793, Community Centres & Halls £396, Local Recycling £198). Additionally, County Contributions are required comprising of Fire and Rescue £110, Libraries £296, TAD £2,100 (total £2,506). At the time of writing this report no agreement has been submitted although the applicant has agreed in principle to contributions required. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8

Conclusion 6.25 To conclude, the proposed dwelling is not considered to result in any appreciable harm to the visual amenities of the street scene or to the private amenities of adjoining neighbours and is considered to comply with the adopted policies within the Local Development Framework and also the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

DC/12/1399 – New Dwelling Permit

7.1 That the application be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for approval, subject to the expiration of the period for re-consultation following the receipt of amended plans clarifying rear access to the existing dwelling and completion of a satisfactory legal agreement for contributions and subject to 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 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 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

3 The dwelling 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).

4 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.

5 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).

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9

6 No burning of materials 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).

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling 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 Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

8 The dwelling shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such national measures of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure the dwelling makes the most efficient use of renewable energy and to comply with policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

9 No development shall take place until details of screen walls 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 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).

10 The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development].

Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11 Before development commences, details of the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.

Note to Applicant APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10

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 House, 39 A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel: 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

DC/12/1405

Permit

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.

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

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

Background Papers: DC/12/1399 and DC/12/1405 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 6th November 2012 Conversion of former barn and stable building to dwelling following DEVELOPMENT: demolition of The Annexe SITE: Furzefield Broadwater Lane Copsale Horsham WARD: Nuthurst APPLICATION: DC/12/1447 APPLICANT: Miss K Mathers

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member Request – Cllr Duncan England

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for refusal subject to the expiration of the notification period following the serve of notice ‘’B’ by the applicant.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the conversion of an existing building comprising storage barn and lean-to stables (5 in total) into a 1-bedroom self-contained dwelling. The application has been submitted following the refusal and dismissal on appeal of DC/10/2205.

1.2 It would appear that the applicant is not the owner of the ‘annexe’ and therefore it is considered that under Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, the incorrect certificate accompanying the application has been completed and submitted. The applicant has been advised and as a result ‘Certificate B’ has been served on the owners of Furzefield. A copy of the notice has been provided to the Council. For administration purposes the application is now considered acceptable.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is located on the eastern side of Broadwater Lane and is accessed via an existing access track which runs to the north of the dwelling known as White Croft.

1.4 The application ‘site’ has an area of approximately 0.43 hectares (1.1 acres) and is located outside any defined Built-Up Area boundary and as such is located within the countryside.

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

The site is located to the east of the dwelling known as Furzefield, previously known as Broadwater Lane Nursery.

1.5 The site is currently used in connection with an equestrian use run by the applicant in a hobby capacity and not on a commercial basis. The applicant currently resides within the ‘annexe’ associated with the main dwelling, Furzefield.

1.6 The applicants state in their Design and Access Statement that should permission be granted for the conversion of the storage barn and lean-to stables to residential use, that the Annexe accommodation associated with the separate dwelling known as Furzefield would be demolished.

1.7 To the north of the application site there is a hard surfaced informal courtyard which allows vehicular access to the stable areas. The land to the east and south of the application building is laid to grass. There are 6 stables sited in a linear pattern along the western boundary of the courtyard.

1.8 The wider area of land within the applicant’s ownership extends to 10.98 hectares with the land comprising the yard and buildings extending to approximately 1.11 hectares. The remaining land in the applicants ownership comprises extends to 5.41 hectares of mixed deciduous woodland and 4.46 hectares of grassland. (Applicants figures).

1.9 The site is currently used in connection with the applicants private equestrian hobby use and does not therefore operate on a commercial basis. The applicant currently resides within an ‘annexe’ associated with the dwelling to the south of the application site known as ‘Furzefield’. This dwelling lies outside of the red edged boundary of the application site and is in the separate ownership of the applicants parents.

1.10 The building the subject of this application is of painted brick, block and timber construction with a lean-to roof to an adjoining stable building. There are five stables located in the northern end of the application building with access from the north elevation. The eastern flank features a timber gable end and large double timber doors; the southern elevation is painted render. The lean-to section of the application building is attached via a roofed archway to another stable building to the west. The western elevation of the application building features a small door and a timber gable end. The building including storage barn and stables extends to approximately 167sqm.

1.11 Within the blue edged area there is a block and timber stable range with 6 stables and 4 foaling boxes situated on the western side of the courtyard (approximately 213sqm). A Pole Barn with box profile cladding and block work walling, used as a hay store and occasionally for parking the horse lorry (approximately 173sqm); A Pole Barn clad with corrugated metal sheeting used for additional hay and bulk feed storage (approximately 52sqm); A two bay Pole Barn used for machinery storage (approximately 44sqm); A lunging ring (15.5m diameter); A sand school (22m x 15m); A covered horse-walker (140sqm); An L-shaped range of timber stables providing 5 loose boxes, an adjacent timber field shelter provides additional covered space for a horse if required (100sqm in total); A poor condition timber framed and timber clad storage building under fibre cement pitched roof. The planning history for these above mentioned structures is unclear.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15 and CP19

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC8, DC9, DC24, DC27, DC29 and DC40

2.5 South East Plan: CC6, CC1, CC4 and C4

2.6 PLANNING HISTORY

N/47/60 Proposed residential development. Refused 12/10/1960

N/25/76 Erection of 3 units for staff accommodation. Permitted 04/01/1977

N/9/78 Alterations and erection of single storey extension. Permitted 23/05/1978

N/10/80 Alterations and extension. Permitted 05/06/1980

N/25/80 Single storey extension. Permitted 24/09/1980

N/6/94 Alteration to existing. Permitted 23/03/1994

N/37/94 Conversion of building into accommodation for groom/security. Permitted 26/09/1994

DC/04/1328 Retention of horse walker. Permitted 16/08/2004

DC/08/1593 Conservatory to rear. Permitted 11/09/2008

DC/10/0225 Conversion of redundant barn and stable to form a two bedroom dwelling Refused 09/03/10 APPEAL Dismissed 06/09/2012 (decision attached)

2.7 The current application differs from the previously refused application considered under DC/10/0225 in that it is for a 1 bedroom dwelling and not a two bedroom dwelling as previously sought.

2.8 Additionally, the current application proposes to demolish the ‘annexe‘ accommodation currently occupied by the applicant but separately owned by her parents, in association with the main dwelling known as ‘Furzefield’ which is located adjacent to the application site.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Public Health and Licensing: No objections to the proposal subject to the following:

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

Given the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the equestrian centre I would recommend a condition to ensure that the proposed dwelling and the equestrian centre remain in the same ownership to prevent any loss of amenity issues.

I would also suggest that during construction there are the usual hours of use restrictions and burning on site is prohibited

3.2 Building Control: Commented that

The submitted condition survey indicates a number of areas where remedial work will be required and the scheme will need to meet the requirements of the building regulations.

Previous comments made under DC/10/2205 still apply

The following items will need addressing/investigating prior to works commencing.

1. There would appear to be an issue in relation to Approved Document B5 (Access and facilities for the fire service). Turning facilities should be provided for any dead aend access route (for a fire engine) more than 20m long, there does not appear to be one here. A sprinkler system would be a possible solution. 2.The suitability of the existing structure should be justified from a structural engineer. 3. Is the roof asbestos? If so this should be replaced and suitably removed. 4. The existing structure will require upgrading thermally, this may cause issues with access for disabled people (due to upgrading insulation to floor levels etc) and roof roof ventilation. 5. Boundaries will have to be clearly set out, particularly with reference to unprotected areas (glazing). 6. It is not clear how all the foul waste would be suitably removed, although this information could be provided at a later date, the owners may wish to think clearly about this prior to commencement.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 West Sussex County Council: Commented that:

The proposal is for the conversion of a barn to form 1x1-bed dwellings, which would utilise an existing access onto Broadwater Lane. From an inspection of the plans alone there is no apparent visibility issue onto Broadwater Lane, and the most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in this location. However, WSCC would recommend that the existing access to the site be upgraded to a highway specification available from the Area Engineer, West Sussex County Council, Worthing Road, Broadbridge Heath, Horsham, RH12 3LZ, Tel No: 01243 642105. It is recommended that the LPA secure the access improvements by condition.

You will be aware that further information will be required under the earlier application (DC2205/10) however the information required relating to the amount and location of the parking spaces, has still not been submitted from the information and plans viewed. WSCC would require more information regarding parking at the site.

It is noted that WSCC previously advised that there was No strategic ecological objection subject to informative:

In the unlikely event that legally protected bats are found during conversion works stop and Natural England informed. A European Protected Species Licence may be required before works can continue. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

3.4 Nuthurst Parish Council: No objection

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 None received

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

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

It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

Background

6.1 The previous application for the conversion of this storage barn and stables into a two bed dwelling was refused under DC/10/2205 in March 2010, it was refused for the following reasons:

‘The residential conversion of this building is considered inappropriate and would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development given the location of the site outside any defined built-up area and with poor access to services and facilities being remote from adequate public transport provision. Furthermore it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the buildings are unsuited to use for economic development purposes, or that the residential use would meet a specific local need. The proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP5, CP15 and CP19 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC24 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies and the provisions of PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13’.

‘The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that there is a reasoned justification for the proposed dwelling to serve the proper functioning of the site in respect of any commercial equestrian use, as required by Annex A of planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and policy DC27 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) regarding rural workers dwellings’.

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

6.2 The application was subject to an appeal and was subsequently dismissed on the 6th September 2012. (Copy of appeal decision attached).

6.3 It was confirmed by the applicant during the appeal process that the application was submitted under the auspices of DC24 for the Conversion of Agricultural and Rural APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6

Buildings For Industrial, Business or Residential Uses and not in respect of DC27 Essential Rural Workers Dwellings.

6.4 In the appeal decision the Inspector commented in paragraph 9 that ‘It is the Government policy in PPS1 on Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS3 on Housing that planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development with housing located where there is a range of facilities and good access to jobs, services and infrastructure’ she also advised that ‘PPG13 on Transport also seeks to reduce the need to travel, especially by car although paragraph 9 acknowledges that for some journeys, particularly in rural areas, the car will remain the only real option for travel’.

6.5 She further commented in paragraph 10 that ‘The site lies towards the northern end of the small hamlet of Copsale which has very limited facilities with no shop, pub, or public transport. The nearest amenities services and buses are in Southwater to the west of the other side of the A 24 although there is also a primary school in Nuthurst. Whilst the villages are 2km of the appeal site, the distance identified in PPG13 as offering the greatest potential to replace short car trips, that is ‘as the crow flies’ and the actual walking or cycling distance to Southwater from the site would be around 3.75km. Broadwater Lane is a quiet rural lane lacking any footway or lighting which connects via Copsale Road to the Downs Link which provides a flat direct route, along the former railway line, for walkers, cyclists and horse riders to the centre of Southwater.’

6.6 In paragraph 11 of the appeal decision the Inspector states that ‘ the conclusion of the RPG report is not disputed that there is the opportunity for residents of the proposed development to undertake some journeys by non-car modes. However I share the Councils’ view that for reasons of convenience, personal safety and time, other than for recreational trip, the vast majority of everyday journeys from the site – going to work, taking the children to school doing the shopping – would most likely be by private car. Although the Highway Authority made no objection to the proposal, its consultation response appears confined to matters of highway safety and parking.’

6.7 In paragraph 12 the Inspector concluded that ‘the site is in an isolated location in relation to infrastructure, amenities, and service, remote from adequate public transport provision and where the length and character of the walking/cycling route is unlikely to encourage more sustainable transport choices. As such, in terms of the criterion (a) of policy DC24, the appeal building is not suitably located and the proposal would not be a sustainable form of development, contrary to national, regional and local policy’.

6.8 The Inspector in paragraph 13 -15 of the appeal decision concluded that ‘notwithstanding that the proposal would not conflict with criteria (b) to (e) of DC24, this does not outweigh my conclusion that the proposal would be an unsustainable form of development. It is therefore contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy policy CP5 CP15 and Policy DC24(A) of the General Development Control Policies and to PPS1, PPS3, PPS4 PPS7 and PPG13 which broadly aim to support sustainable development’.

6.9 Since the appeal decision the Planning Policy Guidance notes and Planning Policy Statements referred to have all been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework Document 2012. However the Inspector in her conclusion (paragraph 18) advised that ‘In determining the appeal I have considered the recently published consultation draft National Planning Policy Framework which confirms the purpose of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’.

6.10 In essence the objectives of the current The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 policies remain the same as those held within the policy guidance that has since been superseded, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development still sits at the heart of the overall aims and objectives of the National Planning Framework document. As such, APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7

the current policy emphasis in favour of sustainable development remains the same as at the time of the previous application was considered in 2010 and subsequent appeal in 2011.

6.11 With regards to the concerns raised relating to sustainability issues, the applicants have amended their plans and reduced the size of the proposed dwelling from a 2 bed unit to a 1 bed unit, they have also advised that the annexe accommodation associated with the dwelling at Furzefield would be demolished as part of the application proposals.

6.12 A ‘Technical Note’ has also been submitted by Russell Giles Partnership (RGP) which summarises the highway and transportation aspects of the proposed development, specifically the traffic impact and sustainability characteristics in relation to the traffic generation of the application site. The amendments and supporting information are addressed in the main body of this report.

Principle of Development

6.13 Given the appeal decision is a material consideration in the determination of this application the main issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development in this location; the amenities of neighbour and future occupiers, parking and highway safety issues; the impact and scale of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area, together with sustainability.

6.14 The proposal is for the conversion of an existing building comprising five stables and storage located on the southern boundary of the courtyard. The six remaining stables located along the western boundary of the courtyard are to remain as are the ‘L-shaped’ range of timber stables located to the far south of the site nearest to the horse walker.

6.13 The applicant currently resides in the ‘annexe’ accommodation associated with the main Furzefield dwelling. This self-contained accommodation was granted planning permission under reference N/37/94 which was subject to the following condition restricting occupation:

‘The additional residential accommodation hereby approved shall only be occupied as part of the dwelling known as Broadwater Lane Nursery or occupied by a close relative or member of the household staff of the occupant of the main dwelling on the site. Reason: The site lies in an area where, in accordance with policies, development unrelated to an essential rural activity or ancillary accommodation would not normally be permitted’.

6.14 The proposed dwelling would create an independent self-contained unit of accommodation to be occupied by the applicant, associated and in connection with the equestrian use of the land as outlined in blue on the submitted location plan. The exiting equestrian use of the site has been confirmed as a small-scale private operation which reflects the activity that was apparent at the time of the site visit. However it was confirmed at the appeal hearing that it was not part of the appellants case that the scheme be considered under policy DC27 for rural workers dwellings. The proposed dwelling, should it be permitted, would have no legal or physical connection with the existing bungalow and ‘annexe’ at Furzefield. It is proposed to demolish the associated ‘annexe’ as part of the application proposals.

6.15 As with the previous application considered under DC/10/2205 (dismissed on appeal), the applicant is seeking to create a residential dwelling through the conversion of the existing storage barn and stables under the auspices of policy DC24 of the Development Plan. This policy advises that outside the defined built-up areas, conversion of agricultural, forestry or rural buildings for business, commercial or residential development will be permitted where: APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8

a) the buildings is suitably located in that it is not in an isolated position in relation to infrastructure, amenities and services; b) the building is of suitable scale for the level of activity proposed, and of suitable construction which is not so derelict as to require substantial reconstruction, and for proposals for residential use, is of traditional construction and/or architectural/ historic interest. c) the buildings are proved to have been in use for a period of 10 years or more; d) the proposed use will maintain or enhance the architectural character of the buildings and the character of their settings; and e) the proposed use can be accommodated in the existing buildings and car parking requirements can be accommodated satisfactorily within the immediate surrounds of the buildings.

6.16 Policy DC24 further advises that proposals for the conversion of buildings to business and commercial uses will be considered favourably over residential in the first instance. The loss of either existing commercial or agricultural uses to residential is dependent on an examination of the sustainability and suitability of the location and whether the building would be best preserved through the conversion to residential.

6.17 The site is situated outside of any defined built-up area within the countryside and an isolated position poorly served by public transport together with the nature of the roads without footpaths or lighting, it is considered that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on the car for access purposes and would reinforce unsustainable patterns of development, thereby failing to meet criterion (a) of policy DC24.

6.18 As previously stated in this report, the Inspector in her appeal decision relating to DC/10/2205 concluded that the previous proposal did not conflict with criteria (b) – (e) of Policy DC24, and that the main objections to the proposal were that the appeal building was not suitably located and the proposed development would not be a sustainable form of development, contrary to national policy, regional and local policy.

6.19 The applicants have sought to address the concerns regarding sustainability issues and have submitted a revised Technical report from Russell Giles Partnership (RPG) Highway consultants. The applicant draws attention to paragraph 2.11 of this information which states that

‘… it is evident that the proposals would generate significantly less volumes of traffic at the site when compared to alternative commercial uses and is therefore considered the most appropriate and sustainable use for this location. It is also noted that the demolition of the existing residential Annexe demonstrates that there would be no change in terms of vehicles on the local highway network since the wider site currently generates these trips.’

6.20 The applicant has provided information as set out in the table below with regards to a summary of potential uses on site: Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Daily Two Way Traffic 08.00 - 09.00 17.00 -18.00 Cars HGVs Cars HGVs Cars HGVs Proposed One 0 0 1 0 3 0 bedroom dwelling B1/2 2 0 2 0 16 0 commercial use (213sqm) B8 commercial 2 1 2 0 15 2 use (213sqm) Commercial 2 0 2 0 19 1 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9

Equine Use (5 stables)

6.21 The table above suggests that the proposed 1 bed residential unit would have the least number of traffic movements a day, as compared to a commercial use of the site, which in any event would all require planning permission. However, the table does not address the traffic movements in relation to the site as it currently operates in its capacity as a equestrian site for hobby use. Thus, your offices are still of the opinion that the existing use of the site, with the addition of a residential unit as proposed would reinforce unsustainable patterns of travel in this countryside location contrary to national and local planning objectives.

6.22 Your officers consider that the measures including the amended plans, the revised traffic survey information, and the demolition of the existing annexe fail to overcome the principle policy objection relating to the creation of a new residential dwelling within this unsustainable countryside location. In the view of your officers, no evidence or suitable justification has been submitted by the applicant that supports a deviation from the adopted and established Local Development Framework policy framework specifically policies CP15 and DC24 or leading to a different conclusion from the previous appeal decision.

6.23 Although the size of the dwelling has been reduced from a 2 bed unit to a 1 bed unit, the fundamental policy objection on the grounds that the proposal does not comply with criteria (a) of policy DC24 is still considered to stand.

6.24 The reduction in size of the proposed dwelling in terms of the number of bedrooms proposed and the demolition of the existing annexe would not overcome the specific policy concerns with regards to its unsustainable location within this countryside location. In this respect your officers consider that subsequent residents could reasonably apply for another annexe in the future. Furzefield is a completely separate dwelling, outside of the application site boundary. Any future proposals for an associated annexe would have to be considered on its own merits and it may be difficult to refuse such a proposal. Thus, comparatively, the associated residential activity and traffic generation would be no different if this were the case then if the current application were allowed without the demolition of the existing annexe.

6.25 Policy DC24 indicates that proposals for the conversion of buildings to business and commercial uses will be considered favourably over residential in the first instance. Any commercial use of the property would need to be of such a scale that it did not generate unacceptable levels of traffic. The National Planning Policy Framework supports economic growth in rural areas by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. However, the proposal for a new dwelling in this countryside location is not considered to be a sustainable form of development, a view that the Inspector upheld in her appeal decision letter on the 11th August 2011 relating to DC/10/2205.

6.26 It is also noted that the equestrian use has up to now been adequately served by a permanent dwelling, Furzefield and its ‘annexe’ dwelling, the occupation of which as previously mentioned is tied to the main dwelling by condition. It is also noted that the equestrian land shown blue on the submitted plan, now owned by the applicant, has been severed from the main dwelling and annex, currently owned by other members of the applicants family.

6.27 It is considered that the proposed creation of a dwelling to serve the existing private equestrian use, which has previously been served by Furzefield and its annex for many years, has not been appropriately justified or shown to be essential for its countryside location.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10

Character and Visual Amenity

6.28 In terms of design the proposed external alterations to the building are minimal and relate in the main to the fenestration. It is considered that these alterations would not be intrusive within the landscape or of detriment to the amenity of occupiers of adjacent properties.

Residential Amenities

6.29 In respect of the impact of the proposed use on the amenity of occupiers of residential occupiers adjacent to the site, it was previously considered in the officers report, but not however addressed in the reasons for refusal or therefore by the Planning Inspectorate in the appeal decision, that the proximity of the building the subject of this application and its associated equestrian use to the nearest residential dwelling, Furzefield (now severed in ownership from the equestrian use) may give rise a level of unacceptable disturbance for both occupiers, by reason of the boundary for Furzefield being hard up against the western elevation of the converted barn and amenity area.

Highway Safety, Access and Parking

6.30 The County Surveyor has not raised any objections to the proposed development, subject to the upgrading of the access drive, which can be secured by condition. The County Surveyor considered that the existing visibility splays are acceptable for the proposed development.

Contributions

6.31 The County would not be seeking any contributions toward local infrastructure improvements. District contributions would be sought for Open Space, Sport and Recreation of £1,175, Community Centres and Halls £306 and Local Recycling of £153. Total District contributions equate to £1,634.

Conclusion

6.32 In conclusion, it is considered that the conversion of the storage barn and stables to residential accommodation, outside the defined built up area, in an unsustainable location with limited access to services and amenities, would represent an unsustainable form of development in this rural area and would be unacceptable and therefore contrary to local development framework policies and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore, your Officers consider that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that there is a reasoned justified for the creation of a new self-contained dwelling to serve the equestrian use, to set aside the strong countryside policies restricting further development within the countryside to protect it for its intrinsic value.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The residential conversion of this building is considered inappropriate and would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development given the location of the site outside any defined built-up area and with poor access to services and facilities being remote from adequate public transport provision. Furthermore it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the APPENDIX A/ 4 - 11

buildings are unsuited to use for the existing or appropriate alternative purposes, or that the residential use would meet a specific local need. The proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP5, CP15 and CP19 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC24 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework document 2012.

2. The proposal does not support rural economic growth and the applicant does not seek to demonstrate that there is a reasoned justification for the proposed dwelling to serve the proper functioning of the site in respect of any equestrian use and is therefore contrary to The National Planning Policy Framework and policy DC27 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) regarding rural workers dwellings.

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

Background Papers: DC/12/1447 and DC/10/2205 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 6th November 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Application to discharge Section 106 Agreement number S106/636

SITE: Rapkyns Cottage, Guildford Road, Broadbridge Heath

WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

APPLICATION: DC/12/1899

APPLICANT: Dr Shafik Sachedina

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate the application to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, to discharge the S106 legal agreement after expiry of the consultation period on 8/11/12.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The current application seeks to discharge a Section 106 legal agreement, Ref. S106/636, which relates to the residential use of the application site. The proposal follows the Committee’s resolution at the meeting of 3rd July 2012 to delegate applications DC/11/0796 and DC/11/0802 for approval, subject to revocation of this legal agreement.

1.2 The application arises from the applicant’s stated inability to establish contact with all of the legal agreement’s signatories, against whom the agreement remains enforceable.

1.4 The agreement’s requirements are as follows;

Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2

1. Within 1 month of the first occupation of the new dwelling shown edged blue on the plan to demolish the existing dwelling shown edged green on the plan. 2. The proposed new dwelling shown edged blue on the plan shall forever be used as 1 single dwellinghouse only with ancillary groom’s quarters. 3. The groom’s quarters within the new dwelling shall be occupied solely for purposes incidental to the occupation of the new dwelling and shall at no time be severed from the new dwelling. 4. Not to permit the sale or other disposition of the new dwelling other than as one single dwellinghouse with ancillary groom’s quarters.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site is outside of any built up area and lies 2.5 miles to the west of Horsham Town Centre and 1 mile to the west off Broadbridge Health. The site is comprised of a large former equestrian complex and dwelling, which is one of a number of properties accessed via the Rapkyns Care Centre entrance from the A281 Guildford Road. The site is comprised of a detached dwelling (subject of the Legal Agreement), small outbuilding, a number of disused stables (boarded-up), sandschool, large hard-standing area, a large barn and a smaller open-ended barn.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy (2007) are: CP1, CP3, CP16

2.4 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) are: DC1, DC9, DC17, DC31, DC40.

2.5 The relevant South East Plan (2009) policies are: CC1, CC4, CC6

PLANNING HISTORY

SF/36/93 Erection of replacement house incorporating grooms Permitted Quarters DC/11/0796 Change of use to provide residential accommodation Pending for six children with special needs DC/11/0802 Temporary consent for a period of two years for Pending retention of the siting of five portakabins within an existing barn, together with one portakabin sited

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3

externally, to provide education for children with special needs and use of an existing outbuilding as a reception wing

RELEVANT LEGAL AGREEMENT

S106/636 Limits the use of Rapkyns Cottage as a single dwellinghouse with ancillary grooms quarters.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Slinfold Parish Council – None received.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Any received before the meeting will be reported verbally.

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issue for consideration is the acceptability of discharging the existing S106 legal agreement, which controls the residential use of Rapkyns Cottage.

6.2 Applications DC/11/0796 and DC/11/0802 were previously discussed by Members at the 3rd July 2012 Committee meeting. Of relevance to the current application, DC/11/0796 sought planning permission for a change of use of Rapkyns Cottage to provide residential accommodation for six children with special needs.

6.3 Members resolved to delegate this application for approval, subject to revocation of the existing legal agreement. In the interim, the applicant has endeavoured to make contact with each of the signatories of the legal agreement, without success.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4

6.4 As such, arising from the provisions of Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant is now applying to have the legal agreement discharged.

6.5 Officers have previously considered the legal agreement, under consideration of applications DC/11/0796 and DC/11/0802, and recommended it should be revoked to allow for the use of the property as proposed. In the circumstances, and where Committee has previously resolved to grant planning permission for the change of use of the property, it is considered appropriate to discharge the obligation.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

To delegate the application to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, to discharge the S106 legal agreement after expiry of the consultation period on 8/11/12.

Background Papers: DC/12/1899 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell